Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel enormously privileged today to have been a voice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians in this debate. It has been an enormous privilege to be your agent in this place. We are here at this moment in time because of decades of activism by our community. Without those activists who stood up against terrible adversity and the criminalisation in our laws to fight discrimination and stigma in our community, we would not be here today passing a law that signifies that the status of our relationships is equal to all others.

From that activist movement, there has been a campaign of more than 15,000 volunteers attached to the 'yes' campaign. There have been a million phone calls and 100,000 doors have been knocked on, creating a movement where we've had millions of Australians resoundingly support the right of our relationships to be equally recognised before the law. Our relationships have existed for a long time. Our families have existed for a long time. Our love is true. Our children are cherished. Our families are precious. It is time that we were equal.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I'll be brief. Libertarians, in which I include Liberal Democrats members as well, have always said the government has no right to tell us who we can marry. My view is the plebiscite was always going to win. I don't think the campaign changed anything. Australians are very fair and decent people. I don't think a free vote prior to the plebiscite would have passed. That raises the question of whether this parliament is sufficiently representative. Nevertheless, this is a day of joy because we are winding back the powers of the government. But let's not forget that marriage is an important institution to many people. It is an important institution full stop. Let's respect the fact that, just as we do in this chamber, most of the time, we can agree to disagree with civility and tolerance.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My contribution, too, will be short. I voted no in the plebiscite and will vote no here in the chamber today, but that's not in conflict with me as an individual acknowledging the courage of those people who have campaigned for this change in our national law, in our social structure, for so many decades. I always admire the courage of people who pursue their conviction. I can disagree with them but I admire their effort. I want to congratulate our chamber—I think we have dealt with this debate in a very respectful manner. I was one of the people instrumental in lobbying, eventually successfully, for a plebiscite, which eventually was a postal plebiscite. I do think it aided our parliament by indicating to us the will of the Australian people on the fundamental and substantive question of marriage equality. I have always said that I would be guided by that vote and would vote yes to the eventual legislation subject to, I felt, moderate protections, if you like, or adjustments to the legislative environment brought on by a significant change to fundamental and longstanding law in this country.

I'm not going to labour this because I know so many people are waiting to get to the point with the third reading; I just didn't feel, myself, satisfied that those protections had been put in place. I, too, have the courage of my convictions and that will drive me to vote no for the bill, even though, and I underline this, I want to recognise the change in the law and all those millions of Australians who will be affected positively by this and just call out to Australians on both sides of this debate and say it's up to us to now go forward respectfully. I said in a previous speech that we need to behave in a way that will bring our nation back as one around this social change rather than divide it. I say to those on behalf of whom I have pursued my conviction in this that they ought to go steadily forward and pay due respect now to these circumstances that I anticipate will be carried by this parliament.

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

My comments are mine alone and are not a reflection of the views of my colleagues. The party stance was that we have a conscience vote. I didn't agree with the plebiscite; I have always said this issue should have gone to a referendum and been addressed under section 51 of the Constitution. But the people have had their chance to vote and overwhelmingly they have voted in the affirmative for the proposal: 'Do you agree with same-sex marriage?'

I said then that I would respect the vote. I have also said that I do believe that it was putting the cart before the horse because people were not told about the legislation and what it would mean.

During the debate that has gone on in this chamber, with reflection on marriage celebrants, charities and other areas, I have seen the views of the opposite side—Labor, the Greens and other political parties, but especially Labor. Senator Wong said no-one had asked for a conscience vote. I noticed that in every vote, even though we've heard that some people in this chamber in the Labor Party actually are very Christian minded and possibly against this bill, that people have not been allowed to have a conscience vote. I think that's a shame.

This bill is going to have a huge impact on the country. Let me just say that I do believe that people of the same sex should be married. I have no problem with it. I have homosexual friends and people who work for me. So I always believe that people have a right to live their life as they want to and to be happy. But what I'm reflecting on now is that I do not believe there has been enough tolerance in this chamber of the nearly five million people that did not vote for this. Those people were not forewarned what impact this will have on them, and I believe that should have been taken into consideration. If only the chamber had passed some of the amendments to this bill and allowed marriage celebrants to decide whether they want to marry a same-sex couple—that it would be their choice. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution clearly states that there cannot be religious observance forced upon people, and that is exactly what we are doing in this chamber. Because of that, I will be abstaining from voting. I am torn because I do agree with marriage for same-sex couples, but, on the other hand, I do not agree with the impact of the legislation.

