Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say I am a little embarrassed. I am embarrassed about the quality of debate that I have been able to listen to in this chamber. Whilst I understand that this is a very sensitive topic, I think it is incumbent upon us to be straightforward, honest and open about and accountable for the comments that we make.

I have to comment briefly on Senator Lazarus's contribution. In rugby league parlance, Senator Lazarus said he wanted the Prime Minister sin-binned for the grievous crime of putting in place a process that would deliver the same outcome that Senator Lazarus wants. He wants to sideline the Prime Minster, because he happens to agree with him. It was an extraordinary two-minute contribution. Perhaps he could come back and explain exactly what he is disagreeing with the Prime Minister about.

Then we have Senator Urquhart who channelled all the regular nonsense about people who are opposed to same-sex marriage. She managed to mention dinosaurs, homophobia and bullying and how it is not going to have any impact on the rest of society and the world. She quoted what has happened internationally. Once again, Senator Urquhart, in order to defend her position, said, 'Look at what happened in Ireland where the Irish people got a vote and had a say.' That is exactly what the Prime Minister is proposing for the people of Australia. It is okay when the Irish do it; it is wrong when Australians do it.

Senator Urquhart then went on to say that nothing else changed when same-sex marriage was legalised in other jurisdictions. She should acquaint herself with the facts. We have seen people taken to court, because they have had a disagreement or a conscientious objection to being forced to participate in certain actions or practices. We have seen it impinge on religious freedoms in court cases and challenges to churches who were regularly promised would be exempt from that. We have seen further demands for the redefinition of marriage. If it is only about who you love, why should the number vary? These are the sorts of things that have been going on internationally, but they do not want to admit that on the other side.

If you want to get back to the leadership issue of Mr Abbott in this space, he knows that the Australian people, just like this parliament, have a number of different views. We have got to respect those views, quite frankly, and we should be able to have that battle of ideas without rancour, abuse and the pejorative slurs that some, like Senator Urquhart, have resorted to.

Our party took quite clearly to the last election that, if we wanted to redefine marriage, we would put it to our party room. I know of no other Prime Minister who has listened to 99 people have their say in their party room over six hours to gauge the mood of the party room before making a determination. That determination was: we would stick to our policy and put it to the Australian people after the next election.

If, as we are told repeatedly, there is growing and building momentum and three-quarters of the people want this, what do those on the other side have to be afraid of? What are they worried about in putting it to the Australian people? We have Senator Lazarus, the Greens and others saying they are going to put in their own bill about having a plebiscite. What is the problem with us on this side wanting to have a plebiscite or a referendum or however you want to characterise it? What is wrong with going to the Australian people with it? Apparently, to the Labor Party, there is something wrong with that. The Labor Party are frightened of the people. That is the big problem. They are frightened of the people, and they do not know what they are doing. They have been sidetracked with this.

I would say to you that every single one of us in this place knows people who are passionately in favour of redefining marriage and those who are equally passionately opposed to redefining marriage. How are we expected to respond to the issue that parliament should deal with this matter when parliament in the last 10 years has had 16 different bills introduced seeking to redefine marriage? Three of them have been introduced this year. All of them either have failed by vote or failed by not being brought to a vote because the numbers were not there, or have just sat there on the Notice Paper. Sixteen times in the last 10 years, this parliament, in one way or another, has legislatively dealt with the proposal to redefine marriage. Parliament has decisively ruled on this, yet that is not enough for those who want to redefine marriage in an image that they seek to do it in.

So what is the only answer? If parliament renders its verdict again and again and again and it is not accepted, surely it is time to put it to the people. People who are as opposed to redefining marriage as me—and there are very few who are more opposed to it, I have to tell you—would have very little basis to object if the people said, under circumstances appropriate to a vote, 'We want to change marriage.' I might not like it, but ultimately I live in a democracy. Issues such as this do have significant and profound consequences and implications for other people's rights and for the types of freedoms we have in this country—and unforeseen consequences, might I add. I would have very little case to argue against it, particularly if my state of South Australia did it in concert with the majority of other Australian states.

I am not afraid of the people. I am happy to take the argument there. I know I will get called names by those on the other side. I will not respond in kind, but I will put the facts on the table. I will show again and again and again that what is being proposed by the other side is not just some innocuous change and not some campaign slogan called marriage equality. It is a significant departure from what has always been in our country, in our culture and in cultures for time immemorial. It has profound implications for how our society functions and the freedoms we enjoy— (Time expired)