I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—I move:
That, pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Senate refers to the Court of Disputed Returns the following questions—
(a) whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation of South Australia in the Senate for the place for which Skye Kakoschke-Moore was returned;
(b) if the answer to Question (a) is "yes", by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
(c) what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
(d) what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
Mr President, I won't detain the Senate for long in speaking to this motion. We all know the circumstances in which our former colleague Skye Kakoschke-Moore became aware the week before last that she was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom. This was something of which she had been entirely unaware until she made inquiries which disclosed that fact, and she has taken the very proper course, as others in this chamber have taken as well, of resigning her place upon appreciating the circumstances of her disqualification. This is, by my count, the seventh member of the Senate who has fallen to the stipulation of section 44(i) in all its strictness as the High Court has explained to us in the recent proceedings concerning other members of this chamber, and Mr Joyce, formerly of the lower house.
The motion is cast in terms identical to those of the previous references. I have discussed the matter with Nick Xenophon, who, although no longer among us, is the leader, nevertheless, of the party that Skye Kakoschke-Moore represented in this chamber. He was of the view that this was the appropriate motion to move and that it was appropriate that it be moved by the government. I don't anticipate that this will be controversial, and I want to make it very clear that the fact of her resignation reflects absolutely no discredit upon Skye Kakoschke-Moore. These were circumstances obviously utterly unknown to her and utterly beyond her control and, when she became aware of them and appreciated them, she did the appropriate thing, as others from different political interests represented in the chamber have done as well. I commend the motion to the Senate.
I would just like to say that, from my party's point of view and personally, Senator Kakoschke-Moore was one of the more diligent, committed people I have met in my short time here. In committee, she was well prepared and well researched. She will be missed. I was in Dharamshala last week, at the cricket ground there, when I got the news that she had resigned under the dual citizenship rules. I would say that she's been bowled LBW by a dubious call. But it has to happen, and she'll be back for a second innings. I wish her well.
Question agreed to.
At this juncture, I'd like to make a big call-out to my home state of Tasmania, where nearly two out of three people voted for marriage equality. I'm very proud of Tasmania. I'm very proud of my home electorate of Bass, where nearly 61 per cent of people voted in support of equal marriage. But it's a point of concern for me that not a single Liberal member of parliament at state or federal level supported or campaigned for the 'yes' vote. It may have been a coincidence that, within a few days of the release of the postal plebiscite, Liberal ex-Premier Robin Gray, who's no friend of the Greens, called for Senator Abetz to retire because he's so completely out of touch, as is the Liberal Party in Tasmania. Some of my Liberal colleagues are here today. In their speeches, they may want to address the issue of why no-one campaigned for the 'yes' vote yet nearly two-thirds of the state came out in support of equal marriage.
As someone who's been married nearly 20 years, I would like every Australian, no matter what their sexual preference, to be able to enjoy what I've enjoyed. There's no reason at all that we should be discriminating against people on any basis, let alone on the basis of their sexual preference. I would like to highlight that I have very close friends who are LGBTIQ and there are members of my family who are LGBTIQ. In 2012, when I first started as a senator, I met a fantastic young man, Andrew Greene, at a marriage equality barbecue. Andrew is based in Launceston. I've got to know Andrew over the years. I've even worked with him on an art project around this. It's people like Andrew that I stand here to represent today. I know how much he's suffered and how difficult his life has been.
I talked last week about the pressure that LGBTIQ people have been under for decades. I've chosen to finish my speech in this debate with the words of two very famous LGBTIQ people—in fact, some of the more famous in the world—David Bowie and Freddie Mercury, of course long since departed. One of my all-time favourite songs, 'Under Pressure', is an anthem for the LGBTIQ community. This song was released by Queen, and it talks about the pressure that young homosexual men were under to come out and talk to their family and friends about their sexual preferences and the discrimination that they felt. This was nearly 40 years ago, and yet we still face the very same problem. Although it's quite hard to read the words of a song that you love really well, I would recommend that people, if they are listening to this speech or they read it afterwards, to download it, crank up the volume and have a listen to it. It is a really, really powerful song. I am going to pinch some words from various verses, from both David Bowie and Freddie Mercury, and it starts with this:
Pressure, pushing down on me
pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure that burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on the streets
… … …
It's the terror of knowing
What the world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming Let me out
Pray tomorrow gets me higher gets me higher
Pressure on people people on the streets
I turned away from it all like a blind man
sat on a fence but it don't work
Keep coming up with love but it's so slashed and torn
Why, why, why?
Love love love
Insanity laughs under pressure we're breaking
Can't we give ourselves one more chance
Why can't we give love one more chance
… … …
'Cause love's such an old-fashioned word
and love dares you to care for the people
People on the streets for people on the edge of the night
And love dares you to change your way of
Caring about ourselves
This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves
Under pressure
Under pressure
Under pressure
Now, we're all under pressure. We're all under pressure to actually do something historic here, and that is to end discrimination in this country. We've already spoken many words; there have been over 10 attempts to actually legislate this in parliaments across this country. The people of Australia have now spoken and they've spoken very clearly. Let's get on with passing this legislation in the Senate. I trust that we pass it in the House. I will make it very clear, the Greens won't be supporting any amendments that attempt to legislate to further entrench discrimination. We will also be moving our own amendments to improve the bill and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Senator Rice, Senator McKim and Senator Hanson-Young especially, and previously Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, have campaigned so hard for so long to achieve this outcome, and we are here to do it. Every single time, we have voted to end discrimination, and we will be standing up for LGBTIQ people in the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2017. I have spoken on marriage equality in this place on, what I would say, too many occasions, but today, hopefully, will be one of the last. Finally, this week, we will do our part to change the law. We will allow any two adults to choose to enter into a marriage and make a public affirmation of their love and commitment to each other. I believe that this change will strengthen the institution of marriage, it will strengthen families and it will strengthen communities.
For me, the ideal bill before us this week would be one that simply removes the gender-specific language that has plagued the Marriage Act since 2004—that is, that we go from defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman, back to simply, a union of two people. But I'm willing to compromise, and I'm willing to accept the further amendments included this bill. Aside from the creation of religious civil celebrants, the majority of the amendments clarify the existing circumstances. I'm not convinced of the need to further water down this historic bill with any other amendments. I'm not prepared to see this bill fail through attempts from either side to create a bill that those in the middle cannot support. What we're doing here this week is recognising that love is love, that commitment and family are the bedrocks of our society and that more love, commitment and strong families can only make our communities better.
Getting to this place today has been a long, long road. I congratulate the LGBTIQ Australians and their allies for their hard work and patience. It has been a decades-long campaign: first to decriminalise homosexuality and then to end all forms of discrimination within our laws. I also congratulate the millions of Australians who have changed their mindsets about LGBTIQ relationships and LGBTIQ families. While prejudice breeds prejudice, we each have our own moral code, and, with every conversation and every story of love and commitment, mindsets are changed and tolerance increases as people realise that public declarations of love between two others are not going to impact on their lives in any way.
This week is the culmination of the years of hard campaigning, of deeply personal campaigning, where LGBTIQ Australians have been forced to campaign for equal rights, have been forced to put their relationships up for judgement—indeed, have been forced to put their very identities up for judgement—and have been forced to endure some of the worst, most hateful and most disgusting comments from people who, quite frankly, should know better. This cruel campaigning was amplified during the recent postal survey, a postal survey that was voluntary for Australians to participate in and non-binding on this parliament. This survey and the plebiscite proposal before it were the absolute worst way to bring this issue to a head. Instead of recognising what we all knew to be the case—that the opinions and views of Australians had changed, that the people had moved—the weakest Prime Minister we have seen caved into the extreme conservatives in his party and their attempt to delay a parliamentary debate.
The result from the simple question that this government asked the Australian people was overwhelming. It was the opponents of marriage equality who wanted a plebiscite. It was the opponents of marriage equality who proposed the postal survey. It was this government that set the question. And even with the near two-to-one result in favour of marriage equality and with the concessions around religious freedom already made in drafting this bill, many of those opposed to marriage equality want more concessions, more delays and more watering down. I say to the opponents of marriage equality: enough is enough.
This nation is proudly a secular state. We tolerate and accept people of all religions. We also tolerate and accept people who choose not to adhere to formal religion. Despite the constant harping from those who will do anything and everything to frustrate change, there is no absolute, universal, historical definition of marriage. There are people of all faiths and people who choose not to follow a formal faith who believe that any two adults should be allowed to marry. So, when opponents say that, beyond the compromises included in this bill, we need sweeping changes to, quite frankly, allow for people to discriminate against LGBTIQ people, it needs to be called out for what it is: perpetuating discrimination.
This bill actually provides more significant religious freedoms than many people are comfortable with. While it is already the case that a minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage for any reason, this bill extends the provisions for religious protection not just to ministers of religion but also to civil celebrants who register as religious celebrants. It also formally extends religious protection in the Marriage Act such that all bodies established for religious purposes can refuse to host a wedding ceremony if the marriage is against their religion's doctrine, tenets or beliefs or it is necessary to avoid injury to the feelings of their religious community. This is a big change, and the bill also amends the Sex Discrimination Act to give effect to these religious protections.
These protections are surely enough. These protections are landmark reforms in themselves. No longer is the right to refuse limited just to ministers of religion, with registered religious celebrants also eligible to refuse to marry a couple on whatever grounds. The formal protections afforded to religious bodies to refuse to provide any goods or services for the purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage is a big concession. 'Reasonably incidental' is not defined. 'Religious bodies' is not defined. These are very strong religious protections that are not afforded to anyone else, and they operate in one direction—the right to refuse LGBTIQ people. As I just said, there are many people of faith, including ministers, who support marriage equality, and the current Marriage Act clearly limits their freedoms to marry, to be married and to support friends and family as a witness at a wedding.
One issue that this bill does not address that I hope religious bodies can resolve within their own walls is disputes between a local congregation that is in support of marriage equality and a central administration that is opposed. Quite clearly, while it is important to allow religious bodies protection from solemnising certain marriages to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of their congregation, on the opposite note it is equally important that religious bodies ensure their actions avoid injury to those members of their congregation who see nothing within the religion's doctrines, tenets or beliefs that should prevent a marriage between two consenting adults. And, as I've just said, the best place for these discussions is within each religious body; these things should not be prescribed in this bill.
Likewise, amendments that only promote the beliefs of opponents of marriage equality do nothing to improve this bill, do nothing to improve the community debate and do nothing to bring people together. It was prudent that last week in the face of the barrage of opposition from within his own government, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a panel to review protections for religious freedom in Australia. It was, however, ironic that the Prime Minister chose Philip Ruddock as the chair of this panel. Mr Ruddock as Attorney-General in 2004 introduced the change to the Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Mr Ruddock's record on LGBTIQ rights as Attorney-General includes lowlights such as denying a gay World War II veteran's partner a spousal pension and refusing to provide a gay man with a certificate of no impediment to marriage. With all respect to the high-calibre Australians who have been appointed to the panel, the Prime Minister has failed to include an LGBTIQ Australian. Why? There are many impartial esteemed LGBTIQ Australian lawyers who could fill an important role on this panel. I implore the Prime Minister to revisit the creation of this panel and include an LGBTIQ Australian. Despite this criticism, the creation of this panel is a good step for public debate and ensuring marriage equality passes the parliament this year.
During the postal survey campaign, the principal of a local independent school in north-west Tasmania wrote to me with concerns about the school community's freedoms in the event marriage equality passes the parliament. I responded that I personally believe that such protections are not needed but that a national conversation is needed after the Marriage Act is amended. I said that with respect to religious freedom I would expect that even at present a religious institution would provide impartial pastoral care based on modern psychological best practice to a student who was questioning their sexuality or who needed help in coming out to their friends, family and community. I would expect that religious institutions are currently able to counsel students in a professional way that supports the students to be comfortable, confident and proud with their sexuality. Where it is appropriate to draw on guidance from the Bible then that is legitimate, but if a specific interpretation of the Bible may cause psychological harm to a child then surely that is best left unsaid. I believe it is important to balance the rights of parents to educate their children in a certain manner with the child's rights to receive impartial pastoral care.
It is also vital that we look at the experience of legislating for marriage equality around the world and examine how other jurisdictions protect religious freedoms while also protecting LGBTIQ people. I note that there is currently an inquiry before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Members and senators participating in the inquiry, and indeed all senators listening today, will be interested to read a recent comparative analysis from University of Tasmania law academics Dr Gogarty and Ms Hilkemeijer published on The Conversation website yesterday. The article titled 'Conservative amendments to same-sex marriage bill would make Australia’s laws the world’s weakest' found that the amendments proposed in Senator Paterson's bill would see Australia become the only country in the world to wind back laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, after legislating to protect them. Whilst Senator Paterson has withdrawn his bill, the spirit of some of his amendments live on in the public comments and proposed amendments of some in this place.
The University of Tasmania academics found that, of the jurisdictions that allow LGBTIQ couples to marry, only Portugal, South Africa and the US state of North Carolina allow civil celebrants to refuse to solemnise a marriage, that only a handful of states in the United States allow service refusal—and that's around bakers and florists—and that only the US states of Florida and New Hampshire allow parents to withdraw their children from classes on the ground of gender preference education. I trust that we do not want to see Australia legislate for marriage equality only for it to become the least equal of all countries in the world with respect to rights for LGBTIQ people. I trust that opponents of marriage equality will respect the Prime Minister's decision to push the religious freedoms matter off to the Ruddock-led panel and that we will see the bill moved quickly through this place this week.
I would also like to touch on my home state of Tasmania. First, congratulations to everyone who campaigned so hard for this change. Legislating for marriage equality is one of the final steps in ensuring equality for LGBTIQ people, and it comes just 20 years after we decriminalised homosexual relations between two men. Despite this shameful past, LGBTIQ Tasmanians and their allies have campaigned respectfully and tirelessly for change. They have worked across all sides of politics and in the city and in all of our country towns to convince Tasmanians of the need to respect LGBTIQ people and of the need for change. With every conversation and every story of love and commitment, mindsets are changed and tolerance increases as people realise that public declarations of love between two people are not going to impact on their life in any way.
I was always confident of the result of the postal survey, but I'm so proud to put on the record in this place that Tasmania recorded a 'yes' result of 63.6 per cent—two percentage points above the national average—and all five electorates recorded a 'yes' result. Tasmania was the first state in Australia to introduce a register of 'Significant Relationships' that was open to all couples. This step in 2003 ensured LGBTIQ Tasmanians had equal rights in superannuation, taxation, insurance, wills, health care and employment conditions. It was the forerunner to the reforms federal Labor made in 2008, which ended discrimination against LGBTIQ Australians in all but the Marriage Act. In 2012 and 2013, the Tasmanian parliament amended laws to allow for surrogacy, adoption and parenting rights. This year the Tasmanian parliament expunged historical gay sex convictions. But the major reform that is outstanding is marriage equality.
I believe that Labor made a mistake in 2004 in supporting John Howard and Philip Ruddock's amendment to introduce gender into the Marriage Act. It took years of effort by many committed activists within Rainbow Labor and across the broader union movement to see the party change its position. I will never forget the mood in the room at the Tasmanian Labor Party state conference in 2009 when we were the first state Labor Party branch to change our position to support marriage equality. We are again leading the nation. One by one, other states slowly followed. Finally, at our most recent national conference, the Labor Party committed to a national platform which would unequivocally change the Marriage Act.