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

Despite my own failure to achieve any amendments to Senator Smith's bill, I will be voting in favour on the final vote in a few moments' time. I will be voting yes not just because I respect the will of the Australian people, clearly expressed in the survey, but because I have long believed that gay couples deserve the freedom to be married. I will be proud to support that here in this chamber, just as I was proud to vote yes in the postal survey.

I genuinely hope that the fears and concerns I've aired in the chamber during this debate do not come to pass. I hope that those concerns are misplaced and misguided and that we don't see them in reality after this law changes. But if they do come to pass, as I fear they might, I suspect we will be back here in the chamber dealing again with the issues of religious liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and I will be the first to say that we will need to put in place stronger protections for the individual freedoms of all Australians.

But today is a day for celebration, and my heart goes out to all the gay couples who have been waiting for too long to get married. I look forward to seeing your joy at being able to finally do so.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel incredibly proud and humbled to be here in this chamber today as we are about to pass this historic legislation. I am proud to be here as a representative of the Greens and to be here representing those millions of Australians who have been working for equality for so long, for whom it has been such an important issue, who voted for equality and who are going to be so overjoyed when this legislation finally passes through the House of Representatives, hopefully next week. And I feel humbled because I am here at this place in time and it's been a campaign that has gone on for so long.

The Greens, as you know, were the first party in this parliament to introduce legislation for marriage equality, very soon after the law was changed in 2004. As Greens parliamentarians, every vote, every parliament, every time, we have voted for equality. So, for all of the Greens representatives who are here today, particularly Senator Hanson-Young, who had the equality portfolio before I did, and for the Greens that have come before us in this parliament, particularly former senator Bob Brown, who fought so hard, who campaigned so hard and who raised the issue of equality and ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people for so long, I really feel grateful and thankful that I have now got the privilege of being the representative. It is momentous, and I feel very privileged and humbled to be the one here in this Senate chamber as we are about to pass this legislation.

In particular, not only do I feel that I stand on the shoulders of giants when it comes to those from within the Greens; I absolutely feel that I stand on the shoulders of giants when it comes to the community, to all of those campaigners who, over so many years, have been fighting for equality. So many of them are in the chamber with us today. We have got people from Australian Marriage Equality—Alex Greenwich is here, as well as Tom Snow and Anna Brown, who have played a leading role—along with so many other community organisations who have been so much the face of this campaign. We have Equal Love, who had rally after rally after rally in Melbourne and Sydney, fighting for this. I think of their determination to work and fight for equality and their belief that we were going to get there one day. We've got the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and particularly the work that Shelley Argent has led over so many years, fighting on behalf of their families. We've got Rainbow Families, who played such a significant role when we worked to defeat the proposal for a compulsory plebiscite, knowing how hurtful that was going to be to rainbow families across the country. They played an incredibly important role and continue to do so. I want to pay special tribute to Felicity Marlowe.

The person who is in the chamber today who I really want to acknowledge in particular is Rodney Croome. I am glad he was able to be with us today. Rodney is here, along with Ivan Hinton-Teoh from Just Equal. Rodney has been this absolute, stalwart campaigner who hasn't given up, who has kept campaigning with people from right across the country to achieve what we know we are on the cusp of achieving today. And it's going to be a massive achievement.

I've been proud to stand up in this chamber for the whole rainbow spectrum: for lesbian and gay people, for bisexual people, but particularly for trans people and gender-diverse people as well as intersex people. Trans people and gender-diverse people have suffered incredible vilification and hatred being directed to them, particularly over the last two months. In fact, the attacks on them have continued in this chamber right up until this morning. So, yes, trans people deserve to be loved as well. Trans people are normal; trans people are equal. They are part of our wonderful family. I am very privileged to be here representing trans people in particular.

I know that, once the legislation gets through the Senate today and through the House next week and passes and finally becomes the law of this country, it is going to be a massive difference. We are going to wake up the next morning and realise that things have changed, that our legislation now reflects the views of the Australian community, that we are respected, that we are equal, that there is fairness and dignity, but, above all, that we are loved and that our relationships, our loves, are considered equal and that we are loved by the Australian community as equals. And that is going to be a beautiful thing when we achieve it after this legislation has been passed.

Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nick Xenophon Team is thrilled to see resolution of this issue and, Senator Rice, we agree 100 per cent with everything you said. You have said it very, very well, and I think everyone in this chamber would echo your comments. I speak for all of my colleagues, including former Senators Xenophon and Kakoschke-Moore, in thanking all who are here for allowing loving relationships to finally be formalised. This is a proud day for all of us here and a proud day for Australia.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too will be brief. Yesterday, the Scanlon Foundation released its 2017 social cohesion report, and it shows that Australia remains one of the most socially cohesive yet culturally diverse nations on earth. There is an overwhelming support for our multicultural society but, in doing that, we must accept that our culturally diverse and religiously diverse Australia has a set of values and beliefs. I think that is very important in this, as I said a couple of years ago at the National Press Club. I do not believe that the polls actually took into account the views of an ageing, culturally diverse and religiously diverse Australia. I congratulate those who will today achieve their objective, but I think in this it's really important to remember a very large part of our Australia, and this has been so clearly demonstrated in the vote that occurred, particularly in Western Sydney. For many people of different backgrounds and religions, this will be a very difficult day. This will be a difficult day in Australia. As we talk about respect, I think it's very important to remember this respect across this divide.

As somebody who has spent a lot of time in these communities, I would like to have seen religious freedoms—even the most basic of religious freedoms proposed by the Attorney-General's amendments—passed in this chamber. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And therefore, for me, this is indeed a very difficult choice. I cannot support this bill in its current form for these reasons, because there are many people—like my parents, who came to this country—who just cannot. For them, it's very difficult, and I think that they deserve our respect as well.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know everyone is keen to see this come to a vote, so I will be brief. I just want to speak on behalf of those who have been campaigning since 2004. As I said in the second reading debate, I was in this chamber when this discrimination was directly and deliberately inserted into the Marriage Act, and it's by a quirk of fate that I find myself back here just in time for this vote to reverse that wrong. I won't name any people; all the names have been said. But, as was said at that time, parliament or governments enacting something you believe is unjust and wrong is no reason to give up. You do not give up and you continue to fight until that injustice is reversed. I really want to note on the record those people. Some of the people in the gallery today were here on that day in 2004, such a black day. They watched that vote with such sadness and horror, and they did not give up. They continued to fight, and that injustice has been overturned, and I really wanted to congratulate all those people who didn't give up, and to remind all of us: when you see all of the other injustices that we witness, do not give up, and continue to fight. You can win, and you can have it overturned. That injustice is now being reversed, and it will never reappear. Congratulations to those people.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too will be very brief, but it would be remiss of me not to say two things. One is that this is absolutely the proudest day I have had in this chamber since I have been in this place. It not only reaffirms my faith in democracy and in the ability of the Australian people to have their say and conduct robust but respectful debates but also demonstrates that we can do it in this chamber as well. I'm so glad that the rest of the country today will see that we can come together.

Secondly, somebody who has not yet been acknowledged is my good friend Senator Dean Smith. I've never been prouder to stand up in this place than I have been to stand with you, Dean. It has not been easy on you, but you are a great Christian and you are a great Liberal. You have stood up for everything that you believe in. I could not have been prouder to stand up for something that we both believe in as Liberals together. Together, as coalition MPs, we have dealt with this issue with good grace and, I think, with great honour, as with all in this chamber. Dean, certainly on my behalf, and I know on the behalf of many others, thank you for your courage and your perseverance in getting us to this vote.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just under three years ago, I moved from no to yes. At 30,000 feet on a flight from Perth to Albany, I reflected on the life of Tori Johnson. Tori lost his life in the Lindt Cafe siege. He was brave, he was courageous and he had a partner named Thomas. On that flight, I thought of their love, I thought of their loss, and it changed me. I realised that people with real lives deserve their love to be blessed and affirmed by the institution of marriage if they so choose.

I am, as many of you know, a man who draws strength from institutions. They are the structures that bind us as communities and as a nation. So I begin by acknowledging my pride in this institution, the Australian Senate. Every senator has brought honour to their state and to the pillar of democracy to which we all belong. This has been a respectful debate—but, I should add, not an insipid one. It has drawn out intellect, wisdom, judgement and compassion. In this debate, we saw the soul of the Attorney; the lived experience of Senator Wong, Senator Rice and Senator Pratt; the conscience of those who oppose this bill; and the conviction of those who supported it. In a time when institutions are questioned, we have seen in this debate how our parliament was meant to work—where life experiences inform decisions, where amendments are weighted and assessed against good argument and where we debate according to an argument's merits rather than taking the political shortcut of questioning each other's motives or integrity. The real question out of this debate is: why isn't our parliament like this more often?

