Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Marriage as a social institution pre-existed the nation state. Therefore, it was appropriate to give the Australian people as a whole the opportunity to debate, discuss and vote on whether such a fundamental foundational institution of our society ought be changed. As we know from the postal survey result, the Australian people voted for change. But let's not forget what the question was. The question very simply was: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

The polls taken in relation to that question indicated very closely what the actual survey result was: that the Australian people want change. The interesting thing is that those same polls when asking the question, 'Do you think parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage?' showed that the Australian people, by a margin of 62 per cent to 18 per cent, answered yes. Sadly, I believe, in a rush of hubris, this Senate has voted to deny those fundamental rights that the Australian people actually do hold dear just as much as they hold dear the idea of changing the definition of marriage.

This Senate had the opportunity to ameliorate and alleviate the concerns not of some nasty fringe of the Australian community but of 38 per cent. In anybody's language, that is a significant number of our fellow Australians. That's the sort of support, with respect, that the Greens, One Nation and, at the moment, even my side of politics would dream about having in a primary vote. This is a substantial body of men and women of Australia who are entitled to have their voices heard in this place and also in the division that is about to occur. It should be noted that those of us on the 'no' side at no stage sought to filibuster and did not vote against the second reading of the bill because we were conscious of the fact that the Australian people had voted. But the Australian people did not vote to block freedom to charities to continue to hold their views in relation to how marriage should be defined. The Australian people did not vote to restrict people's freedom of speech. The Australian people did not vote to restrict people's conscientious beliefs. The Australian people did not vote to restrict people's freedom of religion. All of those, might I add, are fundamental freedoms guaranteed under international law. They are written into treaties and covenants and signed off around the world. They are human rights that now have been diminished by the establishment of a new right, which is to allow people of the same sex to marry and for people of variations of gender to marry as well, something which, I repeat, the Australian people did not vote for.

In relation to charities, for example, last night, we were told, 'Just trust the experts.' When the Senate had the opportunity to put the situation of charities beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Senate, regrettably, voted against protecting those charities that represent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our fellow Australians engaged in good work in the service of the community of Australia for those who are less well off. We are prejudicing their capacity and their ability to continue to deliver those services on the basis of an unfortunate vote which saw that amendment for protecting charities defeated. I repeat: when asking the Australian Labor Party and the Greens whether, in principle, they supported such a proposition—that charities should be allowed to continue with their views in relation to marriage—they remained silent, not once, not twice, but three separate times. Here was an opportunity for the Senate to bring the Australian people together and say to the 38 per cent that voted no, 'You are decent Australians; you do count; you are important to the body politic.' Sadly, what we have had with this debate is the railroading of this particular bill without consideration for the other 38 per cent of our fellow Australians, all of whom are good, decent individuals. Can I say to the 'no' campaigners all around Australia, to the men and women who committed themselves to the 'no' campaign: I continue to salute you and I continue to acknowledge you as good, decent Australians.

The taste of defeat is always bitter, and nobody likes it. When the survey result was announced, I indicated that I regretted the decision but respected the decision. That's the way our democracy works. But if we want to have social cohesion then I believe it would have been of very real benefit for this place to have considered some of the amendments. It is my hope that the House of Representatives in considering this bill, which I assume will soon be passed, will seek to ameliorate and alleviate the very real concerns of nearly five million of our fellow Australians. They deserve to be heard. They deserve to be listened to. Their concerns can be incorporated into this legislation without in any way diminishing the right of same-sex-attracted people to marry, as the Australian people have voted for.

Having indicated that I would be guided by what the people of Tasmania thought on this issue, I believe, especially in a house that is based on proportional representation—not a winner-takes-all house—that it is important that that 30-plus per cent of my fellow Tasmanians be given a voice and a vote, knowing that I will be in the minority. But it is important, I think, in public life to acknowledge that on some occasions you're in the minority and stand by that position. That is what I intend to do in solidarity with those over 100,000 Tasmanians who voted no.