In concluding my remarks today, I want to pay tribute to those people whose stories I have shared in this place: Sandra, Lee, Jenny, Jen, Peter, Martine, Maxine, Robbie, Matt and Lochsley. I implore colleagues to let this bill pass without amendments. All that will happen after this bill is passed is that more people will be able to get married. In no way does this bill lessen the value of or harm any existing marriage. In no way does this bill cause harm to any person or couple, and in no way are your precious freedoms restricted or impacted. This week we are saying that more publicly recognised committed partnerships will make our households stronger, which in turn will make our communities and our broader society stronger. We are saying to lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex, bisexual and queer Australians that your relationships are completely valid, that your relationships are special and important and that everyone has the freedom to marry whoever they want to. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. The rainbow is the symbol of the LGBTIQ movement. Rainbows appear when there's both sunshine and rain, and over the last few months we've seen plenty of both. LGBTIQ people have had to spend recent months enduring a storm of abuse unleashed by the unprecedented decision to decide marriage equality via a postal survey, but the insults that rained down during those few months have been broken by the blinding sunshine of a resounding 'yes' vote by the Australian people, and I thank them.
Subjecting questions of civil rights to opinion polls sets a dangerous precedent, and it's not one that should ever be repeated. My thoughts are with the thousands and thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families who have had the essential, loving nature of their relationships under intense public scrutiny over the last few months. Indeed, over the course of the two-month survey, there've been reports of spikes in calls to helplines from young people who've been subject to homophobic abuse in their neighbourhoods, in the media and online—abuse that has been whipped up through this so-called respectful debate. We've heard reports of damage to cars and homes where rainbow flags and 'yes' material were displayed. People have been assaulted in the street. We all knew this would happen, yet the government pressed ahead.
People like Amanda Gordon, clinical psychologist and founder of National Psychology Week, were deeply critical of a process that asked people to take sides rather than to engage in a respectful discussion. ReachOut youth mental health service saw a 40 per cent jump in demand for their services over the period of the survey. Like so many other health professionals, they hold concerns about the long-term effects of the survey on people's mental health, particularly if the opponents of marriage equality continue in the manner in which the 'no' campaign has already been conducted. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has an underspend now of $22 million from this postal survey, and I've written to the Prime Minister to commit those funds to enhance counselling and support services for the LGBTIQ community.
It's now time to end the damaging debate. Enough is enough—enough of the distractions, enough of the delays, enough of the damaging lies. Australia said yes to marriage equality and they said it emphatically—61 per cent of Australians said yes. Every state and territory returned a 'yes' result. Every electorate in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory and the ACT returned a 'yes' result; 27 out of 30 electorates in Queensland, 35 out of 47 in New South Wales and 35 out of 37 in Victoria said yes. Let me thank each and every person in the country who voted yes. I want to thank the 'yes' campaign volunteers for knocking on doors, making phone calls, engaging in conversations and distributing material. I want to thank them for having hard conversations, difficult conversations. I want to thank them because they came from all walks of life—people like my mum. One wouldn't expect my mum to be a traditional advocate for marriage equality, having been brought up in a Roman Catholic household with a conservative upbringing. But she is always someone with a strong sense of social justice. She worked with me to help make a video advocating her support for marriage equality, recognising that the love between all peoples should be treated equally.
I want to thank her and those many millions of Australians who had those conversations and engaged with this debate. I want to thank you for reminding us, in the words of a tweet that I read recently, that Australia is not The Daily Telegraph; it's not the Murdoch press. It's not Sydney talkback, it's not Alan Jones or Miranda Devine. Indeed, it's not Senator Bernardi, Tony Abbott or Pauline Hanson. It's none of those things. It's sure as hell not the Australian Christian Lobby. Australians are much more generous and much more decent than that.
So the task now rests on us to change the law and to change it quickly. The singular purpose of legislation now before us is to ensure that marriage becomes an inclusive institution. Some opponents of marriage equality have now shifted their focus to expanding religious freedoms and to use this debate as a Trojan horse for their own narrow agenda. But they must remember that the resounding 'yes' vote was a call to end discrimination, not to entrench it. If these freedom warriors are genuinely committed to notions of liberty and justice, then we welcome that. We would absolutely welcome their support for the Greens' call for a national bill or charter of rights, something we have campaigned on now for many, many years. We look forward to their support on our proposal. And let's have that debate next. Let's have it after we settle the question of marriage equality. Let's not use it to muddy the waters on marriage equality when the instruction from the Australian people was so clear.
The marriage law that we're debating in this country is a product of our secular society. Marriage is a deeply symbolic and public show of commitment between loving couples, but it's also a legal arrangement. We're debating both the deep symbolism of including every loving couple in the institution of marriage but also the legal certainty that flows from it. Through this debate, I've talked with many LGBTIQ Australians, right across the country. Not all of them want to get married. Some of them believe that the institution of marriage is flawed, that it's deeply conservative, that it's patriarchal. Yet, almost all of them still support this change because, for them, and so many other Australians, this is about equality not marriage.
We've also heard from so many faith communities. I know that there's diversity across religious communities in our country. I know, for example, that many Christians don't believe that the views of the Australian Christian Lobby reflect their views. I met Reverend Ric Holland from St Michael's Uniting Church in Melbourne recently. He's a proud advocate for marriage equality and he seeks to be the first church to solemnise a same-sex wedding. I wish him luck. We've also heard about the Australian Council of Hindu Clergy supporting the 'yes' campaign and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, who overwhelmingly passed a motion calling for equal treatment under Australian law to same-sex couples who choose to marry. During the survey, we saw the Muslims for Marriage Equality group emerge. Nail Aykan, the Executive Director of the Islamic Council of Victoria, told the media that he had spoken to a number of Muslims and many of them—a significant proportion—voted yes in the postal survey. Faith communities are diverse. They're not homogenous. They have always had, and will continue to have, the freedom to determine and celebrate unions between couples in whatever they choose. There is an important distinction to make, though. When those religious institutions turn to face the wider community, to trade in goods and services for profit or benefit or to seek government taxpayer funding for their activities, they should expect to be held to standards of fairness, respect and non-discrimination, which is why we will never support any legislation in this place that changes that important principle.
I'm again wearing those rainbow sneakers that I wore when the 'yes' vote was delivered. They were a gift by Reverend Holland's daughter, Primrose, and I want to thank her for such a wonderful gift. I'm wearing them today for three reasons. Firstly, I wear them as a show of solidarity with people from LGBTIQ communities. I also wear them to remind us that support for a change to the Marriage Act comes from all corners of the Australian community, including from faith communities. And I wear them to take inspiration from the change that we're creating with our LGBTIQ communities to go on and work harder and continue to pound the pavement for equality and justice with other communities that experience discrimination. When in the future I recall the resounding 'yes' vote and I look at these sneakers I will know that change is possible, that if we can achieve justice on this issue there is no reason that we can't achieve justice for so many other Australians who are struggling right now and that we as a nation are better when we're working towards fairness, respect and compassion.
The bill before the Senate's not perfect. It's certainly not the bill that the Greens would have introduced, if it were up to us. We're concerned that it perpetuates exemptions from antidiscrimination protections, certainly something the Greens don't support. But we also recognise that this bill is the product of a cross-party consensus, following the report of the select committee on the exposure draft of the marriage amendment bill in February. My colleague Senator Janet Rice worked in good faith with many other members of this parliament across party lines to deliver a consensus bill. We are now ready for a debate in good faith that honours the message from the Australian people to our parliament and that honours that process.
Through the course of this debate, I have heard from people who say that they actually support same-sex relationships but that they want to use a word other than 'marriage' to recognise those relationships. To them I say: I know you mean well, but you're missing the point. When you choose to use another word, that is an admission that you don't believe that those relationships have the same value, that they are equal. We simply can't have a society that holds up an institution like marriage as being a bedrock to its values but then say we're only going to make it available to some and not all. We simply can't half do human rights. We have to complete this now because it is a matter of human rights, of equal rights, and because the reality is that today's discrimination is hurting people and hurting families. We can make this change and in so doing go that bit further in creating a society that does not treat an entire community as though their rights do not matter.
When I was born, homosexuality was considered a sin, a crime and an illness. Priests would rail against sins of the flesh. People were arrested for consensual sex. Doctors would strap electrodes to people's genitals in an effort to cure them. Here we are 47 years later, and the moral authority of the Catholic Church and its views on sexuality are in tatters. Laws criminalising homosexuality have been overturned. And the DSM, the Bible for medical diagnoses, no longer lists homosexuality as a psychiatric condition.
I say these things because it is important to remind ourselves that we have made progress. And I say them also to acknowledge those who have made that progress possible. For many, their activism was not simply about equality; it was about survival—those pioneers and activists who fought so hard for so many years. Many of them, lost to the HIV epidemic, are no longer with us. I take a moment to honour their memory. Many from the LGBTI community were so harmed by our prejudice that they took their own lives. I honour their memory. Some have simply passed on while our parliament has dragged its feet. I honour their memory. For them, we are too late. Honouring them means achieving this reform without further delay.
I want a future for my two boys where they grow up and thrive, where all people are treated fairly and with respect. I was talking to my younger son a few weeks ago about my job here in parliament. 'Have you made any laws in parliament today, Dad?' 'Well, soon we're going to change the law so that two men or two women can get married,' I said to him. 'Can't they already do that?' he said. It just didn't make sense to him. 'Not yet, mate.' 'Well, I'm going to marry Jesse when I grow up' was his response. It doesn't matter to me whether he does or doesn't—that's not the point. What's important for him is that he understands that love is love. In those words, what I heard was a young boy who hasn't had the years of prejudice and discrimination seep into him to cloud the way he sees the world. Let's hope that's the future we're creating for generations to come after us. What matters to me now is not only that he has that choice but that he lives in a society that says: if that's the choice he makes, he's valued, he's accepted and he's loved.
We are at the beginning of the end of the fight for marriage equality. I'm so proud of the response from the Australian people, who have turned something so awful into something beautiful, something wonderful, something incredible. It is a statement of values about the Australian nation. An Australia with marriage equality is a stronger, healthier, more loving country—one to grow up in and one to grow old in. Our campaign will continue until we get this done and until we end discrimination once and for all. This is a vote for optimism; it's a vote for hope; it's a vote for a better future. The movement for love is unstoppable.
I rise in support of this bill for marriage equality, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Two weeks ago the Australian people delivered a strong statement about equality by voting emphatically in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in Australia. It was a momentous statement to the LGBTI Australians that the broader Australian community accepts them for who they are. I say to my friends and colleagues and all those Australians for whom this decision represents a massive, strongly fought for milestone: I'm overjoyed that Australia has said yes. This was truly a wonderful moment for Australia. I want to thank the Australian people. I want to thank all those across this great country who voted yes, who campaigned for marriage equality and who made their voices heard on this important issue.
I cannot imagine the relief and joy that members of the LGBTI community in Australia must have felt when the announcement was made on 15 November. It was a proud day for Australia. Here in Parliament House as the Senate was sitting those in favour of a 'yes' outcome gathered in a committee room to watch the results come in from the ABS Australian Statistician. It was, indeed, a really uplifting and emotional occasion when finally he read out the results, albeit he did take his time. We had cakes, tears, champagne and cheers.
I want to echo the sentiment of Senator Wong that this result is a profoundly important statement to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians that they are accepted for who they are, that they too belong and that their love and families are equal. Unfortunately, the remarkable and joyous occasion of the 'yes' verdict does not detract from the long and difficult journey that the Australian LGBTI community have gone through. This has been a hard time for the LGBTI community, and we have all heard not just the personal stories of abuse but the stories of families fractured because of their different views.
Now that the postal survey has finally finished and the result has been an overwhelming and emphatic yes, it is time for the opponents of same-sex marriage to get out of the way and let us do what is right. For too long Australia's LGBTI community has been denied a fair go. There are no more excuses for inaction. Everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love. Now we have the responsibility here in this parliament to make that happen.
In my home state of Tasmania 20 years ago homosexuality was actually a criminal offence. We were the last state in Australia to have such a law. Only 20 years ago that changed and it was decriminalised. It took a challenge to the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Rodney Croome and his then partner, Nick Toonen, before we became the last state to remove our homophobic criminal laws. How far our state has come since then: in 1999 Tasmania enacted laws protecting LGBTI people from discrimination through our landmark Anti-Discrimination Act; in 2003 we established a same-sex relationship register as a precursor to marriage; and in 2013 Tasmania legislated to give full adoption rights to same-sex couples. This all happened under state Labor governments.
Now today as a Tasmanian Labor senator I will vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the Australian Senate. In voting for marriage equality I vote representing Tasmanians who overwhelmingly responded in support of same-sex marriage in the voluntary postal survey. In Tasmania the result of the postal survey was a landslide—191,948 Tasmanians voted yes. Of all Tasmanian responders 63.6 per cent voted yes, putting us ahead of the national average of 61.6 per cent. The love and respect for equality for all that has been demonstrated by Tasmanians in their support, in their strong turnout and in their strong 'yes' vote is indeed remarkable. I'm proud to say that more than 45,000 people in my electorate of Denison responded yes, which represents 73.8 per cent. This result was almost on par with the 'yes' vote here in Canberra and was the 14th best across all Australian electorates. Throughout Tasmania the result was an overwhelming yes. I'm beyond proud that every single electorate in my state voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
So how far Tasmania has come! Twenty years ago homosexuality was still illegal in Tasmania; it was indeed a crime. Today we can state unequivocally that the vast majority of Tasmanians support equality for LGBTI Tasmanians. The 'yes' campaign in Tasmania was principled, positive and inclusive. Volunteers came from all walks of life to stand for equality. In Hobart, local businesses had 'yes' posters in their shop windows, pubs hosted events, and I even saw rainbow colours on cats and dogs. This result is a profound statement of love and acceptance by Australians. It is a clear mandate to end discrimination and to end it now. The Labor Party has a long history of bringing an end to discrimination. It was under Labor governments that the White Australia policy was finally abolished, that legislation against discrimination based on race, sex and disability was introduced, and that discrimination against same-sex couples in many areas of law was also removed.
These changes never come easy. Equality only comes with a fight, and it is important to thank those who fight tirelessly to achieve it. Labor fought fiercely against the Turnbull government's proposal for a plebiscite on marriage equality. We knew it would be divisive for Australians, but once it was guaranteed to proceed Labor knew it was necessary to fight and to win. Labor owes its efforts over the past few months to the tireless work of strong figures in the Labor Party like Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Bill Shorten, Louise Pratt and the many others who worked and fought tirelessly for equality. While the results of the postal survey have been overwhelming, let us not forget the terrible thing this survey has done. This survey has divided Australians and provided a voice for the worst and most despicable homophobic abuse. We've seen the 'no' campaign run a campaign that has attacked parents and alienated children. They didn't tackle the issue of marriage. Instead, they ran a fear campaign that had nothing to do with marriage. Their actions have harmed all Australians. Senator Wong said it well when she said:
When the LGBTIQ community is diminished in this way, the entire Australian community is diminished. Indeed, when any in our community are diminished in this way, be they our First Australians, people of different ethnicities, people of different religions or people of different sexualities, the whole Australian community is diminished—because we are one people, because we stand together to uphold the principle of a fair go, because the rule of law applies to all of us equally.