Over the past few years, there have been times when it has been tough to not be part of the majority of my party on this issue. I had to find my place where my conscience and my duty could be reconciled. So I say to all in this chamber: be kind to those who, in following their conscience, choose a different path. They have my respect, and I ask you to give them yours. There it is a cost that accompanies the privilege of service, but that cost should never include giving up one's conscience. It is for that reason that the bill includes protections for religious liberty. I am a conservative. A true conservative does not believe that they are the embodiment of all wisdom. Conservatives are not supposed to resist change; they are simply supposed to weigh change. We weigh change by considering the past as well as listening to our contemporaries. I acknowledge all in this debate.

The debate confirmed the evolutionary nature of this bill. The lack of substantive amendments indicates we got the balance correct. The bill expresses a faith in the current architecture of Australia's religious protections. The architecture is precise. It has allowed a multitude of faiths to thrive, and that will not change. The bill is the fulfilment of the people's will to extend equality to all citizens and it takes away no religious or civil right from anyone.

To those who have opposed this bill, I say: there is enormous goodwill to ensure that this is not the triumph of one group over another but the advancement of the sum of freedoms for all of us. Unlike so much of what characterises modern politics, this is not the triumph of one politician over another or even one party over another. Instead, it has restored faith in our parliament and in this Senate. Maybe, again, there's a broader lesson to be learned.

Like much of what we do here, most of the real winners we will never meet. We will never truly know what it means for the young Australian boy or girl who is working out that they are gay, lesbian, intersex or transgender and who quickly realises they have nothing to fear. We will never meet the thousands of families that will bless their children at marriage ceremonies that will occur because of this bill. Those parents do not think of their children as LGBTI; they think of them by their names. To their parents, they have no rainbow initial, because they see them as flesh and blood. They are kin, and that is what matters most.

And this house, the embodiment of the states, and the other place, the embodiment of our citizens, want the very same thing. We want the very best for our citizens: that they are loved and can be loved. We want them to experience joy and hope, and to experience exhilaration and its companion, heartache, because that is what it means to be human.

In a world where there are more tensions between people than ever, our country has offered a loving embrace to its own. As the Attorney-General said, in the course of a generation, we have seen the LGBTI community move from rejection to tolerance, from tolerance to acceptance, and now from acceptance to embrace. We should be proud of that. I certainly am.

This debate has demonstrated that the bill proposed is evolutionary in nature. There are no substantive changes. Is it perfect? No. As senators Di Natale and McKim admitted in their second reading speeches, it is a compromise. As Senator Kitching reminded us, it even brings together senators Rhiannon and Leyonhjelm—at least for a few brief moments. But a few brief moments of joy is what our country has ached for, because we know it will result in a lifetime of joy for so many others.

As we prepare to vote, we should recall this has been a very long path. Some have put this case for a decade and a half; others, like myself, are latecomers. For all, it has been an accepting and welcoming cause. The Good Book says:

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

We can say today, after so long, that our hopes are no longer deferred.

Most in this chamber came from a party, and our parties are in so many ways the modern tribes of our nation. And let me, for a brief moment, express my pride in my party. Liberal and National voters voted yes—71 out of 76 coalition seats voted yes—because coalition voters understand that this reflects the best of our Liberal and conservative traditions.

It is correct to say many people across this chamber can take pride in their role in bringing this to a successful conclusion at this historic juncture. I especially want to thank my coalition Senate colleagues Senator Birmingham, Senator Payne, Senator Reynolds and Senator Hume.

If there is a lesson for my party from this debate, it is that we should not fear free debates. We should not fear conscience. The more the debate was resisted, the more the strength was found to fight for it. At some later point, we should reflect on how we can avoid that tortured process from ever having to happen again.

This debate has been good for the soul of the country, it's been good for the soul of this chamber and it will be good for the souls of LGBTI children throughout our great country. It's been good for us all, no matter whether you were a 'yes' senator or a 'no' senator, because we lived out the call of the saint: in essential things, unity; in important things, diversity; in all things, generosity. Unity, diversity, generosity—they are the hallmark of this bill, they are the hallmark of this chamber and they are the hallmark of our shared great country, Australia. I commend the bill.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a third time.