Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I, like you, rise to speak in support of marriage equality. My contribution won't be as colourful as yours, but it is certainly one that I am proud to make. I was pleased that the Queensland result in the postal survey was so strong, with a high percentage and an overwhelming majority of electorates voting yes. I would like to pay tribute to our friend Nida Green, the Queensland campaign team and the national campaign team as well. It is always dangerous in these sorts of scenarios to single out people, but I want to mention Shelley Argent. I don't know Shelley that well, but I have met her in this job. I know the work she has done behind the scenes in Queensland, publicly and quietly advocating for marriage equality for a long period of time. And I also want to mention Rodney Croome, whom Senator Brown mentioned. They both came to see me a couple of months ago to make the case for marriage equality, which I'm happy to support. I will come back to Rodney's history and a bit of a connection with my family that I want to touch on. From meeting Shelley and Rodney, I developed a real understanding of how important this is.

I respect that people have different views and see marriage equality through a different prism, but for me it is about ending discrimination. Whilst I was happy with the survey result and excited for those who will be able to marry in the future, I could not help but feel for all those same-sex couples who have passed away—or where one partner has passed away—without the opportunity to marry. I hope they lived a happy life, but I can't help but think it could have been happier and more fulfilled if they were able to marry.

So, whilst pleased with the survey outcome, I was not pleased with the process or a supporter of the process. I'm sorry for what it has put people through and the distress it has caused. It was a failure of leadership and sets a dangerous precedent in a democracy. I believe a conscience vote in the parliament was the correct way to resolve this issue. But I was happy to support the campaign on marriage equality, and the one positive I take in regard to the survey, apart from the overwhelming 'yes' result, has been the conversation it has prompted amongst family and friends in my community.

My young children are inquisitive types, always asking questions, particularly my two eldest girls, who are almost nine—nine on Thursday—and six. Whenever they've asked about marriage over the years, my wife and I have always explained that we hope one day in the future people of the same sex will be able to marry. We have always taught our children that one day we hope this will become a reality. And, as part of my support for the campaign, I printed marriage equality posters and made them available to people who wanted to put them up: family, friends, those in the community. We had some posters up on our house as well, and what it did was prompt conversation with us, with family, with friends and so forth—friends who had a similar view with their children as well. So they started talking to their children about how they hope that one day people of the same sex will be able to marry. For me those were conversations I enjoyed having with people about marriage equality that they also had with their children.

But as a Labor Party senator I respect that this is a matter for a conscience vote. The current party position of support for marriage equality in the platform but that it be a matter for a conscience vote is one that I support. I wish the Liberals and Nationals had granted a conscience vote on this issue many years ago; we may not have had to be here today. Some will criticise that Labor has taken too long to progress marriage equality, and I wish it had been quicker, but throughout the history of the party we have always been at the forefront of important social change, and a conscience vote has played an important role.

Some of the important changes the Labor Party has been at the forefront of over the last 50 years include, under Gough Whitlam, the Family Law Act 1975, which was effectively no-fault divorce. There was the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Under the Hawke government there were the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Under Keating there was the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. More recently, under Rudd-Gillard there were the same-sex relationships acts of 2008, which were effectively ensuring equal treatment in Commonwealth laws, amongst other important changes. So Labor has a proud record of ending discrimination, and again we will be at the forefront of ending discrimination in regard to marriage.

I pay tribute to those who worked tirelessly inside the party for change, in particular my colleagues in this chamber Senator Wong and Senator Pratt, and give a special mention as well to Rainbow Labor, a national network that has been so effective. I have nothing but admiration for your courage and determination. I wish it had been easier. I wish it had been quicker. But I will be honoured to vote alongside you to end discrimination.

I was brought up on what I would describe as traditional social justice principles. You treat people equally, no-one is better than you and you do what you can to help people less fortunate than yourself. This continues to guide me, and I continue to learn. One thing I learnt in this campaign was some history about how appallingly LGBTIQ people were treated in this country for too long. One such report came from Ulverstone in Tasmania and struck a special chord with me because it's where my parents, brothers and sisters and extended family are from and many still live. It is hard for me to comprehend that it was only 20 years ago that homosexuality was decriminalised in Tasmania. Journalist Angus Livingston, who I haven't met, alerted me to an antigay march that took place in Ulverstone in 1996. The reports of this event are distressing and alarming. The arguments mounted at the march are familiar in the current debate. I want to read an extract from a paper written by Sally Gibson that comments on this rally that occurred in Ulverstone:

One community rally organised to oppose the decriminalization was organised in Ulverstone on Tasmania's north-west coast and was attended by 700 people. The keynote speaker at the rally was Chris Miles, a Federal Liberal politician—

and the federal member for Braddon—

Miles linked reform of Tasmania's laws against homosexuality to infiltration by homosexual activists of the education system. He said, "if we give in on this one the rot will continue. This will just be the tip of the iceberg."

We can see some similarity in the arguments that were running 20 years ago with what we've seen from the 'no' campaign here. I note that the federal electorate of Braddon voted 54 per cent in favour of 'yes' in the recent survey.

I feel for family members who grew up and experienced life as gay Tasmanians through that period. I feel for family members who moved away or, if this impacted on them, were not living a life where they were comfortable in their sexuality because it was not welcome in their home state. I know that there would be similar historical examples of this throughout Queensland and the rest of Australia as well. I can't correct a historical wrong, but I can help ensure it never happens again. I support marriage equality.