So, my heart goes out to the LGBTI community who have been subjected to the questioning and judgement of their relationships. They have shown incredible courage and resilience not just over the last few months but over decades, campaigning for recognition and the basic rights that we—each of us—take for granted. To my friends that have had to travel to New Zealand to get married, that have themselves experienced that discrimination here in Australia and that have fought for change, today I stand in this place in support of you and your rights for equality.
Not only has this survey been deeply hurtful for LGBTI Australians; it has been a blatant abdication of this government's responsibility and a waste of $100 million of taxpayers' money—money that could have been better spent on mental health services for the LGBTI community, a group that we know is more likely to be at risk of mental illness and suicide as a result of the entrenched discrimination that they face. Or it could have been better spent tackling homelessness on our streets, or supporting other important social services. It was the parliament where this should have been voted on and legislated. It was not necessary to have this postal survey, and making Australians go through this process was an abdication by the government of its responsibilities. Despite that, the government has been told loud and clear what I think most of us in this place already knew—that Australians want marriage equality.
It has also been disheartening to witness the actions of conservatives who have attempted to use this momentous occasion to legislate protections not against discrimination but in favour of it. This is an opportunity for love, not hate. We need to be focusing on how we can reduce and remove discrimination in Australia, not finding new ways to entrench it. It beggars belief that, under Prime Minister Turnbull's weak leadership, the conservative members of the coalition have controlled every step of this process. They are the ones that pushed for the disingenuous postal plebiscite that we didn't want or need, and now they're trying to use this predictable and overwhelming result in favour of same-sex marriage to try to push us backwards. The Prime Minister continues to let them lead the government, and that is an absolute shame. Australia will not accept that. Australians have spoken, and they have said loudly and clearly that they want less discrimination, that they want same-sex marriage to be legislated by this parliament.
I recognise that there is a small percentage of Australians that have reservations, but I say to them that this bill provides the appropriate protections for them and those people. This bill is already a compromise. This bill has gone through a cross-party support process, through a Senate inquiry, that has come out with a report, which this bill follows from, not including provisions which are inconsistent with existing antidiscrimination law. It is so important to recognise that the Senate inquiry into this bill that we are debating and voting on already settled on a compromise. The compromise is already there. It does not need to be amended with further compromises to entrench further discrimination.
On that, I think it is very important to recognise that we are trying here to legislate for marriage equality while preserving important antidiscrimination protections for LGBTI Australians, not entrenching them further. Fiona McLeod, the Law Council of Australia president, said very clearly:
The people of Australia were asked if they wanted same-sex couples to marry and they have delivered a resounding 'yes'. They have not been asked if Australians' anti-discrimination protections should be wound back. This important distinction should be front of mind to all Parliamentarians.
Ms McLeod went on to say:
Australians have voted for marriage equality, they have not voted to erode anti-discrimination protections.
Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right.
Discrimination on arbitrary grounds, including sexual orientation is contrary to Australia’s international human rights obligations.
I ask senators who want to come into this place and move amendments to recognise those words from the president of the Law Council of Australia and to recognise the rigorous process that this bill has already gone through in the Senate committee inquiry. I call on them to think before they come into this place and try to attempt to wind back the protections against discrimination to LGBTI Australians that we currently have—that is not what this is about—and to also recognise what Australians have voted for in this marriage postal survey.
Australia stands on the brink of joining some 24 or more other nations in the world, representing more than 840 million people, in legalising same-sex marriage. It is disappointing that, having led the world on so many progressive issues, we are the ones who have lagged behind on this issue. But, finally, we have a piece of legislation that I hope will pass—and that I look forward to passing—this parliament. I want to recognise the work of Senator Dean Smith, and that of other senators who have joined his bill, in ensuring that we have a piece of legislation that can pass this parliament, that does provide the balance needed to pass this parliament, to provide marriage equality for Australians and to provide the protections that get that balance right. And it is that bill that we need to pass, not any watered-down, amended form.
Now it's time to finally join the right side of history on this issue and to demonstrate our nation's love and acceptance for Australians, regardless of gender, identity or sexuality. There are no more hurdles; there are no more excuses for delay. Australians have made their opinions clear. The Australian people have embraced acceptance and respect for our differences. We will not allow ourselves to be diminished as a country by discrimination. Now it is time for parliament to do its job. It's time for marriage equality.
I rise today to speak to this bill, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, with such joy and excitement. I've spoken on this issue a number of times in this place, as many of us have. Despite the fact that the law has been changed now for 13 or so years, people in Australia and people in this place knew from the beginning that the Marriage Act should not exclude people but should instead remain inclusive of all Australians and of all loving couples.
And look how far we have come. I want to give a shout-out to my home state of South Australia because South Australia was the first state in the nation to decriminalise homosexuality, 42 years ago. It led the way when it came to issues of adoption by same-sex couples. As states right around the country followed suit, we heard a grumbling from here in Canberra when the conservatives, led by the former Prime Minister John Howard, decided to stand up and block this progress towards equality and to outlaw love. In 2004, when the government of former Prime Minister John Howard pushed through legislation in this place to insert the words 'man and woman' into the Marriage Act, it was the stamp of ugliness on something that is meant to be about love and commitment, and something that is meant to be engulfed with joy and celebration. Yet we had a Prime Minister of our country wanting to actively exclude Australian loving couples. It was the wrong decision in 2004. In listening to the speeches in this place over the last few days of debate, it is heartening to hear that even some people in this place who voted for that amendment in 2004 have now come to the realisation that it was the wrong thing to do. It was a bitter thing to do. It has now taken up to 12 years to reverse. No long-winded debates and no postal survey were required when former Prime Minister John Howard decided that he would single-handedly outlaw love.
On 12 August 2004, that bill was voted 38 votes to six. The six people who voted against that bill, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, were three members of the Australian Greens and three members of the Democrats. Of course, the leader of the Greens at that time was former senator Bob Brown, a man who has always stood for the rights and equal treatment of others, and stood proudly in both the Tasmanian parliament and in the Australian parliament as a gay man. When Bob retired, in 2012, I said to him, 'Bob, I'm really sorry that we weren't able to reverse that awful law before your time was up.' Today I stand here with my Greens colleagues, finishing the job that Bob Brown started. Boy, this parliament has come such a long way. Twenty bills in this parliament have been introduced to reverse this awful law, seven of them embarrassingly so in my name. Twenty June 2013 was a turning point in this place. It was on that day in June 2013 when former senator Sue Boyce, a member of the Liberal Party from Queensland, decided to do what was right and be the first Liberal in this place to cross the floor. I hope, today and when we finally vote on this bill, that Sue is very proud of what she did, because it was an important break in the rhetoric of the debate in this place and the other that reform couldn't happen. Well, it can, it must, and it is.
We now have the bill before us introduced by Senator Dean Smith, which is a fantastic demonstration of progress and how fighting for what is right will eventually win. Millions of Australians have fought for this reform to happen: inquiry after inquiry, protesting on the streets, meetings with members of parliament, lobbying in workplaces and voting yes. It is now time for the Senate to do its job and to get this done without the muddying of the waters from those who have always been opposed to equal love. The growth of the movement has been so strong and so profound, from activists gathering in pubs, meeting in community centres and organising amongst their friends, to cities and airports being lit up with lights.
But why is this so important? It's because discrimination to some demeans us all; because equality is a symbol of a fair, caring and progressive society; because people know that equality in one's family is as important as equality in a country; and because we all have members of our families, our friends and our workplaces who deserve to be treated equally—equally under the law and in the eyes of society. Some may say that marriage is simply symbolic and that that doesn't matter. They've missed the point. Marriage is one of the most important symbols of our society. When two people, under law, agree that they will look after each other and that they will be committed to each other and they ask their friends, their family and their nation to back them and help them in doing that, that is the strongest commitment to another person that they can make.
I grew up in a small country town of 1,200 people, so difference stuck out like a sore thumb. Everyone knew everyone else's business. In my small high school, one of my best friends was gay and he struggled for a long time. I remember thinking that I never did quite enough to have his back. He was one of my best friends and when we hung out every now and again I would tell people to bugger off when they tried to pick on him. But I didn't quite feel like it was enough. It was just, 'Well, that's the way you are, so that's the way people are going to treat you.' Young people in Australia deserve better than that. The 'yes' vote that occurred two weeks ago is so important for sending a message to these young people right around the country, young people just like Jonathan that it's not good enough that you're just treated differently. The resounding 'yes' vote across the country is a symbol to every young person in this country that, it doesn't matter who you are, who you like, who you might have a crush on or who you fall in love with, the nation has your back; you are equal and you are loved.
A lot of people have fought long and hard for this reform. I remember when I first became a member of parliament that, within my first two weeks of being in this place—I didn't even have proper furniture in my office—I was visited by a number of activists: Rodney Croome, Corey Irlam and Alex Greenwich. They came and visited me and said: 'Look, Sarah, we know that you care about looking after people. We know that you care about human rights. We would really like you to have a look at this Marriage Act thing.' They told me their stories, and I said, 'All right; let's do this.' That was in 2008. My first private member's bill was to remove the discrimination in the Marriage Act, to remove those words 'man and woman' and replace them with 'consenting adults'. I want to pay tribute, in particular, to Alex. Alex opened my eyes to the fact that this reform, as much as it made sense to me, was not inevitable, that we would have to fight for this, that we would have to come together and fight to have it changed. We made a promise to each other that we wouldn't give up until we had won. Thank you for being here today, Alex. It is his birthday tomorrow, so I'm hoping we can have a vote on the second reading as a birthday present for him. This reform would not have happened if it weren't for people, like Alex Greenwich, who tirelessly fought and put their own lives on hold for this reform. The movement is lucky to have your leadership, Alex, and the people of Sydney are very lucky to have you as their local member. I'm sure they're looking forward to having you back a bit more after this debate and campaign is over. And I'm very lucky to have you as my friend.
The 15th of November 2017 will go down in history as the day our nation repaired its broken heart. It will go down as the day when progressive reform was seen as achievable in this country. The street parties that happened across the country on the day and the night of 15 November were so joyful that you could feel the buzz and the excitement in the air. There was a huge sense of relief. People who had fought for this reform for so long had been vindicated. People who had wished a 'yes' result for their friends and family felt proud that they had been a part of it. The nation repaired its broken heart, which had been damaged by former Prime Minister John Howard's bill. It is now up to this place to make sure that we get the job done and finished properly.
Every state and territory across the country voted yes, and in 133 electorates the vote was an overwhelming yes. There has never been a greater political mandate in this country than the one today for marriage equality. Yet, unfortunately, we have a handful of ultraconservative right-wing MPs and senators who are trying to spoil the celebration and ignore the will of the people. Well, it is to their downfall and peril if they try to disrupt this progress now. They are like that annoying relative whom you invited to the wedding and you wished you bloody hadn't! Go away. Sit down. Let the rest of us get on with the party. If you don't have anything nice to say about anybody, please keep it to yourself. Fortunately, however, they are a shrinking rump in this place, and they won't get their way. The Australian people have spoken. They have voted. They demand that the parliament get this done and get it done as quickly as possible.
So many people have fought long and hard for this reform: Bob Brown, a former Leader of the Australian Greens; and Christine Milne, also a former Leader of the Australian Greens. Janet Rice, my colleague here in the chamber, today speaks passionately about how this impacts on her in a very direct and personal way. I'm so proud, Janet, that we're going to be able to do this with you, and for you and Penny. Nick McKim, former Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, fought extremely hard in Tasmania over these issues and must be very chuffed with the results in Tasmania. Former senator Robert Simms wasn't here for long, but when he was here he had fire in his belly for this issue. I want to acknowledge Senator Simon Birmingham. You've always been on the right side of history on this issue. I want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, Penny Wong. This must have been an awful battle to have to weather, and kudos to you for your grace and determination.
We will get this done. We will stare down the haters. The Australian people have had their say and they want marriage equality delivered this year—no buts, no ifs, no excuses. As I said, discrimination against some demeans us all, and above all else, love is love and love matters, more than anything else in the world.
I have to agree with many of the speakers that have gone before me that this debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 is an extremely important one; it's a historic one. And there is no denying that the Australian people have been absolutely clear in their verdict on this issue. That is something that cannot be disputed whatsoever. Having said that, though, I don't intend to take up a great deal of the Senate's time today. I think there's been much said out in the greater community but also in this building over many number of years, and so I will get straight to the point about my views on this issue.
Like many others in this chamber, I spend a great deal of time out on the ground in the community working with and for Tasmanians on issues that they feel are important to them, and this issue was no exception, especially when the matter of the postal survey was out on the ground and in people's mailboxes. It certainly piqued people's minds as to how they felt about this issue, and it was something that many people in small communities and in large towns right across the state wanted to discuss with me. For the most part, I have to say it was a respectful debate that took place in Tasmania. Sadly, of course, we're always going to see elements on either side of the spectrum who go a little bit further than common sense would dictate and conduct themselves in an unbecoming way. People were able to raise their concerns and express their views in a very civil way. People came to me and said they were for it or they were against it and told me the reasons they held those views.
During my conduct of community consultation on this issue, I came across two people I wanted to make mention of in this debate—a same-sex couple I met. I toured a farm in the picturesque Derwent Valley in the southern part of Tasmania run by a young same-sex couple by the name of Bec Tudor and Bec Lynd. I went to tour their farm, see their works and listen to their proposals for the future to provide opportunities for further education for young Tasmanians who wanted to get into field of primary production, particularly in beef grazing and butchery. It was great having a look around Bec and Bec's farm. I should also mention that Bec Lynd was the Tasmanian Rural Woman of the Year and the Tasmanian finalist in the Australian Farmer of the Year. Looking around their farm and hearing about their great ideas for the future was a wonderful thing to do. At the end of the tour, though, the item that they wanted to discuss was, of course, marriage equality—something that was incredibly important to them, something that they felt very strongly about for obvious reasons. We were able to have a very, very respectful discussion about an issue that, as I say, was very clearly important to them.
The reason that I mention Bec and Bec, people I've come to know fairly well through the activities they're pursuing in our community, is that I think they typify what is good about Australia—something I have consistently said in this place and publicly about how Australians will conduct themselves, for the most part, in a public debate on an issue as sensitive and important as this one. Bec and Bec were very respectful. They heard where I was coming from and we were able to exchange views, and I was able to take home, from a very moving conversation, exactly how they felt and why they felt that way. I think they typify Australia as an innately good country, a mature country, a tolerant country and an inclusive nation.
Sadly, though, it's not always the case that people do conduct themselves in a mature and becoming way. We have our keyboard warriors who, in the time of social media, like to use the anonymity of the keyboard, internet and all sorts of social media platforms to have their say, to be spiteful and to be not at all constructive in the debate. But, thankfully, they are very much the minority. It is sad, though, that in this country some people don't want to front up and have their say face-to-face.
I made my position clear on this issue early in the debate. It's one that I held not because of fear, not because of hate—as some have characterised it—but out of love for my God and my faith. That's something I feel very strongly about. But I've also said from the outset of the debate that, if my home state of Tasmania were to vote in favour of changing the laws around the definition of marriage, we should obey the will of the Tasmanian people. So that's what I intend to do: to give effect to what the Tasmanian people clearly said they wanted done right here in the Senate.
