Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to join with colleagues around the chamber who have commended the way this debate has proceeded. In very general terms, there has been respect and dignity in its conduct. Other colleagues have referred to some of the extremes. I'd have to share with the chamber that I've experienced some of those extremes on both sides, but they have been that—extremes. I'd also like to say the way this debate has proceeded in this chamber, and coming into this chamber, should be commended, as well. Particularly, I commend Senator Fawcett for his conduct of the committee inquiry. The outcomes of that inquiry deserve to be highlighted. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Kitching's contribution to that inquiry and the consensus views that came out of that inquiry have been, also, very helpful. And, indeed, I commend all senators who participated.

Senator Smith, now here in the chamber, has taken the outcome of that inquiry with some of his coalition colleagues and produced this bill, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I don't think Senator Smith himself or, indeed, many others would insist that the bill is the perfect outcome. Indeed, there are outstanding matters that the committee report referred to and that we may not be able to resolve in the limited time we have available now. I can share with the chamber, I think, that it's a rare find to find a perfect bill. It's part of our legislative process that further work is often required, but I think all senators have engaged with this process with respect, and that deserves to be acknowledged.

I'd also like to highlight the amount of work that Senator Fawcett has put into the amendments that are circulating in the chamber now. Senator Fawcett, following the Senate inquiry, has engaged with a range of parties in a valiant attempt, I think, to try and resolve a range of issues, some of them falling within the scope of same-sex marriage, some of them dealing with issues that relate to the interface between same-sex marriage and some broader issues related to religious liberty, religious freedom, freedom of expression and belief, and such matters. The goodwill and intent of those parties, I think, deserves to be highlighted, also.

There is one matter, though, that I would like to dwell on for a moment. Senator Fifield was referring to his previous engagement with conscience vote matters. I've been reflecting, over recent days, my own experience dating back over 20 years of dealing with these types of issues. The one exception to those thanks and commendations that I just made has been the way in which some have chosen to make these debates quite partisan. I have not appreciated hearing reports, for instance, that Labor senators are scared or gutless. I won't name the senator in this debate now, but the suggestion that those on the other side of the chamber who have similar concerns are gutless is unworthy. That's perhaps not the only area where some partisanship has carried over this debate. Many senators have referred to the Liberal Party election promise to hold the plebiscite and the challenges that occurred because the opposition had a different view on how that plebiscite should be conducted.

But I think we should perhaps go back to an earlier stage in history. Of course, as Senator Fifield referred to, public opinion on this issue has changed and has been changing now for quite some time—perhaps the last decade. I agree that, in 2004, when these provisions were codified in the Marriage Act, the general public opinion was probably with that codification. Since that time public opinion has shifted markedly. The Labor Party have, until our last national conference, had a conscience vote on this issue. At our last national conference many in the Labor Party expressed quite a deal of frustration that, on the other side of the chamber, the capacity to exercise a conscience position was not matched. Indeed, in the lead-up to the last election we had this issue kicked down the road a bit more with the position that a plebiscite should occur.

The survey that ultimately occurred did not surprise me at all. That public opinion in Australia on the issue of same-sex marriage is roughly 60-40 is no shock. It has been no shock to me for possibly about the last five years—the same period of time that the Labor Party has been grappling with whether a position of conscience should be maintained on that issue. The pragmatic consideration there, of course, is that the Labor Party considered that issue at a time when a position of conscience wasn't provided on the other side.

That's the background to the position that Labor senators find themselves in today, and it is with some relief that I will be able to exercise a position of conscience on this issue. In doing so, I want to highlight my thanks and reflection of the support that I receive across the Labor Party despite having a different view on this issue. I can perhaps best explain my position as representing the Victorian vote in relation to same-sex marriage. Labor senators are taking positions that, in general terms, reflect the vote that came out of Victoria. Senator Carr has long held a view supporting same-sex marriage as, indeed, has Senator Marshall. Senator Kitching supports same-sex marriage if the balance is right with respect to religious freedom. She exercised considerable work on the committee inquiry to progress these issues and I'm sure will continue to do so.

The last time I spoke on this issue was back in 2012. Despite some occasions where my position has been represented or highlighted for often a little bit of mischief sometimes, I have not addressed this issue since my contribution in this chamber when I was Manager of Government Business back in 2012, and that view has not changed. So I will be accepting the very generous offer from my colleague Senator Marshall that I pair his vote rather than him returning from New York. People may understand that Warren Entsch has suggested that he may come back to Australia to participate in the vote in the House next week. Senator Marshall and I are exercising our collegial respect in balancing each other's vote on this occasion, and I thank Senator Marshall for providing that respect and that opportunity.

