Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to present a bill today that will provide for a range of additional safeguards to support the conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey.

The government is honouring its commitment to deliver on its pre-election promise to give the Australian people a say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

As the government announced on 8 August 2017, the government is proceeding with a voluntary postal survey for all Australians on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote, with a final result to be known no later than 15 November 2017.

There are a range of measures already in place in Commonwealth legislation to safeguard the public in their participation in the Australian marriage law postal survey. In particular, there are postal and telecommunications offences under the Criminal Code. There is also prohibited conduct under the Census and Statistics Act 1905.

These existing Commonwealth laws are supplemented by existing criminal and civil penalties under state and territory legislation. This includes strong protections already in place for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence.

The government is, however, proposing to complement these safeguards with the additional measures contained in this bill, which are broadly consistent with safeguards which would apply in the context of a federal election. This will help ensure the integrity of this process and that Australians can have complete confidence that the outcome of the survey reflects the freely given views of the respondents and that those participating in the debate can do so in an appropriate environment.

Australians need to be assured there is appropriate transparency and accountability for those who communicate their messages as part of the debate on this issue.

The measures in the bill will support responsible conduct of public discussion by applying authorisation requirements similar to those that apply in the context of elections and referendums. This will promote the transparency and accountability of those making public comments in relation to the question in the marriage law survey.

These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and printed material. There are a range of sensible exceptions provided to these requirements to ensure that people continue to be able to freely express their political views, including those engaged in personal communication.

The bill will also impose obligations on broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, who broadcast matter in favour of one side of the issue about whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage, to provide a reasonable opportunity for an organisation to broadcast matter in favour of the opposing view. Broadcasters will be able to utilise an extra minute of non-program material to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Recognising that there are community broadcasters established to service specified community interests, these broadcasters will be exempt from the reasonable opportunity requirements.

Collecting statistical information is core business for the ABS, and the government has full confidence in their capacity to deliver this opportunity for Australians to have their say.

However, we need to be assured that the statistical information obtained has not been subject to influences such as bribery and threats or misleading information about how to complete the survey form, and ensure that those that engage in such influencing behaviour are held to account.

To address this, the bill will put in place a range of measures to ensure the integrity of the statistics that are collected as part of the process.

The bill includes penalties for receiving and giving bribes or making threats to influence or affect people's decisions on this matter, including whether to respond.

It also includes a civil penalty for printing, publishing and distributing matters or things that are likely to mislead or deceive a person in how they respond to the survey, for example, how the survey response is marked.

The bill also includes offences for officers who engage in conduct with the intention of influencing the content of a response provided to the Statistician.

The government believes that the Australian people are able to have this debate respectfully and courteously.

We also believe that Australians will judge anyone harshly, on either side of the debate, who pursues inappropriate and offensive arguments.

We certainly call on all Australians to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect.

However, the government acknowledges that we cannot guarantee that all Australians will at all times express their opinions on that basis.

For this reason, the bill will also establish an offence for grievous conduct against those participating in the debate, or against those who may hold strong views on the survey question.

The bill contains provisions against vilification, intimidation, and threat to cause harm, as well as for hindering or interfering with a person in making a response, or discriminating against a person for making a donation relating to the marriage law survey.

Importantly, merely expressing a view about the marriage law survey question does not trigger the offence provisions against vilification, intimidation or the threat of harm.

While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated.

I remind the parliament that the government's preference was to deliver on the commitment to give the Australian people a say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through a compulsory attendance plebiscite.

Such an approach would have brought with it many existing safeguards and protections.

As we proceed with the survey as the new mechanism to give the Australian people their say, we need to separately provide those safeguards to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to participate in this process in the right environment.

I commend the bill.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. It's with a heavy heart that I speak on this bill today, because the Labor Party regrets that this bill is necessary at all. It is so sad that the Prime Minister and the government have put LGBTIQ Australians into this position of having their rights voted on by other Australians. It's sad that we have to propose safeguards against the hate speech that has already been unleashed by the Prime Minister and the government's decision to hold a postal survey on marriage equality. None of this bill, none of this legislation, would have been necessary if the Prime Minister had demonstrated leadership and allowed a free vote on marriage equality in the parliament.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the government, in particular the Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann, has worked with us in good faith to reach agreement on this bill. Importantly, Labor has been able to secure an acceptance by the government to ensure that LGBTI Australians are protected as far as possible against vilification and hate speech. I'd like also to acknowledge the work of my colleague Terri Butler, the shadow assistant minister for equality, for her hard work on this bill.

