Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 2012, I had the privilege of hosting the Hon. John Howard at a wide-ranging seminar in Perth. One of the questions he was asked was why, when Paul Keating won government in 1991, did the then opposition, led by Mr Howard, not object to legislation that the Keating government introduced in the House and in the Senate. His response was relevant to this debate, because he said this: 'The people of Australia decided that the Keating government should be allowed to govern. They won the majority.' Howard then said: 'It was not incumbent on us in our opposition to oppose the will of the Australian people.'

Why is that relevant to this discussion? Because, on 2 July this year, the Australian people decided that the Turnbull-led coalition would continue to govern for the next three years, at least, in this country. Nobody can argue that the coalition took to the 2016 election a commitment that there would be a plebiscite on same-sex marriage should the coalition win government. We did win, and it is a commitment that, unlike our political opponents, we will hold true to. That is the critically important point.

When that plebiscite will be held is to be determined by others. We have had advice from the Australian Electoral Commission that it would not be practical to have such a plebiscite this year, it now being mid-September. As you and I well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is a state government election in early March in Western Australia, and I for one would not want the distraction of a plebiscite prior to then. If I had my say, I would be urging that the plebiscite be held after that date, but that is my own personal opinion.

I want to make this point to everybody in this place: we went to an election giving an undertaking that there would be a plebiscite on same-sex marriage so that the people of Australia could make their decision on how this issue should go. There are not many plebiscites. They say that during the First World War there was a referendum on whether or not we should have conscription. There was no referendum; there were two plebiscites. The difference—the young people in the gallery should take notes on this—is that a referendum is held if there is a potential change to the Constitution, but a plebiscite is held to ascertain the will of the Australian people. That is what the Australian people knew when they went to the polls prior to and on 2 July.

If people want to get this matter resolved, the quickest way would be to get Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, to go along with the Prime Minister's mood and support a plebiscite. Unfortunately Mr Shorten is not going down that path, but I can say that the Labor Party has no high moral ground in this space. It is the case that the Labor Party is actually bound to a certain position, and that position is to oppose the situation we now have in this country—that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You will hear people say, 'No, that's not the case; Labor isn't bound until about 2019.' But I would simply ask you to put that point to now Mr Joe Bullock, then Senator Joe Bullock, the then Labor Party senator representing Western Australia. Senator Pratt is now here, because she replaced him. As you and I both know, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, then Senator Bullock said he could not accept the position of the Labor Party on this issue and so he did the honourable thing and he resigned as a senator for Western Australia. So the Labor Party has a fixed position on this. We cannot have a debate and a vote in this parliament, because one of the two major parties has already told us how they are going to vote. The Greens party, and perhaps others, might also say whether they are bound to their position. We in the coalition are not bound. We had this discussion in our joint party room and we took a decision that the best thing to do would be to seek the confidence of the Australian people on a matter as important as this and go to a plebiscite.

People change their opinions and they are entitled to change their opinions, but I just want to make a point, if I may. In 2010, in the time since I have been in this parliament, the now Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, whose motion it is we are discussing here today, made this statement on 26 June 2010:

On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.

Current frontbench members of the Labor opposition in the other place, Mr Bowen, Mr Husic, Mr Burke, Ms Rowland and Mr Fitzgibbon, all voted against same-sex marriage in 2012, as was their entitlement and as is their entitlement now because, as Australian citizens, they will be entitled to a vote in the plebiscite.

I have been asked what my position would be if, in a plebiscite, the result of the plebiscite is a favouring of same-sex marriage—changing what is now the law of the land in which marriage is between a man and a woman. I have said publicly and I will state it again in this place that, if the majority of the people of Western Australia, voting in a plebiscite, say that they want same-sex marriage, I will change my position and I will support same-sex marriage, because it is the democratic position of the people in my state. And I challenge the other 225 people in the other place and this one to agree to do the same—that, if the majority vote in a plebiscite in their state, in the case of senators, or in their electorate, in the case of members is one way or the other, they will commit in the coming days to do as I am committing to do and that is to change, if necessary, my situation.

A plebiscite, unlike a referendum, will not require the majority of people in the majority of states and territories; it will simply be a straight majority of the population of Australia. So I know very well that the population-dominant cities of Melbourne and Sydney will have a skewed opportunity and weighting in this debate. But I object vehemently to statements that have been made by leaders of parties that, for some reason or other, the people of Australia cannot be allowed to have their say on what is such an important issue. I also think it is disgraceful to speculate, postulate or hypothesise on how different people in the Australian community might react to the views of others. That is not the Australia I know. I object vehemently to party political leaders giving some sort of prediction as to what the mood, the behaviour and the performance of people might be. We have laws in this country—very, very strong laws—that protect people against discrimination or any other form that might be offensive to them. Those laws exist in this place.

I say very strongly that I have very little faith in those who are not prepared to allow the Australian people to have their say in a plebiscite. I hear all these predictions: 'The vote is so overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage, that we needn't even bother having the vote.' Well, is that case? I do not know, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and, with deep respect, neither do you. But what I can say is that this is an issue upon which the people of Australia should have their right to have a say.

It has been put to me that the cost of something like $150 million is a lot of money. Yes, it is, but let me put that into perspective. At the moment, this country is borrowing $1.2 billion a month overseas, not to repay any Labor debt built up between 2007 and 2013 but just to pay the interest. We are borrowing $40 million a day, when we were debt free in this country in 2007. So, yes, $150 million is a lot of money—it is 3½ days interest on the debt that we are paying now—to give the people of Australia their opportunity to make their decision on whether or not they want to see a change to the Marriage Act.

I do have to say that I have little confidence in the integrity of people on the other side who are likely to put the cases for which they so eloquently speak. Why do I have little confidence? It is because I have long believed that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The recent past behaviour of those opposite is that of the scandalous Mediscare campaign leading up to the 2 July election, when it took an ABC journalist to call out the Leader of the Opposition and the national president of the Australian Medical Association to call them out. But did they stop? No. On the evening of 29 June an elderly lady in a nursing home in Perth received a phone call—not a robocall; a phone call—asking her what she was going to do beyond 30 June when the coalition government, if they won the election, would remove all funding for aged care and health care. That is the level of integrity we see and, if it flowed through to this other exercise, I have no faith in Mr Shorten's position. (Time expired)