Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to a proposed plebiscite concerning marriage equality.

I think the failure of the Attorney-General to properly answer any of these questions is pretty typical of the failure of this government to deal with the real issue that is affecting the lives of many Australians, and that is: why they should be treated differently to other Australians who have got rights in this country.

Senator Farrell had asked about the issue of public funding of the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns for the proposed marriage equality plebiscite. Well, we know that there are some groups in this country that want to get funded so that they can get up and denigrate other Australians' rights to have a loving relationship in the same terms as every other Australian has the right now. This is unacceptable in a modern economy. This is unacceptable in a modern democracy. It should not be so. Everyone should get access to the same rights.

I find it unbelievable that a government that claims it is about the proper economic stewardship of this country would contemplate spending what some people have estimated to be nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, to have a so-called plebiscite that will not be binding on parliamentarians and will not mean anything to anyone coming in here who will be entitled to vote according to their conscience or religious beliefs. It will not be binding. It will not deal with this issue effectively or properly.

I would say that there is a quarter of a billion dollars that could be spent better elsewhere. And it is clear that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has a view that is different from the view of the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Reverend Dr Glenn Davies, who said that the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous offer to fund the 'no' campaign. Well, after watching this Prime Minister in inaction—not in action, but in inaction—for 12 months, there is only one person you would believe out of that conversation, and that would be the Archbishop of Sydney. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney had absolutely no doubts about what the Prime Minister had offered, and the Prime Minister had offered funding. And I am saying that some of the groups who are looking for funding want to use that funding to have government-sponsored, publicly-funded campaigns to denigrate our fellow Australians. That is an unacceptable proposition.

The view that I take and that the Labor Party takes is that we should not be wasting time and money going to a plebiscite that will simply generate hate and fear amongst our fellow Australians. We should be ensuring that we are dealing with the real issues in this country. And one of the issues should be that this parliament comes together and does its day job—that is: to come here and make a decision, as we have been elected to do, in the interests of Australian citizens and provide equal rights to all Australian citizens. Whether you are lesbian, gay, transgender or transsexual, you should have the same rights as every other citizen.

Why should our fellow Australians be subjected to a government-funded campaign of denigration against their rights as Australians to love a fellow Australian and get married in this country? This is an obnoxious proposition, this plebiscite. This is a plebiscite that has been forced on the Prime Minister by the extreme right in this government. It is a plebiscite that is driven by the right wing on a weak prime minister. (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those opposite for providing this opportunity to comment on this issue. As a newer senator, I have not had the opportunity to put my views on this broader issue on record. I would like to use this as an opportunity to do so. For the record, I am a supporter of same-sex marriage and I have been public in my support for same-sex marriage for some time. I first advocated for same-sex marriage in 2011, when I was appearing in my capacity at the Institute of Public Affairs on the ABC's Q&A program.

I am not too keen to hear lectures from those opposite about where we stand on this issue and what we have done on this issue, because unlike many of them I have been on the record in favour of same-sex marriage for longer than they have. In 2011, when I advocated it, your Prime Minister was opposed to it and your party, in large part, was opposed to it. Many of you have come to the party on this issue in more recent times and I congratulate you for it, but I will not be accepting any lectures from those opposite about supporting same-sex marriage. You had six years in government to address this issue and you missed that opportunity every one of those years. You took no action to address this issue.

For me, same-sex marriage and my support for it is in part about equality, and I respect those opposite who put that argument forward, but it is also about freedom. I think two people who love each other and who happened to be of the same gender should have the freedom to marry. I do not think it is an appropriate role for government to prevent people who wish to marry from choosing to marry, I do not think it is appropriate for them to prevent gay couples from calling their relationship a marriage and I do not think it is appropriate for government to stop people standing up, celebrating that love in front of everyone and calling it a wedding. Having said that, I do hold genuine and sincere concerns about freedom of religion and freedom of conscious. I am very keen to ensure that those are sufficiently protected in any bill that does legalise same-sex marriage, whatever the mechanism.

On the question of the plebiscite, I think this is an entirely reasonable solution to a problem which the parliament has proven itself incapable of resolving. Over the last nine years, this has been one of the most debated issues in our parliament. It is an issue which has had many private members' bills and many hours of debate. There are few other policy issues that had been examined in any greater detail or at any greater length. I think a reasonable solution—which we took to the last election, which we won, and which we have a mandate for—is to have a plebiscite. I think that is a reasonable solution to the parliamentary deadlock that we have had on this issue.

On the question of funding for the yes and no cases in this plebiscite, as members opposite will be aware from the Attorney-General's answer in question time, this is a question which is yet to be resolved. It is a question which the cabinet will discuss, and it is a question which the party room will discuss. We have made clear though that if there is to be any public funding, then it should be equal.