Back in 2016, when the government attempted to introduce a bill for the plebiscite, I made it clear that Labor rejected the false choice that it was either a plebiscite or nothing when it comes to marriage equality in Australia. It was always clear that the plebiscite, when it was devised in August 2015 by the member for Warringah and others in the right wing of his party who are opposed to marriage equality, was an attempt to delay marriage equality and, if possible, derail it. The plebiscite was never intended to progress marriage equality, and as a delaying tactic it has been very successful. Prime Minister Turnbull had the opportunity to show leadership on this issue, but instead he disappointed all Australians by going down this destructive path. His complete lack of backbone on marriage equality has been obvious throughout his time as Prime Minister. Need I remind the House that the Prime Minister was vehemently opposed to the idea of a plebiscite when it was first proposed. He knew that the argument for a plebiscite has never been grounded in principle. It goes against the principles of representative democracy and the role of this parliament to legislate. Holding a plebiscite is not the way Australia is governed.

That's why the Senate rejected the plebiscite. This should have been a clear message to the government that their method of going about this was all wrong, but instead they've doubled down on their divisive tactics, and now they're subverting what the decision of the legislature has already been in rejecting the plebiscite bill by now turning to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a postal survey. The postal survey will ask the question: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? This postal survey will cost Australian taxpayers an unnecessary $122 million and it is a waste of their time. We should be voting on marriage equality in this parliament right now, instead of this unnecessary waste of time and money and the harm that it will cause. Labor are still vehemently opposed to the government's wasteful, hurtful $122 million postal survey, just as we were opposed to the plebiscite. We know that the postal survey not only is unnecessary but will inflict hurt and suffering on the LGBTI community in Australia.

The debate on marriage equality in this country has already taken a turn for the worse, with disgusting arguments being raised by opponents to marriage equality, arguments that have nothing at all to do with the actual issue. I'll give an example that's just arrived today from the Marriage Alliance, who are one of the key groups in the 'no' case. They've written with this amazing phrase:

It's crucial that all Australians understand the serious consequences of making such a radical change as they prepare to vote. Consequences such as radical LGBTIQ sex and gender education programs being made compulsory in every school classroom.

That's not about vilification. That's just a false and dishonest statement. What we need to hear from the Prime Minister and the government is the calling out of false and dishonest statements from either side in this campaign. But it is already apparent that those on the 'no' side of this debate are putting forward irrelevancy piled on irrelevancy, engaging in dishonesty and untruthfulness, and misleading Australians about the possible impact of what is, in fact, a simple change to the Marriage Act in this country to make marriage equality a reality.

It is very unfortunate that this postal survey is going ahead. I say again: this safeguards bill does not legitimise the survey. We can't stop the survey from going ahead because, unfortunately, the High Court challenge failed, but we can seek to minimise the hurtful impact that it will have on LGBTI Australians—and that's what this bill sets out to do. That's why Labor's supporting it. The postal survey has been foisted on Australians at a massive cost, but we can't simply pretend it's not happening. We're not. We're getting out there and campaigning for 'yes'. We've also got to ensure that we do everything possible to make sure that there is as little harm as possible to Australians in the course of this debate.

The government has clearly recognised that the process that we are already embarked on will be hurtful to many Australians. That's, of course, why this bill is needed. The purpose of the provisions which have been outlined by the minister are to stop LGBTIQ Australians and their families, as well as those with religious convictions, being vilified and attacked and to make sure that the campaign is conducted in an orderly manner. We fought hard for the additional protections that are now included in this bill and are over and above what the government initially proposed. We do thank the government for working cooperatively with Labor throughout our negotiations on this bill. I'm not going to take up the time of the House in going through the purpose of the provisions or what the contents of the bill are, because the minister has done this.