Of course, this debate is going to be a long and involved one. It's one that's going to be canvassing a great many changes that have been proposed by various senators in this chamber. I do believe, as is the case with every piece of legislation that we consider in this place, that it's our job to ensure that the end result is the best piece of legislation, the best law, possible. We have to make sure that there are no unintended consequences. We have to make sure that concerns are heard and that, where possible, we address them. That's what we're paid to do in this place and that's what we should be doing through this debate, as long as it may take—but hopefully it doesn't take too long.
We know that senators have indicated that they will introduce amendments and so we will be considering them. We can't pretend that we're not going to be considering amendments in this debate. We need to do it, and I hope it is a respectful debate. But the job we have is to make sure that, at the end of this debate, the final product that we send off to the House of Representatives, the other place, is the best possible piece of legislation to do exactly what we need it to do and that it doesn't have any unintended consequences, whatever form that actually takes.
I want to touch on a paragraph in the speech made by my good friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith, the proposer of this bill. Towards the end of his speech, Senator Smith said:
Many Australians voted no because they fear a world where they won't be able to live their identity, where they can't fully express who they are. They fear a world where they will be shamed for who they are. They fear a world where their faith will be questioned by internet mobs and government tribunals. They fear a world where they mightn't be promoted at work if people knew what they believed or how they lived. They fear a world of ostracism for who they are and what god they follow. They fear a world where violence might be directed against them by a mad few for no reason other than the faith they profess, the place in which they choose to worship.
Senator Smith then went on to eloquently outline how what he'd just explained—with reference to the fears and the concerns held by those who voted no in the postal survey—mirrored the fears and anguish that the LGBTI community have experienced in the many years leading to this point in time. That is why it's so important in this debate and the debate that will take place in the other place that we ensure that this discrimination against any part of our community—any minority—is not repeated in any way. We have to listen to the concerns that have been raised by members of our community—the people who did vote no. We have to hear them. We can't ignore them. We need to make sure that, in completing debate on this legislation and in sending something off to the House of Representatives, we do so with a package that is inclusive and that does deal with the issue of discrimination, as we promised it would when we began this debate.
There is a lot that is worth saying about marriage. But there is also a lot that has already been said in the almost 50 hours of debate on this issue across the last two parliaments. Accordingly, as someone who has spoken on the issue in this place on quite a number of occasions in the last couple of years, I intend to keep my remarks very brief.
After the celebrations and the relief over the result of the postal survey last week, we now have a responsibility to deliver on the very clear mandate that we've been given. It's clear that the people of Australia overwhelmingly support marriage equality. There is no hidden army of social conservatives. Years of polling were right. The belief in marriage equality is a belief that unites us, not one that divides us. Senior members of this government have given a commitment that marriage equality will now be legislated swiftly and fairly. And I hope so. It is what the Australian people expect and it's what the LGBTI community deserve.
The LGBTI community has spent generations struggling for equality. It's been a very long road from criminalisation to tolerance and from tolerance to acceptance and respect. That struggle has asked a lot. It has asked a lot of the LGBTI community and it has taken a lot from them. The campaign during the postal survey has been no exception. The past few months have been bruising and hurtful for the LGBTI community. As the chair of the Senate committee looking into the conduct of the postal survey, I have seen much of the material that's been produced and distributed over the course of the campaign. This is material that has been put into people's letterboxes, sent to them on Facebook and spray-painted on their homes. It has been cruel, it has been crude and it has been spiteful. What this material tells us is that there are still a small number of people out there—a very small number, I believe—who are highly motivated and who wish to roll back the rights that have been acquired by gay and lesbian Australians. Harm to the gay community is not merely an unfortunate collateral of their campaign. It was one of their primary goals. And this is the context that, I think, we need to keep in mind when we consider the consequences of some of the changes to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 that have been floated in public debate.
I am conscious that a number of senators have flagged amendments to this bill in their public comments. While we're yet to see the detail of some of the amendments, I think what is proposed is to radically extend the reach of conventional interpretations of freedom of religion. In anticipation of seeing these amendments, I would like to make a few observations from a first-principles basis about how we might approach them. Many arguments have hinged on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's the article that provides for freedom of religion. I want to make two observations about that article. The first is this: it provides some quite helpful guidance, I think, about how we might think about this notion of freedom of religion. It states that everyone shall have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And that, of course, is something that we all accept and ought to embrace in the chamber. It goes on to say:
This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Those things are important. But it doesn't make mention of commerce. It doesn't make mention of decisions around employment. It doesn't make mention of decisions about rent or providing accommodation. It's very specific, in fact, about the kinds of activities that we might ordinarily understand to be involved in the exercise of freedom of religion.
The second observation I'd make is that the covenant specifically acknowledges that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. It's a reminder that we can't just pick and choose those articles of the covenant that we choose to engage with. We need to read it as a whole and we need to understand that this right to freedom of religion must be balanced against the other fundamental human rights that are contained in the covenant. Australia's antidiscrimination laws already reflect a settlement of this kind. They reflect a conversation we've had publicly over many decades. They prohibit discrimination on a range of grounds. But they do provide exemptions for religious institutions to conduct their own affairs consistent with their own religious beliefs, and the bill that's before us today also represents a settlement of this kind—settled, I should indicate, unanimously in a committee process that was populated by senators from both sides of the aisle.
Specifically, the bill exempts religious organisations from the obligation to recognise same-sex marriage. To those who might seek to extend these exemptions to allow individuals to discriminate in other domains—in commerce, in employment and perhaps in housing—I say: you really ought to proceed with caution. Australian history provides many examples of discrimination that was arguably grounded in religious belief. As a Protestant, living and working in Queensland, my grandfather complained bitterly about Catholic preferment in parts of the Queensland Public Service. Now, lest anyone here be concerned that I seek to reprosecute this grievance on some sectarian basis, I can provide some reassurance: I don't seek to do that. In fact, I'm absolutely confident that a similar or perhaps worse grievance might have been heard in Catholic households in Queensland in the same period. It wasn't unknown for job advertisements to be placed stipulating that no Catholics need apply, and it was quite ordinary in job applications for applicants to be asked for their religious affiliation as part of the interview process.
We should welcome a decline of sectarianism of this kind and its associated discrimination. This decline actually provides some indication of the boundaries we've set for ourselves as a society. Australians accept that we are all free to practise our faith, but we're rightly cautious about an interpretation of the obligations of faith that would seek to justify discrimination in every area of public life. So I say to those senators opposite who are considering amendments around religious freedom: we ought to think very carefully about how religious freedoms interact with other important freedoms that are found in the international covenant but also found to have been settled in sensible ways in Australian political history.
I want to conclude by acknowledging the hard work of all those who have fought for marriage equality. There are, of course, many people in this chamber and many people in the other place who have put their own lives into the public domain and opened them up for discussion in the pursuit of change. But I think the real heroes are those many people—not elected to parliament, living ordinary lives—who have borne the brunt of discrimination and who have nonetheless chosen to stand up and say: 'This is fair. I wish to marry the person that I love. I want that love to be recognised, and I want it to be recognised not just in the community but in law.' I'm extremely proud that the Australian community has endorsed that position and I look forward to such a law being made in this parliament in the very near future.
I too rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This is, as we all know, an important bill and an important debate. It's one we've been having for some time in this country. It's important to go over how we got here. In the 2016 election the coalition took to the Australian people a clear commitment to give them their say on whether or not to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. We have honoured that promise. We did it because giving people their say reflects the fact that the question of marriage is about the nature of one of the most foundational institutions not only in our society but in societies and cultures throughout the world. We should also note that advocates here in this place and indeed around the country said that this should just be left to the parliament. It's worth reflecting that the parliament has actually considered this issue four separate times between 2010 and 2013, and every time a bill to allow same-sex marriage failed.
Let's not forget as we debate this bill today that there are people in this very chamber who in the past have called their opponents bigots or suggested that those opposed to same-sex marriage hold those views. Those very same people will celebrate what they say is a great victory, knowing full well that in many cases, when given the opportunity, they said no in the parliament as well. We are reminded of Senator Wong's words in 2010 on the issue of marriage:
… I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect.
Now, of course, Senator Wong is entitled to change her views, as is anyone else. But I make the point, as I made during much of the discussion, that simply because some people have changed their views—and even a majority, as we found in the survey—it does not mean that the millions of Australians who hold a different view are somehow doing it as a result of bigotry, any more than Senator Wong was doing it as a result of bigotry in 2010. Former PM Julia Gillard has also changed her views subsequent to being in political life. It's important that we don't let the Labor Party rewrite history. They were in government when those bills came before the parliament, and many of their members and senators said no.
We pursued the option to give Australians a say—firstly, through a plebiscite and, then, because we weren't able to get support for that in the Senate because of Labor and the Greens opposition, through a postal survey to give Australians their say. I should note of course that this all could have been over with nearly 12 months ago had we had a plebiscite from the outset. With a turnout near enough to 80 per cent, it's clear that Australians did indeed want to have their say and they embraced the process.
I believe it was a largely respectful conversation. Unfortunately, despite that, there were some ugly examples of extremism. I was concerned to see at the University of Sydney a group of students who offered a free barbecue and an invitation to engage in conversation about these issues from the 'no' perspective physically and verbally abused and shouted down by 'yes' campaigners and the police needing to be involved to calm the situation. Heidi McIvor, one of the mums who featured in the 'no' campaign TV advertisements, received threats to burn down her church, the City Builders Church in Sale, where Heidi and her husband are both pastors. Their names and phone numbers were splashed all over Facebook and her husband was targeted with a steady stream of abuse. Dr Pansy Lai, who featured in the 'no' campaign TV advertisements, was targeted by a petition calling for her medical registration to be reviewed. She was threatened by people who called her medical clinic and said that they would turn up at her practice and that she had better ring security. A launch event in Melbourne was interrupted by gay marriage protesters yelling, 'Crucify the Christians,' and waving a banner declaring 'Burn churches not queers'.
I understand that there were examples of extremism by some people opposed to the change, and we saw a few examples of that. Can I say, though, that I didn't see during the debate any organisations arguing against the 'no' campaign in any way employing some of those tactics that groups like GetUp!, when it came to Pansy Lai, engaged in. I think that was an unfortunate part of some people's response. But, that said, the vast majority of Australian people didn't engage in that kind of behaviour, didn't engage in that kind of speech. In fact, the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said we trusted the Australian people to have a respectful debate, to do the right thing. There will always be fringe elements in our society who, regardless of what the debate is, regardless of the legal framework, will unfortunately do the wrong thing. But we do have faith in the Australian people.
Personally, my views on marriage are well-known and on the record. I supported the 'no' campaign and, while I remain firm in my convictions, I will, as I have said all along, accept the will of the Australian people, and the law will now be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. My views on marriage have been well-known for a long time. While all legal protections and rights should be afforded to same-sex couples, as the parliament has previously done, there is a place for preserving the unique nature of marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal situation to raise children. I said in an opinion piece early in the campaign that that doesn't mean that other families aren't able to provide stable and loving homes for their kids, or that married men and women aren't sometimes neglectful or abusive. But there is a uniqueness to the male-female relationship that as of today is still expressed in Australian law. It soon won't be as a result of this survey. In the end, I disagree with that. I voted no in the survey, but at the outset I said I would respect the will of the Australian people. If we are going to go to the trouble of asking them what their view is on this very important issue, we need to respect it.
I acknowledge that a little over 60 per cent of Australians expressed a view in favour of changing the definition. I said before the plebiscite that if the Australian people voted to change the definition of marriage I would honour that in the parliament. I will, therefore, be voting yes at the second reading stage to allow the bill to go forward. I will then be supporting amendments which strengthen the legislation, because I firmly believe that this cannot be a blank cheque—changing this legislation does have consequences. The reality is that in countries where the definition of marriage has changed there have been flow-on effects on education, parental choice, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are the facts, but those on the 'yes' campaign have assured us throughout this debate that changing the Marriage Act will have no implications beyond marriage. I would hope that to be the case, but that hasn't always been the case in other places.
After same-sex marriage was legalised in the UK we saw the Vishnitz Girls School, an orthodox Jewish school, fail three inspections by the education authority, Ofsted, and face closure because they refused to teach their students a Safe Schools type of curriculum. Once this became more public we saw lobby groups saying it was an untrue claim. However, an Ofsted spokesperson confirmed that they later amended the report on the school so it did not make any references to sexual orientation and gender reassignment, even though it initially had. In Canada, referring to a person other than by their preferred gender pronoun is now punishable by law. In Canada, programs like Safe Schools were optional before same-sex marriage was legalised but now have become compulsory, even for faith-based schools. There was a famous legal battle starting in 2010 involving Canadian parent Steve Tourloukis's request to exclude his children from these programs. This was rejected by the school because the programs were embedded in the curriculum. The Ontario Superior Court acknowledged his parental rights were being infringed upon but sided with the school and refused his request. In Canada, the Law Society of Upper Canada refuses to recognise law degrees of graduates from Trinity Western University because the students sign a personal agreement to reserve their own sexual activity for heterosexual marriage. In 2016, in Ontario, the All Families Are Equal Act of 2016 has replaced all references to 'mother' or 'father' in the law to 'parent', and birth certificates now enable up to four parents with equal rights to the child to be included.
Some would say that just because this has happened overseas doesn't necessarily mean it will happen here. That may be the case but that has often been the push. The question for us going forward will be: will we put in place protections to ensure that that sort of thing doesn't happen? I think that that's a very reasonable discussion for us to have. There'd be very few people who would defend many of those instances. There would be very few people who would want to see a situation where, in Australia, if you have a traditional view of marriage, you would somehow no longer be able to practise law. Those sorts of things would be a real concern if we saw the imposing of this view on the entire community. We can look at some concerning examples here in Australia which have happened before the law has changed, and we can consider whether or not those situations will get worse or better once the law is in fact changed here in the next couple of weeks.
During the campaign, we've seen activists and 'yes' advocates try to bully people into silence and threaten the jobs and livelihoods of people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Here in Canberra, we had the story of Madeline the kid's party entertainer who was fired because of a Facebook post saying she would vote no. We had the ACT education minister threaten the freedom of speech and religion of Brindabella Christian College because they advocated for traditional marriage during this campaign. We saw activists associated with GetUp! attempt to deregister Dr Pansy Lai after she appeared in an ad by the Coalition for Marriage. And, before this process began, we saw the attempt to drag Archbishop Julian Porteous before a tribunal because, as a Catholic bishop, he advocated for the Catholic view on marriage in a Catholic-school context. We must recall that Archbishop Porteous was expressing not just his faith but also the law of the land. His case is a stark example of the need to add protections into this bill to ensure freedom of speech and religion are protected. Of course, some of the efforts to silence people in Australia have thankfully failed. This has all happened before the law has changed, and advocates and activists have shown their intentions. Most people who voted yes don't want to see activists using the law to stop people from expressing their views. Most 'yes' voters don't fall into that category. But examples, both here in Australia and overseas, show that this fact doesn't necessarily stop the activists from seeking to do exactly that.
As we now consider this change in legislation, I think it is time for those who want this change to make good on all those assurances they have given in the last three months—that is, that this change in the definition of marriage will have no impacts on personal freedom of conscience, religion and speech. This vote has shown that over 4.8 million Australians voted against this change, and, if we are to be a truly representative body in this parliament, we do need to take their concerns seriously as well as the views of the majority who voted yes. The 'yes' side campaigned on a platform that was very clear: there would be no consequences to this change. Their mandate is to deliver this change, ensuring there is no deterioration of religious freedom and freedom of speech, nor changes to parents' choice in how their kids are educated.
