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

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Marriage is not defined in the Australian Constitution, as it is in the Irish constitution. A constitutional definition of marriage would ensure any further changes would be decided by the majority of Australians in another referendum. In addition, a referendum on marriage equality would have saved taxpayers millions of dollars if it had been held at the same time as the next federal election. Keysar Trad, the former President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, has been reported as saying, 'Same-sex marriage is wrong.' Instead he wants polygamous marriage recognised, to give Islamic multiple marriages equality. My question is, Minister, will the government support a referendum to give Australians the right to decide how marriage is defined in the Australian Constitution, whether it is between a man and a woman, or a man and a woman and people of the same sex?

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

Thank you very much indeed, Senator Hanson. There isn't a definition of marriage in the Australian Constitution, you're right. But the Australian Constitution does, by subparagraph 21 of section 51, allow the parliament to make laws in relation to marriage. The High Court decided in 2013 that the marriage power in the Constitution included the capacity to make laws for same-sex marriage. That was decided in a case between the Commonwealth and the ACT at the time. So there's no doubt about that, but the question really is, 'How should the parliament inform itself of the wishes of the Australian people?'

As you know, the government took to the last election a promise to have this matter dealt with by a plebiscite, because we consider that this is such a unique question—a question about which politicians have no greater insights or wisdom than every other citizen—and therefore every Australian should have their say. I regret to say that the proposal to have a compulsory attendance plebiscite has been blocked by this Senate not once but now twice. So the government is doing the next best thing to fulfil its commitment to the Australian people from the 2016 election and to involve as many Australians as possible in this decision, and that is the postal plebiscite that is being conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I encourage every Australian to take advantage of the opportunity given to them to have their say. Whether you are in favour of same-sex marriage or whether you think the definition of marriage should remain the same, every Australian should take the opportunity to have their say.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question.

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

In the absence of a referendum to give a constitutional definition of marriage, what guarantee is there that the definition will not change again to suit other minority groups?

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

For the reason I explained to you, it is entirely unnecessary to have a referendum, because the Constitution already has a marriage power. The High Court, as recently as 2013 in an unambiguous and unanimous decision, made it clear that with the marriage power it gives the parliament the capacity to make laws for marriage between people of the same sex. In the event that there is a yes vote in the plebiscite, that is what the government will facilitate the parliament doing by debating a private members bill.

Senator Hanson, we do not think that it is appropriate or desirable to have an unnecessary constitutional referendum. What we do think is appropriate and desirable is to give the people a say, and the plebiscite question will be in precisely the same terms as the plebiscite question that was frustrated by the Senate in the bill, namely: do you believe that the Marriage Act should be changed to allow people of the same sex to marry? (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.

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

I ask the question: what guarantee do you give the Australian people that future governments will not change the Marriage Act to include polygamous marriages or marriages under the age of 16, regardless of what the Australian people want and in consideration with what Keysar Trad, the former head of the Islamic council of Australia, has said: that they agree with polygamous marriages?

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

Senator Hanson, let me correct the answer I gave you in relation to that last supplementary question. The question will be to allow same-sex couples to marry. The question is specifically in relation to couples: two people, not more. Two people. I can give you my absolute assurance that in the event that the plebiscite question was to be resolved yes, the bill that will come to the parliament will deal with couples. It will deal with marriage between two people.