I want to conclude by saying that this bill does not cancel out the hurt that is already being felt. It cannot cancel out the hurt that is already being felt. We in Labor will continue to call out hurtful and divisive speech. We will stand with the LGBTI community throughout this survey process. We will do everything we can to prevent hurtful and hateful speech, intolerant speech and speech that demeans our fellow Australians throughout this debate. We are going to do that and we will continue to hold Prime Minister Turnbull responsible for hateful, divisive, demeaning speech and things that are said throughout the course of this campaign. The Prime Minister should not think that this bill is enough. He needs to get out and campaign. He needs to call out dishonesty. He needs to call out misleading statements. He needs to call out vilification when he sees it and when we hear it. We need to have the Prime Minister doing much more than simply saying, 'I'm going to be voting yes.' We need to have the Prime Minister lending the authority of his office to making sure that this debate is conducted with kindness, with grace, with acceptance and with tolerance.

We urge all Australians on both sides of this debate to conduct themselves well in the remaining weeks of this campaign, while this survey is ongoing. The whole parliament is here sending a message to the people of Australia that this debate is to be conducted as well as we can manage—as well as all of us, looking to the best sides of our natures, can manage. I say again: the whole parliament is here drawing a line, sending that message to Australia, inviting Australians to conduct this campaign, to behave in this campaign and to speak in this campaign with kindness, with grace, with acceptance and with tolerance.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. It is inherently discriminatory and exclusionary to hold a national opinion poll about whether a minority of our community should enjoy the same human rights as the majority, yet that is what the government is presently doing. Labor opposed the plebiscite when legislation was brought before the parliament, and the plebiscite legislation failed. Despite the wish of the parliament, the government is going ahead with this non-binding opinion poll being administered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The government has started to post out survey forms this week and they are starting to land in people's households and in people's letterboxes.

Labor is very, very concerned about the fact that this survey is happening, as I've said and for the reasons that I've said. We're concerned about the exclusionary nature of it, which is obvious. When you're asking the community to vote on whether a minority should have the same human rights as the majority, that does exclude the minority. It excludes LGBTI people. It says: 'You don't just get the same rights as everyone else. You have to go and convince the majority of your friends and of the strangers you've never met in the Australian community to fill out a piece of paper—a survey form—for the statistician, to argue you should get the same human rights as others.' That's why it's so wrong. That inherent discrimination and exclusion that is a necessary consequence of having that type of survey is bad for people. It's bad for our community. It draws distinctions and it creates division. Exclusion is a source of mental health concerns for people, including people in the LGBTI community. Of course, Deputy Speaker Vasta, you're aware of the higher rates of suicide in that community.

We think this survey process is terrible. Notwithstanding that, it has been imposed upon the Australian community by the Turnbull government. Notwithstanding our view about it and notwithstanding the views of people in the community about it, this survey is going ahead. And as wrong as we think that is, we believe that it is important, if the opportunity is offered, to try to at least mitigate some of the worst features of this kind of survey by taking up that opportunity. That's why Labor is supporting a safeguards bill, this Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017, because if we weren't then even the bare and minimalist safeguards that are in this bill would not apply to this survey process.

It's not an election. They're not ballots. The provisions of the Electoral Act do not apply. That's why it was necessary to look at creating a bill that would impose particular safeguards—safeguards like we're used to seeing in elections, like the obligation to authorise material that you publish, to say who wrote it, who approved it and where it's going to come from. We've all seen the reports of anonymous flyers being distributed in communities and anonymous posters being put up, and some of the terrible things that have been said on those posters and flyers, so it is important that there be an authorisation process.

Similarly, it is important to have provisions in relation to bribery and in relation to threats. These provisions need to apply to this survey process because of the nature of it and because of the fact that it is a survey about people's human rights. And, similarly, we're pleased that there has been movement in relation to an anti-vilification provision, to include a provision that prohibits vilification and intimidation against people because of religious conviction; because of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status; and because of what they have said in relation to marriage equality. It is an important protection that is included in this bill.

There are other provisions of the bill, of course, and I don't intend to go through them either. But I did want to say this: nothing about the fact that we have been prepared to do what we can to put some safeguards around this process can be taken as any indication that we support the process as a whole. And nor can it be taken as a means by which the process can be fixed. You can't fix a process that's a popularity survey about human rights. You can't fix the exclusion, you can't fix the discrimination and you can't fix the implication that the government thinks that LGBTI people should have to plead for the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. None of that can be fixed by this bill, but I am hopeful that, at the very bare minimum, it will provide some support and some assistance to those people in the community who are particularly vulnerable. Thank you.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.