My own personal view is that there should be no public funding for either the yes or the no case. If there is to be funding, in my view it should be the absolute bare minimum. I do not hold that view because I think advocates of the traditional definition of marriage will be bigoted, will be hateful or will engage in denigration, as Senator Cameron suggested. I think they hold their beliefs in a sincere way and I do not think they are motivated by homophobia, although there are some people in our community who do hold those views. I think those who oppose this change will be very careful in the campaign to be as respectful as they should be to ensure that their campaign receives the support that they would like it to in the Australian committee.

My reason for opposing public funding for either the yes or the no case is that I think if we cannot think of a better way to spend taxpayers' money than in a political campaign, then I think we are not doing our jobs. My view is that there are better ways of spending this money. If people want to raise money themselves to spend in this campaign, then I wish them the absolute best in doing so. They should do as any other organisation campaigning for or against community change or social change does. They are able to fundraise from their supporters to generate support for their ideas and to use their position in the community to raise that money and support themselves. I do not think there is a compelling case for taxpayer funding in this instance.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really welcome Senator Paterson's comments and his personal opinion on the issue of marriage equality, though that was not the point about which this taking note was called. When Senator Brandis was responding to the question, he ended his comments by saying that it is not unusual for two groups to have different views about what happens in a certain process. Of course, that is one of the real problems we have: it is never unusual for people to walk away from a conversation and be unclear as to exactly what the intent or the purpose of that conversation was.

Though in this case, I am slightly disturbed, as this issue of the plebiscite was raised by the government as their great response to the concerns about same-sex marriage in our community. They lauded the issue of a plebiscite and talked about at length. From the very start of those discussions, one of the simple questions that came forward was whether there would be paid funding from the government around a plebiscite. That was because our most recent experience of a plebiscite in this country—probably one of the few experiences of a plebiscite in this country—was around the referendum. In that case, through the whole process—it was not a plebiscite but it was asking the public what they thought of an issue before it came back to the parliament—there was significant public funding.

I remember when we had our Senate inquiry, at the very start of this discussion, around plebiscites and same-sex marriage. The issue of public funding was key in that Senate inquiry. I ask people to go back and read the Hansard of that Senate process. At the very start, this was a question that people were asking when the government decided that this was the way they were going to handle the process. I do want to quote Senator Brandis's discussion about how the parliament would handle it. He used a term with which I was not familiar. He said the way that this issue would be 'disposed' of by the parliament would be through a plebiscite. That was a position that I was interested in, that we were going to 'dispose' of the whole process via plebiscite, in terms of where we are going.

The ongoing discussion about whether there was public funding was key to the questions that were being asked by the community leading up to the election and during the election, though I am not convinced that it was a core issue for the election; but nonetheless this was something that was discussed. I know that people were interested. I was not at the meeting that has been discussed in the media, where there seems to be situation where the bishop and some other people who were at that meeting seem to have gone away from that particular meeting with a clear understanding that there would be public funding. That is now a view we believe that the Prime Minister does not share. At the same meeting, he and his advisers, walking away from that process, did not seem to understand that that was the kind of understanding that would be taken away by others.

It worries me that, on such a clear element of the whole issue of a plebiscite, there is this confusion and there is this misunderstanding, even after we have had public announcements of how much this plebiscite would cost. This issue has been the public arena since the very start. That is an issue that has been raised in this place, and we are still not clear about it because there has been no statement from the government except from Senator Brandis, who said that if there is going to be public funding—that was his statement, the great 'if'—that would be part of the decision that is made through their standard practices through that process. What we can take away from today is that, if there is going to be public funding, which we will find out about at some time in the future, we are not quite sure about how much funding and we are not quite sure how it will happen; however, if there is public funding, there will be a process in place to handle that.

I believe that this just continues the confusion. I think it continues the uncertainty in the community about how this will operate, and it does not genuinely reflect the levels of concern that seem to be around people about how this plebiscite will operate. That there would be a plebiscite was hung out as an election promise, but the details around that plebiscite and how it is to be funded are still uncertain. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to start by saying that, in question time, the Attorney could not have been clearer about where things are at the moment in relation to a decision being made about the funding of the yes and no cases for the plebiscite. In relation to that, there will be an answer given once we go through the process we need to go through. It disappoints me that, on such an important issue, those opposite descend into a game of 'he said-she said'. That is the biggest thing—was this person right or was that person right, rather than looking at the substance of the issue. This is what we are taking note of today—whether someone said this or someone said that. I think we need to just focus on the substance of the issue rather than nitpicking about whether this issue is to be disposed of or things like that. I think we are losing sight of the bigger picture here.

I am not sure about those opposite, but I remember pretty clearly—and as Senator Moore pointed out—that the issue of a plebiscite on marriage equality was a feature of the entire election campaign. No-one hid it from the people of Australia; no-one hid it from members in this place or anywhere else. It was debated every day. I received emails from people in the community every day. We knew this issue was coming. It is not like it is a surprise for any of us. And of course this is part of it—the funding, which is to be resolved. The Attorney, in his answer to the question today from Senator Farrell, outlined that we would be going through a process and that a decision would be made and announced. There is not much more to it than that, unless you want to play 'he said-she said' and look for some sort of gotcha moment.

