Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to debate the MPI put forward to the chamber today by Senator Wong and object to what I feel is the abhorrent way in which those opposite are dealing with the question of marriage equality in this place, in their party room and in the community. The very idea that the civil rights of Australians should be subject to a plebiscite at all is abhorrent. What those on the other side are setting out is not a path to marriage equality. It is simply an attempt to paper over the divisions in the coalition on this critical issue—and divided you are, a mess you are. As a result of that division, Labor and LGBTI Australians can have no confidence that what you are putting forward is any kind of path towards marriage equality. Indeed, you have pretty much said as much.

In the last couple of days we have learned that one of Australia's most senior Anglican leaders has said that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, made an 'unambiguous' offer to provide public funding for opposing sides in the same-sex marriage plebiscite. As we have seen reported:

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies said Mr Turnbull made the remarks at a meeting of church leaders earlier this year.

"It is the Archbishop's clear recollection that the Prime Minister, in words that were unambiguous, stated that funding would be available to both sides on a similar basis to the republic referendum, thought the exact amount was not discussed," the spokesman said in a statement.

"The promise was later raised at a smaller meeting with [Attorney-General George] Brandis in March, who then asked what funding was appropriate, to which the Archbishop replied: the same amount as in 1999, CPI adjusted."

We know that the 'no' camp is pushing for about $10 million to be provided to both sides of the plebiscite campaign. We have been told that the government has made those commitments, even though we have also been told that the position Senator Brandis wants to take forward is for no public funding.

On this side, we have been listening to the LGBTI community, and we are not in favour of a plebiscite at all, and we are certainly not in favour of public funding for a plebiscite, in what would amount to public funding for hate speech, public funding for a divisive and costly referendum. Those preparing for a plebiscite in favour of marriage equality have pretty much said, 'If a plebiscite is forced upon us by the government, then it should have no public funding.' Let us be clear: this is not a condition of support for a plebiscite, as there is no such support. Those in favour of marriage equality are getting ready for a plebiscite but have said there are good reasons not to support one. I certainly do not support one.

What we have before us is a Prime Minister and indeed an Attorney-General who say they support marriage equality. We have on one side an anti-marriage-equality camp, who represent a minority of the Australian community, who want a plebiscite and public funding for such a plebiscite in a last-ditch attempt to stop marriage equality, and a pro-marriage-equality camp, who support a parliamentary vote, who do not support a plebiscite and who certainly do not support public funding for a plebiscite. As many opinion polls show, this is the majority of the Australian community.

The simple fact is: the very idea of a plebiscite is one that has been put forward by those opposed to marriage equality. What is especially galling to me and those opposed to public funding for a plebiscite is the fact that church groups opposed to marriage equality already have access to tax deductible donations through which they can channel funds for such a campaign. However, those in favour of marriage equality, LGBTI groups and rights groups, do not. We have no such access to tax deductible donations.

What do we know about the history of this issue? We know that the Prime Minister has been forced to adopt a position in support of a plebiscite as a condition on his leadership. How then, even though he purports to support marriage equality, are we supposed to have any confidence that such a plebiscite is a meaningful path to equality, especially when there is no detail? Right on the cusp of this question being put to cabinet, there has been no plan championed by our Prime Minister to make marriage equality real. That is because there are too many on the other side who simply do not want it to be. Even Warren Entsch MP has said as much. We have heard reports that when Mr Entsch was asked if Senator Brandis was doing a good job on the plebiscite, he said:

I want him to be more transparent, more open, more inclusive. I have no doubt the Attorney-General is committed to making it happen but I want to see him work with everyone. I want to see him talking to the other side about their views.

How are those of us in favour of marriage equality supposed to have any confidence that what you are setting out is any kind of path to marriage equality when even those on your own side do not see it that way? I am extremely concerned that a plebiscite, and public funding for it, will turn into a platform for people to attack, abuse and demean Australians on the basis of who they love and who they are—their gender identity and their love for their partner. The fact is that casual, unthinking discrimination and deliberate, malicious homophobia are still too common in Australian society.

I am not concerned here about Australians who have traditional notions of marriage. I am concerned here about people on the fringes who will use this plebiscite to say hurtful and extreme things about the LGBTI community. This is certainly what happened in Ireland, to the great detriment of the community there. Sadly, today, we know that two out of five Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide. A young Australian who identifies as gay is six times more likely to consider taking their own life compared to a sibling, a classmate, a teammate or a colleague. I find it deeply disturbing that we should have a plebiscite that will give a taxpayer-funded platform and a megaphone to the very worst forms of hateful abuse. It will add too greatly to the burden of what too many Australians already have to bear.

In my view, it is fine for me as a senator to make a plea to the parliament about equality. It is my job. I have heard a minority of extremists in the parliament—in this place—make just about every homophobic spray possible. It is horrible and it hurts. Frankly, this is not something I want young, same-sex attracted people to be exposed to—the need to go door to door to plead for their civil rights. This negative campaigning is not likely to defeat a plebiscite, in my view, because people will be repelled rather than persuaded. However, its impact will be lasting and damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in our community.