The other little bit of mischief I would like to address at this stage is the suggestion that Labor senators are bound on the amendments. This is not the case. Labor senators have a conscience vote with respect to the issue of same-sex marriage, whether it's the vote at the end of the bill or issues related to same-sex marriage in the amendments. As I have explained to some people during the course of this debate, the Labor Party has established a process, which has been the case since I've dealt with conscience matters in this parliament over the last 20 years, in relation to this matter. We have established a working group representative of all of the views within the Labor caucus to manage this process respectfully. What I can indicate to the chamber, though, is that no Labor senator, in the circumstances where the Prime Minister has kicked certain issues down the road with the Ruddock review, has sought to exercise a position of conscience in relation to the amendments before us at this stage.

It might be timely for me to touch on some of the areas where those amendments have been sought, because, like Senator Ruston, I am concerned that we not weaponise activists. This bill represents, in the Australian ethos—and it certainly has been argued during the community debate—the application of a fair go. There's another Australian ethos that I would like to draw into and follow Senator Ruston's admonishments with, which is the ethos of 'live and let live'. If we don't have activists at each extreme weaponised and if we work with the existing Australian antidiscrimination framework, warts and all, and respectfully engage with the Ruddock review process, I think we can continue.

In relation to the amendments, again, I respectfully say to Senator Fawcett: we appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this process, but, for example, I have not been convinced that we need to split the definition of marriage in order to respond to the issue of same-sex marriage. I don't think we need to say to 'no' voters: 'It's okay, because we left in the Marriage Act the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman and we just added to that definition that marriage is also between two persons.' I don't really see what that definitional device achieves. But to suggest that I have been bound to a position to that effect is simply wrong. Another area in the amendments where I don't agree is the proposal that celebrants be allowed to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage. If you're not a religious celebrant and you're operating in the common field, so to speak, then I think you should be prepared to deliver marriage services, as with other services, across the field. I don't think the issues around celebrants in general should allow for that type of discrimination.

With respect to the amendments around freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of belief, again, I understand the intention and all the work that's gone into attempting to reach a formulation that might be acceptable but—and I've already said to Senator Smith, I think, that Sharia law was one step too far—I can see that there may be unintended consequences from the current formulation or, indeed, that we have not had sufficient time to address it in detail. Similarly, I have concerns about the standing of charitable organisations or religious organisations delivering social services. This is probably the key area that Senator Ruston raised—that we do not want to weaponise activists within. Senator Smith, I was pleased to see yesterday that some of the material coming forward from the tax commissioner and I think the charities commission were helpful in that respect, but this is going to be a very serious job for the Ruddock process, and I hope that this Australian ethos of live and let live is allowed to prevail.

Labor in government dealt with this issue, and I've heard it raised a few times in some of the commentaries around this bill. We dealt with this in detail when we were in government in relation to access to aged-care services. Indeed, the debate around these issues as it's represented in the Labor Party platform highlights this live and let live ethos—that the exemptions that currently apply to religious organisations are important. The countervailing issue that we need to balance, though, is to ensure that all Australians have access to appropriate services. It was found in aged-care services that there were some issues, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where access was becoming an issue for same-sex couples. As an exception in that area, we determined that the exemption would not apply to the provision of that particular service. This was not a precedent; it was an exception based on ensuring that all Australians have access to appropriate community services. It was not an argument that church based agencies would be denied public funding. It was not an argument that charitable organisations would lose tax status. None of these things occurred in that debate, nor do I think they need to be the result of this bill dealing specifically with same-sex marriage and a consensus around dealing with religious freedom.

Now, that takes me back a moment to some of the scuttlebutt about the Labor Party. The suggestion that the Labor Party does not support religious freedom is simply wrong. It's in our platform. It's one of our key values. That some on the other side have sought to beef themselves up and argue that they're the only ones that can deliver religious freedom is poppycock—absolute poppycock! A comment yesterday in, I think, The Australian re-enforced this point, so I went back to our leader's comments on these issues because I think some on the other side argued that Labor had been silent on the issue of religious freedom. That, too, is far from the truth. One example—and it's only one example, because Bill Shorten has said this on several occasions—is from 16 November, where Mr Shorten says:

We are interested and committed to religious freedom and the ability of churches to practise wedding ceremonies and marriage ceremonies according to their own tenets, and we respect that …

…   …   …   

… we will obviously consider and have look at any amendments, but we are not up for new discrimination and new delay.

That's the Labor position. We have had a conscience vote in relation to the bill and the amendments regarding same-sex marriage. We have looked at the amendments to date and, as I mentioned, given now that the Prime Minister has kicked the issue down the road with the Ruddock review, the likelihood that some of these issues can be addressed within the limited time frame of this week leaves us with reservations about a number of the amendments as they are currently before us.

I also want to reflect briefly on the issue of representative democracy. I don't agree with this view that a poll has now been taken and, therefore, you should vote that position. It's a very limited view about how democracy operates. The suggestion made as recently, I think, as yesterday by Greg Smith at a marriage forum in Bennelong—again attacking Kristina Keneally, probably following the Prime Minister's behaviour here, in an unworthy fashion—