On this side of the chamber, as I say, it was an election promise. We made a commitment to the Australian people before the election that we would give them the opportunity to have their say on this important issue. We are keeping faith with them. We are not going to abandon what we said we would do, because I tell you what: if we broke that promise, the first people who would be jumping all over that would be those opposite. That is what we are doing—we are honouring an election commitment, and there are details to come on that, including the cost and funding arrangements. But that is what we are doing—honouring an election commitment. It is the most democratic way to allow Australians to have their say on this important issue. Everyone can have their say rather than simply restricting it to a few. I understand that as a contrast between the idea of having legislation brought into the parliament and a free vote versus a plebiscite; however, since 2004, I have read that something like 18 pieces of legislation relating to marriage equality have been introduced into the parliament, but nothing has changed. So this opportunity that we have as Australian people for everyone to have a say will be very different and, hopefully, the Australian people's will will be respected.

I think everyone would agree that this is the best way, regardless of where you stand on the issue of marriage equality. Whether you are for it or against it, this is the best way, as everyone can have their say. The most disappointing part for me is the fact that those opposite do not believe Australians can conduct themselves in a respectful way; that having a public debate means that we will automatically degenerate into a disrespectful and hateful debate. I have higher expectations of the Australian people. That is what we should be encouraging people to have, rather than assuming they will just launch into some tirade of hate speech against one another. We should be encouraging them to engage in this important debate in a respectful way rather than just assuming the worst of the people we represent in this place. That is the most disappointing thing about the questions that were asked today, and I encourage everyone opposite to take that back to their communities. Rather than assuming the worst, expect the best and encourage that. I think it is incumbent upon all of us.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, Senator Brandis was incredibly clear on the issue of funding. What the government will do will be announced in due course once we have gone through the process that needs to be gone through and the decision has been made. We will then announce what is going to be the case. We can all drop this 'he said-she said' political game, focus on the important issue at hand and allow the Australian people to get on with considering this important issue. I am sure many of you get thousands of emails and letters from your constituents asking you to vote a certain way. As soon as we know what the details are, we will be able to move on and get on with the debate.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to make a contribution to taking note of the answer by Senator Brandis to Senator Farrell's question. The question was fairly clear: whose recollection was correct, or did the Prime Minister make a commitment to funding the respective sides? Senator Brandis has said, 'Well, it wouldn't be the first time that someone's come away from a meeting with a different recollection'. But, truly, who is correct—the bishop or the Prime Minister of Australia? I do not think a question gets any clearer than that, and it probably deserved a more concise and straightforward answer. My position in this debate is on the public record.

I have listened very carefully to the debate on this plebiscite issue and I am persuaded by the Hon. Michael Kirby, who made a prescient contribution in respect of this debate in a recent interview. He said:

The constitution doesn't provide for interposing this additional step in the law-making process. The last time we tried it was in 1916, 100 years ago, on the question of overseas compulsory military service. And we haven't really attempted a plebiscite as an interposition for 100 years.

He comes to that position as a juror, as a lawyer and as a judge. He said further:

We are not a populist democracy and we don't elect our prime minister or a president. We are a representative democracy who does things through an elected legislature, which meets in public session, whose record is kept by the Hansard, whose speeches are recorded, whose votes are recorded. That's the way we've done it for 110 years—

'And we really should do it this time.' I am persuaded by that argument. There has been an election. There is a government in place, and it should govern. It should take on that decision-making authority that it has and proceed. A plebiscite at a cost of $160 million, with equal funding for either side to add to that, would seem a little excessive to most of the hardworking taxpayers and the electors of this country. The really interesting thing is that the Westminster system provides for this parliament, the executive, to commit troops in times of war without reference to a plebiscite.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliament doesn't commit troops.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Westminster system provides for the executive authority to commit troops. We make agreements and treaties in this place. The Japanese economic partnership agreement, the Korea free trade agreement and the Chinese Australia free trade agreement are all made at the executive prerogative. The enabling legislation comes through these places.

Why is it that on this one issue, probably the first time in 100 years, we need to spend $160-plus million on a plebiscite? The reason is that in order to get the mantle of prime ministership, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull had to do a deal, agree with the conservative wing of his party, that he would maintain the promise by the Hon. Tony Abbott of a plebiscite. It is very, very clear. His heart is not in it. He is on the public record in other areas committing to marriage equality and support thereof. But in order to stay Prime Minister, in order to become Prime Minister, he had to pick up this conservative idea, this $160 million expense, plus the funding for either side, in order to stay Prime Minister. That is as clear as day.

Those on the other side can debate the issues to and fro on marriage equality. But in order to get to Prime Minister, he had to honour Mr Abbott's plebiscite arrangement. He is now in conflict with a bishop of the Anglican Church in respect of whether or not he promised funding, and, really, he could just use the executive prerogative. We did not elect him as Prime Minister; his party room did. Therein lies his problem. He could go out and put this to the Australian parliament as early as this week. He cannot because the conservative wing of this parliament would probably roll him. That is the awful truth.

Question agreed to.