Fraser Anning (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Precisely. For decades, Greens senators have championed hard-Left agendas which, if the opportunity had presented itself, would have been firmly rejected by most fair-minded Aussies. However, that does not deny the legal right, indeed the moral obligation, of those elected as Greens senators to represent their own constituencies, even though they represent less than 10 per cent of the population. Likewise, I consider myself morally obliged to speak for those whom I consider myself to represent. I am under no illusion that I'm here for any other reason than because votes directed to Pauline Hanson passed to me, and I came here fully intending to be a Pauline Hanson's One Nation senator. The fact that I was booted out of One Nation does not change what I was voted in to do. I was elected to represent the interests of those who voted for One Nation and those who preferenced One Nation. I still intend to represent those people.

This brings me to the current bill. If you look at the highest areas of the 'no' vote against same-sex marriage, they are in the areas where the One Nation vote was strongest—rural and regional Queensland. This clear indication of the views of what I consider to be my constituency is reinforced by the many thousands of conversations I've had over the years, both campaigning with Pauline for 20 years and as a publican. They have given me a clear view of rural and regional Queenslanders' views on same-sex marriage. It is my intention to reflect those views.

I believe that the family is the cornerstone of our society and marriage is the cement that holds it together. Even three years ago, both major parties pretended to agree with this, yet today many of the same people who opposed same-sex marriage when the last Labor government was in power, such as Senator Wong, have undergone a 'road to Damascus' conversion. If same-sex marriage is such a pressing concern, why not legislate it during the Rudd and Gillard government days? The answer, of course, is that when Labor were in government they were terrified that supporting this would create a rallying cry against them. So much for high moral principles!

The fact is, of course, that same-sex marriage has become today what the republic issue was in the 1990s: a red herring, a fashionable distraction from the looming crises facing our nation. A left-leaning government and a clueless opposition have grasped on this issue of same-sex marriage as the previous government did on supposed climate change—anything to distract from the real issues like runaway government spending, ever-increasing taxes, endless erosion of our personal freedom and criminal neglect of the people of rural and regional Australia.

Instead of wasting our time in this place with this issue, the parliament should be focused on governing. Tens of billions continue to be wasted on handouts to the lazy and feckless or on grandiose ideas and idiot schemes like NBN, for which there never was and never will be a market need. The latest obscene money waster is a submarine project on which, with scarcely any reflection, this government has elected to fritter $60 billion reinventing the wheel when we could easily buy a dozen perfectly serviceable modern submarines from Japan for $10 billion and the rest of the money could be used for better things. Meanwhile, the crucial regional dams, roads, bridges, railways and coal-fired power stations remain unbuilt. Yet, instead of debating these real issues, we are here wasting a week of parliament's time on the same-sex marriage bill. What does that say about the priorities of the government and opposition? What does this augur for the future of our country?

It is not for me to judge the morality or desirability of other people's lifestyle choices, but it is for all of us in this place to consider whether we should be sprinkling legal holy water on these choices. This is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of whether our country will be better or worse if we overturn the time-honoured and religiously sanctioned definition of marriage as between a man and a woman just to satisfy a vocal and sometimes violent political lobby. What would Ben Chifley, John Curtin, Bob Menzies and Harold Holt say if they could see what the parties which they once led have come to? Instead of jobs, economic development or nation-building, what exercises the attention of the heirs of Menzies and Chifley is whether same-sex couples can call their unions marriage. Thank you.