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus told a group of same-sex marriage advocates that Labor would be happy to water down religious freedom protections in a same-sex marriage bill, or certainly seemed to suggest that in the comments that were publicised. I haven't heard whether he's retracted those comments, but I would welcome it if he has. I think this is completely out of step with the Australian public, because it is interesting that the Newspoll, which pretty accurately predicted how people would vote on the same-sex marriage survey, also, at the same time, asked about religious freedom protections, and 62 per cent of those polled said that parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage. Importantly, many people were undecided. Only 18 per cent in that Newspoll said that they didn't want to see those kinds of protections. The very same poll that suggested Australians would vote roughly 60-40 in favour of same-sex marriage had those very same people saying that they thought, if that change happened, they did want to see protections for religion and speech and parental rights. I call on those in the Labor Party and, indeed, others in the place who support changing the Marriage Act to repudiate these statements and stand by their commitment to protect religious freedom.
I note this bill includes protections for religious ministers so they cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. There are protections relating to church buildings and halls. I welcome these protections. I know that in the committee stage further amendments will be introduced to extend these protections. These will be welcome and, I believe, should be supported by senators because these freedoms are fundamental to any democratic and free society, and they apply to everyone.
As experience overseas has clearly demonstrated, it's not sufficient to take the narrow view of these rights and apply them only to ministers of religion and to church buildings. Freedom of religion and conscience is also important for what schools teach. It's important for people who take a different view to what the law says about marriage to not have to suffer discrimination or detriment as a result of those views. These are practical concerns, and legislation in this parliament needs to be clear about protecting those people as well.
In particular, experience overseas has shown that with same-sex marriage comes issues around parental choice, and I have highlighted some of those already. I firmly believe, and I think it should be relatively uncontroversial to say, that most Australian mums and dads believe that they get to have a say in what their kids are taught about values, about sex education, about gender and relationships. I think we should protect that. I think that parents would agree that, if a school is introducing a program that teaches gender fluidity, they should be informed; they should know about it. They should have the ability to not have their kids taught those kinds of programs. The Safe Schools program was in many cases introduced into schools without parents being aware of its contents. It taught about sexuality and gender in a way that most parents would not be comfortable with, and of course this happened before the laws were changed. We've now got a situation where the law will be changed. In other countries we have seen flow-on impacts, and it's been harder for those individual parents who object to be able to object, as I've pointed out. Again, those in the 'yes' campaign said there wouldn't be flow-on effects in education, so I think it's important that we back that up, that we don't just necessarily take it on trust, that we look at experience overseas and we look to avoid that. As I mentioned, in an orthodox Jewish school in the UK and in schools in Canada, we have seen those kinds of impacts.
In conclusion, I think that, overall, going to the Australian people and asking for their views on such an important issue—which, let's face it, parliament had been deadlocked on in the past—was the right thing to do. I think that showing respect to the Australian people as a result of that is also necessary. I think, in respecting the views of the majority, who voted yes, we shouldn't completely reject the views of the millions of Australians—the nearly 40 per cent—who voted no. Likewise, we shouldn't be ignoring the fact that many voted yes expressing the very strong view that they wanted to see these kinds of protections; they wanted to see these additional protections beefed up.
We now have a choice, as this parliament considers this bill. This bill will go through the parliament. The question for us will be: will this be a unifying moment for us as a nation or will it be one where the views of millions of 'no' voters, and in fact many 'yes' voters, are simply cast aside because the numbers are there to do it? I would commend senators to consider very carefully those amendments so that we can in fact have a unifying moment here in this parliament and not one that simply brushes aside the millions and millions of Australians who have a different view or are concerned about what these kinds of changes could mean.
I too rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I want to say at the outset that I'm extremely proud to do so. I've spoken in this chamber many times before of my absolute, 100 per cent, support for changing the Marriage Act to enable LGBTIQ people in Australia to be able to marry, if that's their choosing, the person that they love. We know, and certainly those of us that have advocated strongly for same-sex marriage know, that love is love and it should not discriminate. It's only recently been discriminatory in this country. We know that, under Prime Minister Howard, the Marriage Act was changed to insert the definition of 'a man and a woman'. As many of us noted in this chamber before, that was done without any kerfuffle, with no public consultation; it was simply done and it became the law. Sadly, that simple act made many Australians feel like somewhat second-class citizens.
I want to focus on that for a little bit because whether the Marriage Act is changed or not makes no difference to me, none whatsoever. I have a choice right now about whether I choose marriage or not. In my own personal circumstance, I've chosen marriage twice and I'm choosing, in my long-term relationship right now, not to choose it a third time. That's always been my choice, but sadly it has not been the choice of many dear friends of mine. Whilst I think that marriage is a somewhat outdated, old-fashioned concept, I nevertheless accept that to deny people the opportunity to make that choice for themselves—to choose to marry the one that they love—is a deeply personal and discriminatory matter. What has well and truly opened my eyes over the last few years, and particularly during this debate, is how personally that issue of not being able to marry the one that you love—of having that choice—resonates with people.
My very dear friends Carolyn and Dee have been in a committed relationship for more than 20 years. They are some of my best and closest friends, and I love them dearly. Recently we celebrated a milestone in their relationship. They don't actually want to get married, but the fact that they've been denied that opportunity has made them feel like second-class citizens. That's what has hurt me throughout this debate. I'm someone who stands for fairness and equality, and I'll fight to the bitter end for things to be fair and equal. I really had no understanding of how LGBTIQ people in our community felt, but I was standing with Carolyn and Dee when the decision came down a couple of Wednesdays ago and both of them cried. In her day job, Carolyn is a tough union official. She's the secretary of United Voice in Western Australia, and every day she's confronted with unfairness and she's out there advocating fiercely for the rights of workers. Rarely have I seen Carolyn cry, but on that Wednesday morning—it was 7 am in Perth when we got the decision; it was nice to get it so early—she cried, not, as I said at the outset, because she personally wants to get down on bended knee and ask Dee to marry her but because it lifted that view that she felt had been imposed upon her that somehow she was a second-class citizen. I know that many of my LGBTIQ friends who are in the same circumstances have also felt that.
Whilst Labor fought the survey bitterly—it wasn't where we wanted to go, but, once we were in the fight, we were determined to campaign really hard and to make sure that we got a very strong 'yes' vote—this survey result has meant something much more to many Australians in our community. It has finally said to them: 'You are equal.' I can't believe that someone as smart and sassy and as strong a fighter as my friend Carolyn would feel like that, but she did. At the Labor Party conference this year, she gave the most amazing personal speech. She shouldn't have had to do that. I haven't had to stand up and talk about all of the awful trials and tribulations that I had as a 15-year-old. But we expected that, and people in same-sex relationships have done that right across Australia. Those personal stories have been heartfelt and deeply, deeply personal, as it was for Carolyn. She talked about the struggles she had as a teenager. She gave a very powerful personal account of all of the issues she had faced—disappointing her parents, outing herself and acknowledging that she would be an outcast in society and that some people would judge her because of her sexual preference. All of that was deeply personal. So, when the 'yes' vote came down, for people like Carolyn, who, as I say, is not going to choose marriage, it said to people like Carolyn and Dee: 'You are equal. We live in a fair society. We believe that you should have the same rights as everyone else.'
The other person that really struck me during this debate was Jennifer Westacott. I listened to her in an interview on radio. Jennifer Westacott is not someone I would normally agree with. She heads up the Business Council. She has supported penalty rate cuts. She is not very fond of unions. She doesn't really align with my values. Jennifer Westacott, who I would certainly acknowledge is someone who has done very well for herself in her life, as she has been at the forefront of business in Australia, described the feeling that she had all her life as one of being an outsider. Jennifer Westacott, who is central to what happens in business in this country, who lobbies the government and the opposition about a whole range of issues and who comes across as very confident and able—of course, she is very accomplished—said she has felt like an outsider her whole life because of her same-sex relationship. She felt that her relationship was treated without the respect and legitimacy given to married couples. That interview—probably about six or seven weeks ago on Radio National on the Breakfast program—was quite astounding. I sat and listened and thought, 'Wow, if someone like Jennifer Westacott and someone like Carolyn Smith at United Voice can say how they have felt like second-class citizens in this country, that's really saying something.'
When that 'yes' vote came down so overwhelmingly a couple of Wednesdays ago, it just lifted that cloud. That's a really profound thing. It's not really something that we have celebrated in this country. Yes, all people who love one another should have the right to get married if that's their choice, but this other deeply profound lifting of that shroud of people feeling, personally, that they are no longer second-class in our country is something much greater. The fact that that's now a reality is something that really pleases me. It's something that I'm very proud of.
The other thing that I'm proud of is that I come from the state of Western Australia. Sometimes, we're a bit conservative in the west. We don't always jump on board. We had the Liberals at their recent conference—thankfully, they have backed away from that now—saying that we should secede and become our own state. But they've put that to one side, thankfully. We're a long way from the east coast and we now have a three-hour time difference. So, sometimes, we feel a bit left out, a bit unloved and a bit neglected. But, in my state of Western Australia, we had a really high participation rate, with 78.4 per cent of Western Australians taking the opportunity to vote—and we voted yes overwhelmingly. Every electorate in Western Australia, from the south of Western Australia to the north, voted yes overwhelmingly. I was so proud. Western Australians, you outdid me.
Before I go on to talk some more about that, I just want to mention my dad. He passed away a couple of weeks ago. He was 95 years old. He was a wonderful dad. I loved him deeply and I'm very sad that he's gone. One of the last things that he did was vote yes. I was a little bit scared to broach the conversation with him, but, as an advocate for marriage equality, we were being urged to have that conversation with our family members. So I plucked up the courage—it's not that dad was a scary person; he wasn't; but it was pretty personal to ask him how he was going to vote—and I said, 'Dad, how are you going to vote in the same-sex postal survey?' He said to me, 'I'm voting yes because the time has come.' So, for me, that pretty much summed up the view of a lot of West Australians—that the time had come. One of the last things my dad did before he passed away was to vote yes in the same-sex postal survey. I'm proud of my dad, anyway, but I'm very proud that he did that. He came out of hospital, got his ballot paper out, marked it up and sent it off.
I'm also proud of the work that our team did in our duty electorates. As Labor senators, we have electorates that we are responsible for across the country, and my electorates are Curtin, Moore and Swan. I have to say I'm taking some credit for the 'yes' vote in those electorates. They had outstanding results—certainly amongst the highest across the country. I'm very pleased to say that if we look at the seat of Moore—which is held by Mr Ian Goodenough, who has been a very public 'no' campaigner in this debate—84 per cent of the electorate of Moore participated and, overwhelmingly, they voted yes. In the seat of Swan, which is the seat that I live in, our member is Mr Steve Irons. I'm not quite sure of his views on marriage equality—and I say that as a voter in Swan—because he certainly never shared them with the electorate. So I don't really know whether Mr Irons supports yes or no. I know that very early on he advocated a 'no' vote, but I'm not going to hold that up as his view now, because I don't know. But the fact that, as a voter of Swan, I don't know his views says something about his inability or lack of initiative to get out there and campaign. Nonetheless, I campaigned in Swan. We campaigned very strongly for a 'yes' vote and that's what we got: a very strong 'yes' vote in Swan, my own electorate that I live in. I'm very pleased to report that.
The last electorate we worked hard in was Curtin, which is held by Ms Bishop, our foreign minister. She came out at the eleventh hour and said that she was supporting a 'yes' vote, but, to the best of my knowledge, she certainly didn't campaign in Curtin. By the time she came out and said yes it was a little bit late, but Curtin recorded a very high participation rate. Something like 84 per cent of voters in Curtin participated in the postal survey, and we recorded a 'yes' vote there. I wore my heart on my sleeve. I do that a lot, but over this issue I was proud to. I went out in Moore, which is considered to be quite a conservative electorate, and pushed the 'yes' vote. I pushed the 'yes' vote in Swan and in Curtin, and Western Australians agreed with me and voted overwhelmingly, in those three electorates, to change the Marriage Act.
The other electorates in Western Australia held by the Liberals have been disappointing. We have heard very little in Durack, very little in O'Connor and very little in the seat of Canning, which is held by Mr Hastie, another very strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Canning is an interesting electorate. It is often conservative, but it voted, I think, above the national average in favour of same-sex marriage. In the seat of Forrest, we heard very little from Ms Marino about her views on same-sex marriage, yet it, like every other electorate in Western Australia, returned a 'yes' vote.
Normally in this country we say that 50 per cent plus one is enough, and that's democracy. In this case we got a much higher vote than that, so I'm somewhat perplexed and disappointed that we are still having a debate about same-sex marriage. It is time for us to get on with the job. Our job, as legislators in this place, is to legislate for fairness, to legislate for equality and to legislate so that Carolyn and Dee and people like Jennifer Westacott no longer feel like second-class citizens in their own country. That's the job before us. There is no proof that anyone who voted no—which was their absolute right to do so—held any other views. Indeed, we know that religion in this country is on the wane. The number of people in the last census who said they held a religious view dropped. So to suddenly take the 'no' vote—as some are doing in this place—and say, 'People who voted no meant this and they meant that, and they want further religious freedoms,' is an absolute nonsense. In the same way that I couldn't say they didn't vote that way, others surely cannot say they did vote that way because they wanted a certain outcome. People were given a choice in a non-binding postal survey to vote one way or the other on the question of whether the Marriage Act should be changed. That's what we were given the opportunity to vote on, and, overwhelmingly, Australians voted yes. That's because we still are an egalitarian country. That's because in our hearts we believe in fairness. That's because in our hearts we believe in equality. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with what's taught at schools—goodness me!
When my kids were at school, I wanted them to have a good education; that's what I wanted. Yes, I was an active parent and, from time to time, would have a bit of a barney with the teachers. There were some things in the curriculum that I disagreed with, but it was the curriculum and I wanted my children to have a balanced education, not necessarily to pick up the left-wing Labor views of their mother—even though I'd like them to. They had to be free to make up their own minds; that's how our education system is in this country. Yes, bullying at school is a big issue. It's a big issue if you're slightly different, if the colour of your skin is different, if the shape of your eyes is different or if your sexual orientation is different. So, surely, we as fair Australians and Australians who believe in equality want our schools to teach about not judging people because they look a bit different to you, have a different political view or have different point of view—that is what our education system does. As for this nonsense about bakers, I'm seriously not going to go there. I can't believe that we've had any time in the media devoted to giving exemptions to bakers. I mean, please, that makes us look like a joke!
It is time in this parliament, finally, for us to just get this done. In the words of our leader, Mr Shorten, a couple of Wednesdays ago, 'Today is the day that we celebrate and tomorrow is the day that we legislate.' I'm really proud to have had this moment in the Senate today to say, 'Let's get on with this.' Let's make marriage a reality for anyone who loves their partner deeply enough to want to make that commitment. But, more than that, let's remove the stigma for the Jennifer Westacotts, the Carolyns and the Dees of the world, and the thousands and thousands of other couples who currently feel like they are second-class Australians. Regardless of where you stand in this debate, no-one wants that, and there's one way to avoid that, and that's to get on with same-sex marriage—to get it done and to make it a reality.
