James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank those opposite for providing this opportunity to comment on this issue. As a newer senator, I have not had the opportunity to put my views on this broader issue on record. I would like to use this as an opportunity to do so. For the record, I am a supporter of same-sex marriage and I have been public in my support for same-sex marriage for some time. I first advocated for same-sex marriage in 2011, when I was appearing in my capacity at the Institute of Public Affairs on the ABC's Q&A program.

I am not too keen to hear lectures from those opposite about where we stand on this issue and what we have done on this issue, because unlike many of them I have been on the record in favour of same-sex marriage for longer than they have. In 2011, when I advocated it, your Prime Minister was opposed to it and your party, in large part, was opposed to it. Many of you have come to the party on this issue in more recent times and I congratulate you for it, but I will not be accepting any lectures from those opposite about supporting same-sex marriage. You had six years in government to address this issue and you missed that opportunity every one of those years. You took no action to address this issue.

For me, same-sex marriage and my support for it is in part about equality, and I respect those opposite who put that argument forward, but it is also about freedom. I think two people who love each other and who happened to be of the same gender should have the freedom to marry. I do not think it is an appropriate role for government to prevent people who wish to marry from choosing to marry, I do not think it is appropriate for them to prevent gay couples from calling their relationship a marriage and I do not think it is appropriate for government to stop people standing up, celebrating that love in front of everyone and calling it a wedding. Having said that, I do hold genuine and sincere concerns about freedom of religion and freedom of conscious. I am very keen to ensure that those are sufficiently protected in any bill that does legalise same-sex marriage, whatever the mechanism.

On the question of the plebiscite, I think this is an entirely reasonable solution to a problem which the parliament has proven itself incapable of resolving. Over the last nine years, this has been one of the most debated issues in our parliament. It is an issue which has had many private members' bills and many hours of debate. There are few other policy issues that had been examined in any greater detail or at any greater length. I think a reasonable solution—which we took to the last election, which we won, and which we have a mandate for—is to have a plebiscite. I think that is a reasonable solution to the parliamentary deadlock that we have had on this issue.

On the question of funding for the yes and no cases in this plebiscite, as members opposite will be aware from the Attorney-General's answer in question time, this is a question which is yet to be resolved. It is a question which the cabinet will discuss, and it is a question which the party room will discuss. We have made clear though that if there is to be any public funding, then it should be equal.

My own personal view is that there should be no public funding for either the yes or the no case. If there is to be funding, in my view it should be the absolute bare minimum. I do not hold that view because I think advocates of the traditional definition of marriage will be bigoted, will be hateful or will engage in denigration, as Senator Cameron suggested. I think they hold their beliefs in a sincere way and I do not think they are motivated by homophobia, although there are some people in our community who do hold those views. I think those who oppose this change will be very careful in the campaign to be as respectful as they should be to ensure that their campaign receives the support that they would like it to in the Australian committee.

My reason for opposing public funding for either the yes or the no case is that I think if we cannot think of a better way to spend taxpayers' money than in a political campaign, then I think we are not doing our jobs. My view is that there are better ways of spending this money. If people want to raise money themselves to spend in this campaign, then I wish them the absolute best in doing so. They should do as any other organisation campaigning for or against community change or social change does. They are able to fundraise from their supporters to generate support for their ideas and to use their position in the community to raise that money and support themselves. I do not think there is a compelling case for taxpayer funding in this instance.