Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we are, today, the Monday after the week that was—the week that broke the figurative Liberal Party camel's back—and what a spectacle it has been since then. What we have seen is a government that prioritises political strategy over equality amongst Australians.

In my short time in this place the issue that Canberrans have written most to me about is marriage equality. I am well aware that there are a range of views in the community about marriage equality; however, there is no escaping that the strong majority of Australians support this reform and want to see it dealt with as quickly as possible. I have received letters from advocates on both sides of the debate but the overwhelming majority have been in support of this change. I have said before that the community view has changed faster than our parliaments have been able to respond—and this is something we have seen over a number of years across all state and territory jurisdictions and indeed in the federal parliament.

So let's look back at how the week evolved. It started with a surprise announcement in the coalition party room last Tuesday, where Warren Entsch said he would launch a co-sponsored bill for introduction that would create marriage equality in Australia—a positive step, many would say. A six-hour party-room meeting was called and held, where the Leader of the Government in the House, Christopher Pyne, accused the Prime Minister of branch stacking the meeting to prevent a free vote from being supported. The Prime Minister's strategy against equality prevails; one-third of the coalition party room voted in favour of a free vote but, unfortunately, two-thirds voted to bind others against equality. Ministers and backbenchers then took up open warfare against each other in the media in the following days over the appropriateness of what had happened and also the debate over whether a referendum or a plebiscite should be held. This bickering continued over the weekend and continues into this week. It has been astonishing to see one minister on one TV channel openly arguing for one position and then turn the channel and see another minister rebuking and lecturing that minister with a different position being put forward.

Despite all this division, and through all this internal turbulence, sanity prevailed and the cross-party bill on marriage equality was introduced to the House this morning. It is sad to note, though, that this bill appears to have already met its fate on the floor of the House. So what we have seen is one full week of open warfare among coalition members. The coalition has taken its eye off the ball. The government has shown that it is more focused on itself and on preventing individuals within the cabinet or the wider party from getting their way than on what the general population, the majority of this country, are expecting from their elected representatives.

The PM, through this, has consistently shown a reluctance or a refusal to see the marriage equality debate progress in this country. We have all known for a long time Mr Abbott's personal views around marriage equality and his staunch opposition to it. His position is disappointing. However, the Prime Minister, like all of us here, has the right to hold an opinion. The problem is that the Prime Minister, the leader of the country, refuses to see past his own personal view to let the majority view of Australians prevail. Last week's coalition party-room meeting was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership and show that he was a leader for all Australians. By allowing the debate to be held, respectful of all members and senators views, he could have taken an inclusive approach instead of the divisive one that was allowed to leave the party room meeting that day.

The reason I speak on marriage equality so often—and I think it is one thing that can get lost as politicians argue, delay and seek to run interference—is that the marriage equality debate is all about people; it is about families that you and I know; it is about loved ones that we share meals with; it is about children who go to school with our children. I do read all the emails that come into my Parliament House account on any issue—I make sure that I do. One email that arrived on Thursday evening was titled 'Heartbroken Australian', and I would like to read a bit from Lucas's story; he shared it with a number of politicians in the parliament on Thursday night. He said:

I, like millions of other Australians, was on Tuesday eagerly awaiting the decision of the coalition party-room whether to finally and consciously settle the issue of same-sex marriage before parliament. I have been checking Twitter every few minutes, trying to cling onto hope and optimism that the leaders of our country would put aside their personal views to allow the majority of leaders in parliament to reach a consensus. And then my world came crashing down. I phoned my mother, who is an elderly lady from a non-English-speaking background. I did not think she was even aware of the same-sex marriage debate. But as soon as I said, 'The vote has not been successful,' she began to cry. Despite my parents' reservations about me coming out as gay 15 years ago, they have always loved and supported me and my partner. They have always wanted me to be happy. But being treated by the members of this parliament as a perceived threat cannot be easily borne.

I then had a look at Facebook and was immediately confronted with dozens of photos from a friend's wedding on the weekend. This was further heartbreaking and distressing. Seeing the couple's sheer joy and ability to declare their love and commitment in front of family, friends and the law was a profoundly beautiful expression for them but a reminder that I and my relationship are somehow innately not worthy. The groom and bride even made a point to approach my partner and apologise for the celebrant's inclusion of the words defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. However, I am well aware that this is a legal requirement imposed by our parliament. My partner and I are both highly educated and contributing members to Australian society. He is a doctor and I hold a master's degree. We go to work, pay our taxes, contribute to the economy, socialise with friends and enjoy good coffee. Never until this day had I felt like a second-class citizen and someone whom my country, Australia, does not want. I am left to wonder: where does that leave gay and lesbian fellow Australians?

The talk about a referendum and plebiscite cannot be seen as anything but a further attempt to delay any progress on this issue. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman was imposed by parliament without asking the people, and rightly needs to be changed by parliament. The issue has been settled in almost every western developed country. Indeed, Australia and Northern Ireland are, embarrassingly, the last English speaking countries that have not recognised same-sex marriage. I used to be in favour of a plebiscite, but now I am scared about the impact of another prolonged debate as I can only see it bringing out the worst in people. The accusations, suspicions, labels and taunts are often unbearable—even when not front and centre of speeches by our respected leaders. Yes, LGBTI identifying people are a minority in Australia, but this issue presents a momentous opportunity for 'Team Australia' to stand up and respect and recognise the rights and dignities of all Australians. Same-sex marriage—or just 'marriage' as it is now called in most western countries—will not fundamentally change anything for opposite sex couples but it will be a life-changing affirmation and expression of love for same-sex couples who call Australia home. We are your family, friends and colleagues, and I want to stand shoulder to shoulder as equals with my heterosexual friends. I still hold out hope that love for fellow people will prevail.

That was Lucas Segu, who is a fellow Canberran. In a very personal and touching way, it really sums up just how hurtful some of the decisions that were taken last week were for everyday Australians. I thank Lucas for sharing it, because putting the person in front of the politics often helps to explain to others just how words and positions translate to people living in Australia—particularly on this issue—and how hurtful they can be.

The MPI today relates to a failure of leadership on marriage equality. No-one was asking the Prime Minister to change his views on marriage equality; nobody expected him to. But I think a lot of people around the country thought that the Prime Minister could, and should, have allowed, navigated and promoted a way for the debate to actually occur. It is funny how there are a whole lot of decisions that do not require plebiscites or referendums that occur in this place and how there are many decisions that have far-reaching impacts on people's lives, but, all of a sudden, we come to a crossroads. The polls are very clear: almost 70 per cent of Australians support ending discrimination for people in same-sex relationships.

The Prime Minister last week had an excellent opportunity to stand up and show that he governs for all Australians, even if he does not agree and does not have to personally vote in a way that would end discrimination against same-sex couples. He failed to meet that test. I think that sums up, really, the Prime Minister and the government we have—they are out of touch, are arrogant and will do anything to stop losing a debate they do not want to lose.