To Senator Dean Smith: thank you so much for your speech. I found it incredibly moving and it captured the unique circumstances that are about to deliver marriage equality. To senators Janet Rice, Penny Wong, Louise Pratt and Sarah Hanson-Young: your speeches also took us into the intensity of this issue in terms of people's feelings and the long road that it has taken to get us to this point. Thank you so much for your words and actions. I found them extremely moving.
As we all know, the people of Australia came to support marriage equality long before parliament did. Achieving marriage equality is another clear example of the importance of social movements, how the actions of people push our MPs to stand up and vote for what is right. For years, the tireless efforts of countless LGBTQI and community groups have kept the issue of marriage equality on the national agenda and swayed public opinion in strong favour of marriage equality—thanks to the numerous rallies regularly held across the country; to the Mardi Gras and other forms of pride marches held around the country; to the lobbying efforts; to all of those efforts in schools and universities; to dinners with friends and having all of those conversations that built up such wonderful, colourful, loving actions; and to a strong movement coming forward. Yes, at times there was a difference in tactics, but there was always a united and clear purpose: that marriage equality was well overdue to be passed into legislation.
There will be MPs and political parties who will try and claim this win as their own, but this win sits squarely with the LGBTI community and their supporters across Australia. In Australia, we can trace this issue back to a Saturday night, 24 June 1978, when a group of people marched down Sydney's Oxford Street towards Hyde Park, dancing, singing, skipping and walking to the sounds of 'Glad to Be Gay' and 'Ode to a Gym Teacher'. The music was blaring out of a sound system on a truck. The group chanted to passers-by and people in nearby pubs and clubs: 'Out of the bars and into the streets!' Despite receiving permission from the police for the march, upon arriving at Hyde Park the police confiscated the truck and the sound system. Undeterred, the crowd continued marching. They went up to Kings Cross, and there things changed—the atmosphere changed. It was very wrong what the police executed that night. The revellers were met with violent repression—53 people were arrested and many injured. These marchers these days are known as the '78ers, and that march was the very first Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It was arguably this night and those people that kickstarted the mainstream LGBTQI movement in Australia, a movement which has just celebrated a momentous victory. That's why I wanted to bring these things together. Maybe on that night they didn't talk about marriage. They probably couldn't have imagined that that's where things would come to, but we really do trace what is happening here today back to what happened on that day in Sydney in 1978.
In 2004, then Prime Minister John Howard saw the writing on the wall as more countries started to legislate for marriage equality. In a calculated and what I would call a hateful move, the Prime Minister sought to amend the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act legislation to be explicitly between a man and a woman. It was totally unnecessary, but he did it, for really wrong and very dangerous reasons. This amendment, sadly, was supported in parliament not only by the Liberals and Nationals but also by Labor at the time. It was the Greens and Democrats who voted together to oppose that amendment. LGBTQI Australians were betrayed on that day. It has been a long history and, for many, I acknowledge, a very painful journey to this point.
Since 2004, there has been an ongoing diverse and beautiful movement to achieve marriage equality. Like all social movements, there have been peaks and troughs, a variety in tactics and strategies. There have been fallouts and bitter disappointments, but a campaign that at its core was about the right to equality and love was always going to win—and it is, and it has. In April 2005, in Tasmania, Greens MP—now Senator—Nick McKim introduced into the Tasmanian parliament the first marriage equality bill presented to a parliament in Australia. It was backed by the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and, after the first stage of the debate, the bill was sent to an inquiry. I was fortunate in that I was in the New South Wales state parliament at that time. Senator McKim rang me up and explained what he had done, and we discussed doing it in the New South Wales parliament. I was in the position to be able to come forward with a New South Wales application of that bill. That was discussed with our New South Wales Greens LGBTI working group, and I was able to introduce the bill into the upper house. Neither of these bills were successful because again, sadly, the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals were in lock step to deny Australians the right to marry. But, again, because of the pressure of public opinion, because of the rise of a very creative and hardworking social movement, it's changed, and we're seeing that play out here today. We still have some final stages to go through, but the momentum is with us. You can see that change is in the air.
This win sits with the Community Action Against Homophobia, which has organised countless rallies and actions in support of marriage equality and other issues experienced by the LGBTI community going back nearly two decades. There is an incredible history of strength there. This win also sits with the queer collectives at university campuses across Australia that provide a safe, nurturing and educating environment for LGBTQI youth. This win also sits with the '78ers, whom I just mentioned, whose bold and brave march on that Saturday night so many years ago inspired so many, gave courage to so many and is a legacy that we can be so proud of. This win sits with Equal Love, an organisation that has been fighting for marriage equality for over a decade and which hasn't been afraid to push the envelope for LGBTQI rights. This win sits with Democracy in Colour, Muslims for Marriage Equality, the Asian Australian Alliance and other community groups who reached out to culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This win sits with ACON, Australians for Equality, Australian Marriage Equality and GetUp! and, of course, this win sits with the thousands of people and organisations who worked together these past few months to bring home a 'yes' result.
In our celebrations at the recent 'yes' result, we must pay heartfelt homage to the countless community groups, activists and LGBTQI communities whose tireless, often painful, efforts across decades allowed a 'yes' outcome to be achieved. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the immense contribution of the union movement in achieving the 'yes' result. Around the world, the labour movement and the LGBTQI movement have a long history of supporting each other's struggles. Here in Australia, there has been a similar history of support.
I often speak of the green bans as one of the great social movements in Australian history. During this time, in 1973, a student was expelled from student accommodation at Macquarie University because he was gay. The student representative council turned to the Builders Labourers Federation, now a union called the CFMEU. They asked for assistance. Macquarie University at the time had a whole lot of building under construction. The workers met, they discussed the issue and then they refused to finish the job until the enrolment of the young man—Jeremy Fisher—was reinstated. That was actually courageous. It was courageous for any group of people to take action, and here you had building workers at the university standing up for a young man who had been victimised and lost his enrolment. He got back in university because of their action. That was an example of a green ban at the time. Some people called it a 'pink ban'. But it was unionists standing with the LGBTQI community.
This support and solidarity between the union movement and the LGBTQI community has been out in force again in the past months. During the marriage equality survey, the union movement showed immense support for and solidarity with the LGBTIQ community. I quote here from a poster designed and disseminated from the Victorian Trades Hall Council. These are their words:
99% of the work we do as union members is about fighting for our right to decent, safe, well-paying work. But that's one fight in a larger battle to build a just and fair society for everyone.
We can't build a just and fair society for everyone while our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) workmates are treated differently to other workers. They have the same right to happiness as every other union member and the same right to have their loving, committed relationships treated equally.
We stand up and fight for all workers, because equality is union business.
I would like to make a special mention of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. Their work was outstanding. That leaflet was so significant. I will also mention other peak bodies and unions who were involved in the marriage equality campaign but, as I said, the Victorian Trades Hall Council went above and beyond expectations. They produced beautifully designed action guides, conversation guides, campaign guides, T-shirts, posters, fantastic social media graphics and so much more, including possibly the largest rainbow flag I have ever seen fluttering across the Victorian Trades Hall Council. I was so fortunate I was in Melbourne and so fortunate I went down the right street and there it was.
The Victorian Trades Hall Council organised phone backing, doorknocking and union member turn-outs for rallies. They organised the huge 'yes' marriage result street party outside Victorian Trades Hall. I was in Canberra, obviously, that week and I was able to join the Canberra street party. That was fantastic! But I would have so loved to have been outside Victorian Trades Hall Council and I would have so loved to have been on Oxford Street. But, still, I had the privilege to be in parliament to see the happiness and the joy that so many people experienced when that announcement came through and I had the privilege to join the street party that night.
Many other unions and peak bodies, including the ACTU, put time, money, staff and resources into the marriage equality campaign. For that, I thank them most sincerely—and, I know, so many people do. The union movement has shown fantastic support and solidarity during the marriage equality survey, all the while continuing to undergo shocking attacks from the Turnbull government. We know how often anti-union legislation is being pushed through this place. The marriage equality survey has once again shown that we are stronger together. I hope that other progressive movements and political parties show as much support and solidarity for the union movement in its fight against a war on workers as the union movement has shown for the marriage equality campaign.
We need to also consider the flawed process of the marriage equality survey. Rather than show leadership and bring on legislation in this parliament, the Prime Minister forced Australia to do his job for him. The cost was not only the $122 million spent but the fallout of an unregulated and vicious campaign that spread unchecked information and entrenched unnecessary and unacceptable divides in our community. As we celebrate the 'yes' result, we must acknowledge that a 'no' result was returned in some parts of Australia. In my state of New South Wales, we had the lowest 'yes' result, with 57.8 per cent responding yes and 42.2 per cent responding no. That 42 per cent of New South Wales residents who participated in the survey and responded no is, understandably, worrying for the LGBTQI community. I can't help but wonder how further along our society would be if the Turnbull government had, instead, used that money to run an education campaign on what changes the marriage legislation would actually mean for Australia—that nobody would be impacted unless they chose to get married, that, if they were a same-sex couple, they would be able to get married and that, after that, nobody was going to be detrimentally impacted. There really did need to be so much more work done by the government, but the Prime Minister shirked it. We measure a moral government by how it treats vulnerable members of society. Many in the LGBTQI community are vulnerable. As with many other issues, the Turnbull government failed in this.
A lot has been said about the high prevalence of 'no' responses in Western Sydney. As often accompanies conversations about Western Sydney, there was an immediate, uncritical reaction from many to lay blame with migrant communities. This, of course, is lazy, incorrect, and xenophobic. But would we have ended up in this divisive situation if the government had, instead, provided the public with a rational and clear case for equality? Had the government simply done its job, the divides in our society would not have been further entrenched and, maybe, not all sides of the debate would feel persecuted. Especially because of these circumstances, I would like to acknowledge and thank the important contributions of writers, political commentators, activists and LGBTQI residents of Western Sydney who have responded to these xenophobic, perfunctory claims so articulately and passionately. I would like to acknowledge and thank Greens New South Wales members Rachael Jacobs and Denise Abou Hamad, who wrote in the Huffington Post about the many complexities that resulted in the 'no' result in parts of Western Sydney, and the need for campaigners and allies to work in Western Sydney in solidarity with the LGBTQI community there and to help with work of informing people about equality and LGBTQI rights.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Democracy in Colour—in particular, Carrie Hou and Divinia Blanca, who undertook incredibly important work engaging with culturally and linguistically diverse communities during the marriage equality campaign. Carrie wrote an important analysis of why parts of Western Sydney returned a 'no' result, in particular highlighting that the 'no' camp campaigned aggressively in parts of Western Sydney, while the 'yes' campaign largely focused on other areas. I would like to acknowledge and thank Junkee political editor Osman Faruqi, who succinctly pointed out that all the comments about 'Muslims being to blame for the "no" vote', were not only incredibly Islamophobic but also statistically impossible. I would like to acknowledge and thank Western Sydney writer Albert Santos, who highlighted in Junkee that the majority of people scapegoating migrant communities for the 'no' result in parts of Western Sydney have most likely never stepped foot in Western Sydney and are relying on lazy stereotypes and a complete lack of understanding of the region to take their analysis. There is no doubt there is a lot of work to be done to achieve true equality and build broader support for LGBTI rights. We need to stand with the LGBTQI communities who live in areas that returned a 'no' result and help to make them feel safe in their own suburbs and regions.
To everyone who has paraded in the Mardi Gras, marched at marriage equality or Safe Schools rallies, been involved in queer collectives on campus or held a fundraiser, film screening or information night, this win is for and because of you. To everyone who has been arrested, been the target of police brutality or been attacked on the street for expressing their sexuality, this win is for and because of you. To everyone who has kissed a partner in public in defiance of strange looks, who has educated a co-worker who used derogatory language about sexuality, who has stood up to a homophobic relative at a family dinner, this win is for and because of you. To everyone who campaigned for LGBTQI rights, from the dismantling of homophobic laws to calling for the rights of LGBTQI refugees on Manus and Nauru, from Safe Schools to LGBTQI homelessness and everything in between, this win is for and because of you. I would like to acknowledge the entire LGBTI community, who have experienced blatant homophobia over the past months because of the way the Prime Minister chose to conduct this.
Our work here isn't done. Let's take the energy and the alliances we've established, bring the legislation home in parliament, leave our safe bubbles and campaign in areas with 'no' results and build strong campaigns tackling the high rates of homelessness and suicide in LGBTI communities, stopping the violence— (Time expired)
Marriage as a social unit pre-existed the nation-state and parliaments. It is common to all cultures. Its very rationale was about the best way for raising and socialising the next generation, providing the certainty and stability of their biological parents and the diversity of a female and male role model. In its variations between cultures, the 'man, woman, children' element of marriage is the common denominator. It is about not the adults but the potential children. It is 'other' focused, not 'self' focused. As even the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell opined:
… it is through children alone that sexual relations became of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution.
Our own Australian Law Reform Commission noted that marriage in Indigenous communities is a central feature of traditional Aboriginal societies, and the union was considered to be strengthened by the birth of the first child. So, here, too, we have marriage and raising of children inextricably interlinked.
It's not surprising that the UN in its charter acknowledges as a fundamental human right the right of marriage to men and women to, you've guessed it, form a family—in other words, to have children. Same-sex marriage is not a recognised human right such as freedom of speech, marriage between a man and a woman, and freedom of religion, amongst others. That, of course, of itself does not stop parliaments from legislating for it, and I suspect at the end of this process Australia will have changed its law on marriage. It's a change I regret for the sake of our children, but I recognise Australians voted for such a change. But let's be clear: what were Australians asked in the postal survey? They were asked: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' The legislation before us is not restricted to same-sex couples; it goes a lot further. The explanatory memorandum tells us, under item 3, on the definition of marriage, at paragraph 13, that same-sex couples—and others—will be able to marry. It goes on:
For example, this would include an intersex person … and a gender diverse person who is legally recognised as having a non-specific gender.
The bill therefore goes further than that which was approved by the Australian people and adopts the ideology of gender fluidity, which is part of the much discredited and rightly reviled and Orwellianly misnamed Safe Schools program. If gender fluidity had been part of the campaign, the result may well have been different. If this was always intended then the question should have been explicit. Australians deserve an explanation as to why it wasn't.
So much for a simple amendment to allow gays to marry. The gender agenda is already being stretched and the bill goes a lot further than that for which the Australian people gave their approval. Many 'yes' voting Australians rightly feel betrayed that we are debating changes for which they did not vote. During the lead-up to the postal survey, we were told by 'yes' advocates that nothing would change other than gay people would be allowed to marry. We now know that to be incorrect. When our fellow Australians engaged in the consequences argument, there was a shift in popular sentiment. From an alleged consensus position of over 70 per cent in support, we saw a 10 per cent collapse to 60 per cent in the actual survey result. To staunch the collapse in support, Australians were told by 'yes' advocates that religious freedoms would be protected. Indeed, one promised their support for religious freedom was stronger than their support for changing the Marriage Act. Yet now we are being asked to wave through the changes without any substantial protection to freedoms, such as parents' rights to guide the moral education of their children, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, all of which are fundamental, well-established, internationally accepted rights enshrined in treaties and covenants—rights which are inalienable to each of us; rights which government can neither take away nor give, because they are inalienable.
As a direct result of the consequences argument in this debate, we are now to have a full inquiry into religious freedoms—but after this bill. Having been told religious freedoms are more important it seems strange we should deal with these matters in reverse order. Further, we were told by a 'yes' advocate: 'The key question is who do you trust—a coalition government that respects the rights and liberties of the individual or Labor and the Greens, who don't care about religious liberty?' And here we are with a bill, that Labor and the Greens have accepted as a starting point, that does restrict freedoms. Even Mr Shorten said he wouldn't support legislation which impinges on religious freedoms. Well, it's time to deliver on that promise. Given the Australian people were told that these freedoms would not be assaulted or compromised, one would have expected full agreement with the proposed Paterson bill. Yet, regrettably, the vehemence of the opposition from some quarters exposes that there are consequences and they actually want the rights-restricting consequences—consequences which are there for all to see in other countries that have changed the definition of marriage: consequences threatening private schools, closure of charities and parental rights.
These are not imaginary. For example, in the UK, the Charities Commission for England and Wales removed the charitable status of 19 Catholic adoption and foster agencies because they preferred not to adopt or foster to same-sex couples. In Johns v Derby City Council [2011], the English High Court supported a local council decision that a Christian couple with traditional views on sexual ethics who had very successfully fostered many children would not make suitable foster carers anymore because they would not be open to promoting or accepting a homosexual lifestyle. In Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman was successfully sued in the Benton County Superior Court for declining a request to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Flowers had been provided previously to the complainant, so what caused the issue for the florist was not the person's attribute but the particular activity. In the United Kingdom, the Vishnitz Jewish girls primary school failed its school assessment on one criterion, which was its inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment—in a primary school.
There is no doubt there are consequences—consequences which sacrifice long-established rights on the altar of an aggressive, politically correct agenda. We can avoid this travesty in Australia by acknowledging the reality of these disturbing examples from overseas and providing the protections needed. The substantial 'no' vote, at 38.4 per cent, cannot be arrogantly dismissed as of no consequence. It is, in fact, three to four times the Greens vote. To assert that, because the 'no' vote lost, its voice should be obliterated from the public discourse is a display of ugly hubris. The parliament has an opportunity to deliver for the 'yes' voter, by changing the definition of marriage, and for the 'no' voter, by alleviating and ameliorating some of their very valid concerns.
'No' voters are good, decent Australians. They voted for fairness and love, amongst other things, just as much as 'yes' voters. To deliberately alienate 38 per cent of your population is never wise. Indeed, most statesmen, on winning an election, reach out and recognise that not everyone voted for them, and they will seek to govern for all. Similarly, on this occasion, where a victory has been won for the 'yes' case, it is important to recognise the concerns of the 'no' campaigners and voters. Having spoken with literally thousands of them, I know them to be decent, loving, concerned Australians. Indeed, two 'no' advocates I know, when facing abuse from a 'yes' voter, invited them for coffee and a chat, which saw both 'yes' voters break down, cry and apologise.
'No' voters and campaigners are people that live next door. They are at the next workstation. They served you your coffee or lunch. They are inherently good people who were willing to embark on a campaign where the odds were stacked against them from the beginning. The media and celebrities were relentless, yet the 'no' campaigners held their course. They had to go to work passing 'yes' propaganda in their very own offices or physically work under the so-called rainbow flag.
I take this opportunity to salute and thank all those who helped the 'no' campaign through advocacy and donations. Their efforts saw a substantial change in public sentiment. I place on record my sincere thanks to the thousands of volunteer campaigners who advocated for marriage, especially when they knew from the beginning it would be a difficult campaign. They put principle before populism and made the case for marriage in a calm and respectful way. I pay particular tribute to Lyle Shelton, Karina Okotel, Sophie York, Damian Wyld—along with 'the mothers' and 'the tradie' who were the public face of the campaign—and Israel Folau. I also pay tribute to all those involved at senior levels behind the scenes in the marriage campaign, including Tim James and Steve Doyle, amongst many others. From a Tasmanian perspective, I want to thank the hundreds of Tasmanian volunteers, as well as the leadership in the Tasmanian campaign, including Mark Brown and Alex Sidhu, and the coordinators and those who letterboxed, doorknocked, made advocacy calls, engaged in letters to the editors and social media advocacy. I thank Karen Dickson.
The actual evidence in favour of retaining marriage as a man-woman-children construct, which saw overwhelming support for marriage in this parliament in 2004, has not changed; the windsock of public opinion has. To remain true to your beliefs in the face of changing public sentiment, vitriol and threats displays character and integrity. For parliamentarians, I suspect the public will have a higher regard for those who are willing to take a stand on an issue of principle. The public knows there is backbone, principle and integrity and that the latest opinion poll doesn't determine one's morality, principles or policy. Indeed, I am reminded of the republic campaign, where the electorate that John Howard represented voted yes, yet he remained a staunch monarchist, and the electorate of Mr Kim Beazley, the then Labor leader, voted no, yet he remained a staunch republican. The electorates re-elected both gentlemen at the next election. So I think that the electorate can distinguish between a particular point of view on an issue and their high regard for their parliamentary representative. As someone told me the other day, it's only dead fish that go with the flow; it's only the live fish that have the capacity to swim against the current.
It would be incongruous if the parliament, in establishing a new right in relation to marriage, jettisoned, threw overboard and trashed the long-established rights of parental control of their children's moral education, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscientious objection. Given the unequivocal promises made by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I trust the parliament will have no difficulty in supporting the suite of amendments moved by my colleagues Senators Fawcett and Paterson—amendments which will allow the definition of 'marriage' to be altered, while providing the protections which were guaranteed. A failure to do so will be rightly judged harshly against us by our fellow Australians.
The postal survey result does not provide a licence for the parliament to trample on our long-established and accepted rights. Many 'yes' voters will, in particular, feel betrayed, having voted yes on the strength of guarantees from both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as will others who accepted that nothing else would change and those who voted yes simply to get rid of the issue. For the 20 per cent who didn't vote, I suspect the denial of fundamental freedoms may well arouse them from their slumber and awaken their political interest. The same polls predicting a 'yes' vote also gave overwhelming support to protecting our long-held and deeply cherished liberties of parental stewardship over children and freedom of speech, religion and conscience.
As for my position, I have no doubt that I'm currently in a minority amongst my fellow Australians on the definition of 'marriage'. Similarly, I'm in no doubt that I'm in the majority amongst my fellow Australians in my advocacy for the protection of their long-held and deeply cherished freedoms. The parliament's challenge is to deliver on both same-sex marriage and the full protection of our freedoms.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. In August 2004, which was not too long after I was elected, I stood in this place in a very worried way. At that stage, my party had agreed with the proposal being put forward by the government to define marriage as being 'only between a man and a woman'. That has never been my personal opinion, but, being part of the process, I acknowledge that the decision was made by the caucus and that the debate was going to be had. I worried about whether I should say something, particularly at a time when I was so disturbed by a whole range of issues around that process. I came to the conclusion that I should.
I don't regularly go back to read past speeches, but I did have a look at this one, and I liked it. What I talked about was my concern about the fear, the arguments and the elements of distrust that had been placed in our community around that debate. If people remember, this place was packed; the whole gallery was full. There was an atmosphere of enthusiasm for the change that was before the parliament. There was also, for me, a deep disappointment not just at the position but also at what had led up to this position being taken. I talked about the way that the debate had occurred. I talked about the hundreds and hundreds of emails that I'd received which talked about real division and real distress in the community that hinged, at times, on elements of hatred.
As we know, that vote was successful and we then had a definition of marriage in our nation limiting marriage to a man and a woman. But, as I said in 2004, the argument did not go away; the debate did not go away. I'm sorry to say that, for a long period of this time, the fear has not gone away either. What we have are allegations about motivation, allegations of lifestyle and allegations of future activities. What we haven't seen until relatively recently is an opportunity for people to have an open discussion about the issue without judgement—an openness to learn about people who feel differently and an openness to learn about issues and questions you may not have thought of before. There has been an increase in that process.
I feel that the debate we're having around this piece of legislation in 2017 is distinctly different to that which we had in 2004. There is more openness and there is a wider acceptance of change, and we also have an overwhelming feeling in the community that change will occur; that this time we will acknowledge that one strong level of discrimination in our community is about to be removed. It has taken way too long, but we have an opportunity now, in the next couple of weeks, to ensure that overt discrimination against people who choose to live and love together will be removed. It's been far too long, and so many of the issues I've heard now about how we have to have protections into the future and we have to ensure that no-one is forgotten—surely, those discussions have to take place. But I've been thinking, as I've been listening to some of the contributions, that those discussions probably happened in the past around other groups that were not accepted by the wider community.
In terms of issues around women's rights, I know there were whole areas that women were not allowed to be active or public in. There were fears about the way that the world would change if discrimination against women in a whole range of areas was removed. And yet governments across the world did take up that challenge. Maybe there are some that need to do it more overtly now, but we no longer have signage, we no longer have reduced employment opportunities, and we no longer have locations which are not able to be accessed by women. Similarly, we no longer have signage about racism. We no longer have preclusions on where people of different races can go. We never see that there is discrimination against people choosing to marry and to love interracially, yet there was. There was strong rejection of that right, and families were not able to be formed between people of different races. That was by law, but it has changed. There is also, in the area of disabilities, much more understanding and openness about this. But, for so long in our community, the law has not caught up with, I think, the views of many, many people to ensure that we have genuine marriage equality in this country.
A whole range of other legislation has been passed which says that there will be no discrimination against people who are homosexual. That legislation has been passed, and people have celebrated it. However, there has always been this lingering area of marriage that, for a long time, wasn't talked about. In 2004, it was actually legislated that there would be no same-sex marriage in this country. We've moved beyond that now: we are able to say as a nation that we reject that discrimination.
I know many senators have talked about the number of other countries that have already made this change and, every time a nation makes a decision of this kind, it is more affirmation and a celebration for people to have their freedom and a statement that their community respects them. For many reasons—not just here in Australia where I am so pleased that we are now at this stage of the debate—the decision that we will be making over the next few weeks, and I know it will happen, is a message for other countries who have not reached this level of maturity as yet. We know that active discrimination against homosexual people is practised in the most horrific ways in some areas of our globe. We stand up, as a nation—we speak out against it in all kinds of fora saying that we reject this kind of discrimination. But there is a certain irony in that we talk about atrocities that are happening to gay people in other parts of the world whilst we have not taken that step, as the Australian community, to say: we want equality and to ensure that same-sex marriage is entrenched in Australian law. We have the opportunity to do that now, and we also have affirmation from a large number of our community, through the survey—and, really, we didn't need that survey to know that, but we now have the figures.
Isn't it funny? Now that we have the figures, people are trying to distort them. It never ceases to amaze me. Now that the count is in and Australians have said yes, people who wanted to have this survey, plebiscite or count so badly are trying to manipulate the survey results to prove that not that many people voted that way and, if they did, they didn't know what they were doing—they actually made a mistake, because they did not know what they were doing. I think more highly of the community: I think people had a range of motivations when they ticked that form on the box, as they do on most decisions. Many thought it was about time that we had genuine equality, marriage equality, in our country.
We've heard a lot from speakers about the need for protections in this legislation. My view is that we should always listen to a range of views. No matter what views people wish to put forward, we need, as a parliament, to respect those arguments and listen to them. My own view is that we have antidiscrimination legislation in our nation at both state and federal levels. Debates around discrimination and protection should be in conjunction with that legislation. We have a job to do in parliament, which is to ensure that the limitation from 2004 is removed from the legislation. That's our job. We need to listen to the concerns being raised to see what stacks up and what does not, and come up with a response to that. But we shouldn't be hiding behind the fear that I talked about in 2004. We shouldn't be generating that fear any longer. We should be looking beyond that fear so that there can be genuine openness and looking at the real issues, moving away from the sense of other—as long as we continue to have a sense of other we will not be us; we will not be together.
Many people have talked about acknowledgement. I'm thinking today of some of my friends whose ceremonies I have attended. We had no doubt when we attended those ceremonies that we were watching a genuine commitment and an exchange of love and that these people were married. They now can be, and that joy and expectation we had when we were celebrating those unions will now be able to be officially shared by the community and they will be able to have a piece of paper that says 'marriage certificate'. I think that's a really important statement, because from 2017 onwards that marriage certificate will be able to be shared by consenting adults who want to make that commitment to each other. I think that is an extraordinarily positive element for our community.
In 2004, I said that discussions would continue—and they will. The vote in this place and over in the green area in the next couple of weeks won't end the discussion, it won't end the debate and certainly I don't think it will end all the fear. But it will be a positive statement by the Australian parliament that we reject fear-mongering, we reject labelling and we reject any sense that this debate is dominated by any kind of false motives. I do want to pay respect to Dean—he must be getting concerned about so many people saying such wonderful things about him—and the other members of the parliament who have worked together on this process. There always needs to be someone who drives it, and I think Senator Smith has shown courage, has shown resilience and has shown humour when not often is anyone exposed to this much personal 'focus'. I think that is the right word. Congratulations to you, Senator Smith, and to so many others who have maintained the decision and maintained the commitment that we, as a parliament, can do this.
Being a part of this process is extraordinarily exciting. We should enjoy the feeling and we should venerate the people who have stayed so loyal to this debate when it has been difficult. Senator Abetz talked about rejecting the views of others. We do not reject or trample or ignore people who disagree with our views. What we need to do is engage with them to ensure that views are respected, but we will not run away from the core business, which must be, and will be, ensuring that we have marriage equality in Australia in 2017.
I would like to reiterate Senator Moore's comments in regard to Senator Smith. Senator Smith, you have shown great courage in bringing this matter forward and I do congratulate you on that. You have done an amazing thing for so many people within Australia. I think you'll go down in history—and I'm proud for you to do that. So there you go!
It's clear to the vast majority of Australians that it's time that marriage equality was finally legislated. We have seen this issue delayed by the government for far too long. Too many people have had their rights denied for too long and too many people have been hurt by this debate. On 15 November 2017 the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that over 60 per cent of Australians supported a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, and the results of the survey confirmed what we already knew from a string of published opinion polls—that Australians overwhelming supported an end to discrimination of same-sex couples when it comes to our marriage law. Not only did the government waste over $100 million on telling parliament something that we already knew but they also ignored warnings about how holding a national plebiscite or survey would encourage homophobic hate speech and increase anxiety for LGBTIQ Australians.
Labor warned the government that there would be consequences from this wasteful and expensive public opinion poll, and we warned that it would lead to an increase in anxiety and mental health issues for LGBTIQ Australians. There was already evidence of this experience from the polls held in other jurisdictions such as the Republic of Ireland and certain states of the US. We had the warnings from mental health experts, such as Dr Patrick McGorry. As expected, the LGBTIQ services reported a spike in calls, with young people, in particular, expressing anxiety over the possible results of the survey. I had young people talk to me about concerns they had right from the moment that this survey was put into action in regard to them being bullied or treated unfairly. They were serious concerns. People had friends who were talking about committing suicide. I think this has been one of the most devastating actions that I've seen in the time that I've been in this parliament. I don't think the government really understood what was going to happen. The national mental health organisation ReachOut reported a 20 per cent increase in people accessing their LGBTIQ support services, with young people asking questions like, 'Am I a freak?', and, 'Will I be accepted?' If those opposite think that the outcome of the survey and the high participation rate vindicate their decision to hold the poll, then I think they need to think again.
In preparation for my contribution on this bill, I had a look back at my speech on the plebiscite bill in 2016 and the things I said then about the government's proposed plebiscite. In that speech, I pointed out that despite the expectation that many Australians would conduct the debate in a respectful manner it would serve as a platform for hateful and divisive comments that call into question the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. And it did. I said it would lead to an increase in anxiety and mental health problems for LGBTIQ Australians. And it did. I said it would waste millions of dollars on telling us something that we already knew from a series of published opinion polls—the view of mainstream Australia. And guess what? It did. Like many other Australians who answered yes, I completed and sent my form in not because I believed the survey was a useful exercise but because there was a need to send a strong message to my colleagues across the chamber that the Australian public truly wanted change.
I'm very excited and really pleased that 61 per cent of Australians who completed the survey voted to end discrimination against LGBTIQ couples. I'm proud and pleased to live in an Australia that embraces same-sex couples, gives legitimacy to their relationships, upholds their rights and recognises that their love is love—that their love is equal to the love I have for my husband. I'm proud to live in an Australia that rejects the idea that LGBTIQ people should be treated as second-class citizens. I'm also proud to represent a state, my home state of Tasmania, which returned a 'yes' response of 63.6 per cent, which was higher that the national average.
While the result of the survey was a proud moment for Australia, I still say the exercise itself was a shameful one for the Turnbull government. It showed that we have a divided government with a weak leader. Let's not forget that the reason we had that survey was the leader—the leader who would outsource the decision-making on a reform that he had already expressed personal support for, because he lacked the courage and the authority to stand up to the conservatives in his party. But I am pleased that we're finally on the verge of legislating for marriage equality. We've taken far too long to get here and we could have done it without that survey.
During my time in this place, I've had the opportunity to debate two other bills to legislate for marriage equality. I also participated in the debate on the government's plebiscite bill. The first marriage equality bill I debated was in 2012. Since that time, a number of senators in this place and members in the other place have publicly declared that they have changed their position from one of opposition to marriage equality to one of support. I'm really proud to say today—and I've said it previously; people have known for a long time now—that I am one of those senators. I came to the view, after a very long period of consultation and some deep contemplation, that marriage equality is a necessary reform. I did not take my decision lightly. Marriage equality is one of the issues I've received the most correspondence on. It has given me an opportunity to read detailed arguments both in favour and against. I've also had the opportunity to talk to family and friends—some of whom would be affected by this change—and to hear what marriage equality means to them. So I'm no longer convinced by the argument that marriage is some immutable institution that has stood the test of time; it is one that should reflect the values of contemporary society.
In the brief history of Australia since colonisation, there have been shifts in our attitudes to marriage rights. I recently came across an article published on ABC online by prominent Tasmanian and LGBTIQ rights activist Rodney Croome AM, who came to see me in my office last week. We had a great meeting about the issues here this week. Rodney outlined Australia's history of marriage discrimination. For example, certain governors of Australia's penal colony used permission to marry as a reward for convicts who conformed to certain behaviours. After the end of World War II, Australian servicemen in occupied Japan were denied permission to marry Japanese women, because they would be unable to return to Australia with their Japanese wives due to the White Australia policy. In 1959, while the House of Representatives was debating Australia's first Marriage Act, they erupted at news that the Protector of Aborigines in Darwin had refused an Aboriginal woman permission to marry her white fiance, leading the Menzies government to promise that such discrimination would never be written into marriage law.
These examples of discrimination, which I know would be abhorrent to all of us today, show that we have accepted change to our law and our understanding of the institution of marriage over time. I believe the shift in attitudes on marriage equality by members and senators in this parliament is symptomatic of a shift in the attitude of society as a whole. The 2004 amendment to Australia's Marriage Act, defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, was only considered after it was suggested that the word 'marriage' could mean anything else. Up until then, a definition had not been considered, because, for many decades, society had simply assumed without question that marriage was an exclusively heterosexual institution. I doubt that the idea of marriage between couples of the same sex had been contemplated by the authors of section 51 of Australia's Constitution or by the parliamentarians who voted the 1961 Marriage Act into law, but the idea reflects our changing attitudes towards same-sex relationships.
We once had state and territory based laws targeted at same-sex couples that outlawed certain sex acts, and I doubt there is anyone in this place today, including opponents of marriage equality, who thinks that laws such as these are now acceptable, yet there was a time when very few in society questioned or challenged these laws, which have now been repealed in every jurisdiction. These repeals have been followed by further Commonwealth, state and territory reforms conferring equal rights on same-sex couples in areas like adoption, estate law, superannuation, immigration, taxation and social security, and I'm proud to have been part of the Labor government that made significant reforms to repeal discrimination against same-sex couples. I'm proud that, despite dragging its feet on decriminalisation of same-sex acts, my home state of Tasmania then led the way on same-sex law reform in 2003.
Over time, Australians have come to accept that same-sex couples do not pose a threat to our society or our way of life, and our laws have caught up with this understanding. It has taken a bit more time to accept that same-sex couples have equal rights, and once again our law has caught up. But now we're at the point where we can accept not only that same-sex couples should be granted equal rights but that they deserve equal recognition. Today, in this place, with this bill, we are presented with the opportunity for our law to catch up with a truth that is widely acknowledged by Australian society.
My husband, Robert, and I didn't marry just to have legal recognition of our relationship. We married each other because of a deep love and the desire to publicly express that love through a lasting commitment. Thinking back to that commitment, which was a few decades ago, and considering everything we have been through together since—and we've been through some pretty tough times—I can't help but wonder how we would feel if we had been denied permission to marry. Then I think about the same-sex couples I know. I can see their love and commitment is just as deep and their shared life together is just as profound as ours.
Marriage is symbolic as well as legal, but couples being allowed to marry can lead to their relationships between treated very differently by society, including by people in authority. This was well illustrated a few years back, in 2015, when Hobart man Ben published his story in the Tasmanian Examiner. I know it has been mentioned before in this place, but I just want to reiterate it. Ben's partner took his own life and the police notified him that his partner's mother would be recognised as his next of kin. Ben was advised by the coroner's office that he could not be recognised as his partner's next of kin if their relationship was not registered. Ben was denied access to his partner's body in hospital and, despite his partner expressing a wish to be cremated in Hobart, he was buried in his hometown of Ulverstone. Ben found out when the funeral was by word of mouth. When he got in touch with his partner's family, they agreed to let him attend on the condition that he sat up the back and didn't say anything. This was in 2015.
The experience made him feel worthless as a person. Ben didn't realise until it was too late that, as a significant partner, he was entitled to be recognised as his partner's next of kin under Tasmanian law and he'd been given the wrong advice. By the time he had received legal advice to this effect, his partner's body had already been released to the family. The most difficult part of this experience was that he was dealing with bureaucracy at a time when he should have been grieving. As Ben explained then:
A marriage certificate would have put my legal rights beyond any doubt with no room left for prejudice or ignorance.
His story demonstrates that the love and commitment shared by same-sex couples is of no less value than the love and commitment shared by heterosexual couples. But the law as it still currently stands sends a clear message to these couples that their relationship and their love for each other is somehow inferior to that of mine and my husband and that their relationship is less worthy of recognition. When our law sends this message to same-sex couples, how can they help but feel like their country is treating them as second-class citizens?
I'm going to run out of time today, but I'd just quickly like to take a bit of time to address another argument that opponents of marriage equality often raise. That is the argument about the rights of children. I've had a number of constituents contact me recently pointing to a 2012 US study that found that children with same-sex parents fare worse on a range of emotional and socioeconomic outcomes when compared to the children of heterosexual parents. This follows correspondence from several constituents who have told me that children have the right to be raised by a mother and a father and that I should 'think of the children' when considering my vote on marriage equality.
The US study I referred to, called The new family structures study, and its peer review have been heavily criticised by academics and medical organisations, including the American Psychological Association. One of the key criticisms of the study was that it was unable to show that the observed differences were caused by same-sex parenting and failed—for children of lesbian couples, for example—to isolate effects of past experiences such as divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. This study is at odds with the overwhelming weight of evidence that children of same-sex parents are no worse off. That was the finding of 75 out of 79 studies evaluated by the Columbia Law School's literature review, which found that children of same-sex couples fare no worse than other children.
The published research aligns with my own personal experience. I previously worked for over a decade as an early childhood educator. My clients were children of heterosexual couples. Some of the couples lived together, some were separated, some were divorced and some were in de facto relationships, but they were all heterosexual couples—as far as I know—over that time span. I cared for a number of children who showed clear signs of abuse and neglect, and who were obviously deeply affected by their experiences at home. It broke my heart to see the trauma that some of these children were going through.
By contrast, I know a number of same-sex couples who are wonderful parents and they have happy, healthy, well-adjusted children. I could name Ollie and Dave, Steve and Hayden, and Senator Penny Wong and her partner. I've met all their kids. I know Ollie and Dave's kids really well; I know Steve and Hayden's kids well. They are well-adjusted kids. The truth is that gender doesn't matter when it comes to raising children effectively. What matters and what is really critical is being a loving, caring, responsible and capable parent. If you can't accept this evidence, at least concede this: surely it is better for a child to be in a family environment where they are loved and nurtured rather than an environment where they are abused and neglected, regardless of the gender of their parents.
The other flaw in the 'think of the children' argument is that thousands of same-sex couples are already raising children and will continue to do so even if the opponents of marriage equality get their way. Jo, who wrote to Tasmanian members of parliament back in 2012 in support of marriage equality legislation before the Tassie parliament, made exactly this point about her family. She wrote:
We find it strange to listen to conversations about hypothetical 'children of same sex parents', as they already exist and have done so for some time.
Our [son] is by no means rare or unusual.
… He knows that we are a family, and I wish there was a way to share with you just how typical we are.
We have a puppy, we sing songs in the car, cry when sad things happen, say grace at meal times, get angry about injustice, look out for our neighbours.
We are just like you.
Now that we're on the verge of achieving this historic reform, the 'no' campaigners, the conservatives in the ranks of the Liberal and National Parties, are trying to throw up some red herrings under the guise of protecting religious freedoms.
This reform is well overdue, and the seven million Australians who indicated their support for it will want to see it happen as soon as possible. They are calling for marriage equality—no more, no less—but with no delays and no excuses. It would be extremely unfortunate, if not ironic, if we accepted the Australian people's will to remove one form of discrimination only to replace it with another. Let's be clear—if we were to accept what several conservatives from the government are proposing, then we would actually be taking a step backward when it comes to protecting LGBTIQ Australians from discrimination.
We know that some same-sex couples already hold marriage-like ceremonies to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other, and have done so for decades in the absence of marriage equality. Some of them even call it a wedding. Others call it a commitment ceremony. While these ceremonies may not result in a marriage under Australian law, they still require the services of florists, cake decorators, chauffeurs, DJs and a range of other suppliers. Should any of these suppliers refuse to serve a couple on the basis of their sexual orientation, they would be breaking the law. There is no argument for allowing suppliers to refuse service to same-sex couples wishing to get married, any more than there is for allowing refusal based on race, religion, disability, physical appearance or any other attribute on which discrimination is currently deemed unlawful.
What appears to have been broadly accepted in this parliament, across all parties, is that ministers of religion should have the choice not to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds. This exemption is in the bill currently before parliament, and I'm personally satisfied that this is sufficient protection for religious freedom. The provisions in this bill for protection of religious freedoms are those that were unanimously agreed to by coalition, Labor, Greens and Nick Xenophon Team senators in a Senate inquiry report. I see no need for exemptions that go beyond what is encompassed in that report, or the bill currently before parliament. Australia has sent a strong message, and that message is: get on with the job. It's our job; we need to get on with it. The sky will not fall. The time for marriage equality is now, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
I prefer not to use the term 'marriage equality'. That's because I'm pretty dubious about equality in general. As soon as you mention the word 'equality', you have to define it—equality of what? However, I make a big exception for equality before the law. This is the principle that each individual must be treated equally by the law and that all people are subject to the same laws—in other words, the law must ensure that no individual or group of individuals is privileged or discriminated against by the government. Equality before the law is one of the basic tenets of liberalism. It's because of the importance of equality before the law that libertarians support same-sex marriage. If the law provides for some adults to marry, it should not prevent others from marrying on the same terms. That's discrimination by the government and obviously not equality before the law. But it's not the only reason libertarians have no objections to same-sex marriage. We simply don't believe the government should have the power to determine the sex of who can or cannot marry. We maintain that the government does not grant us our rights; it must justify why it should limit them, and in the case of same-sex marriage it has never done that. We believe people ought to have the freedom to choose their own life path—that is, they have liberty. As John Stuart Mill said:
… over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
That said, governments have often sought to impose their views of marriage in the past. Prior to Federation, several states denied Aborigines the freedom to marry who they liked. Sometimes there was disapproval of Aborigines marrying Aborigines, and sometimes there was disapproval of Aborigines marrying non-Aborigines. In other countries that we like to think of as similar to ours, there were restrictions on Jews marrying non-Jews, Protestants marrying Catholics, and blacks marrying whites. In Australia, a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic was once described as a mixed marriage. These days we are horrified when we hear stories detailing how in some countries parents still arrange their children's marriages and exact revenge on them when the kids won't play along. Yet it's not fundamentally different from allowing the government to dictate the gender of the person who someone can marry.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage often attempt to fix in time and law a particular definition of marriage, like trapping an insect in amber. They assume that heterosexual monogamy was a historical and legal norm worldwide. That's not true. Human societies have had every form of marriage imaginable, including same-sex marriage, and a couple of societies have had no conception of it at all. Even within opposite-sex marriage, definitional differences over time are pervasive. The use of marriage to retain control over property, including inheritance, was a major concern long before it became a religious matter. Marriage of close relatives, particularly cousins, has wreaked havoc in many societies.
Religious guidelines around Judaeo-Christian marriages are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old and were first used as a means of preventing the loss of wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying people from other religions. As the church gained power, a priest's blessing became required, while priests themselves were banned from marrying to secure the church's own property wealth. By the eighth century, the church used marriage as a ceremony to confer heavenly grace while consolidating earthly power. Only in 1563, at the Council of Trent, was marriage promoted as a holy sacrament.
In Western Europe, it wasn't until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, they were not the norm until the 17th century and then only for nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonise much of the rest of the world.
Some supporters of what they call traditional marriage cite Blackstone's commentaries, attempting to recruit the great English jurist to support their concept of marriage. They forget that, in Blackstone's time, the wife lost both property and legal capacity on marriage. The couple could not divorce without extraordinary difficulty, and what we now consider criminal activity was sanctioned within the relationship. This latter included marital rape as the woman had supposedly given irrevocable consent.
It wasn't until the 20th century that the status of married woman in developed common-law countries surpassed that of a married Roman woman in the first century AD. Roman law took women's interests seriously and did not treat them as property after marriage or in criminal law. Rape under Roman law was a crime against the person, for example, as it is across the developed world today. The Roman justification for marriage was the same as that in the modern developed world—they used the term affectio maritalis, which means exactly what it says.
It has become fashionable to argue that marriage in the past was always loveless, a matter of arrangement and alliances, but that is just as historically inaccurate as universalising the modern world's focus on love and affection. The Roman term also highlights another reality often neglected by those who insist that marriage always equals procreation. There have never been any laws preventing women who are past child-bearing age from marrying, or remarrying after widowhood.
Another common claim made by those arguing for religiously-inflected marriage law is that Christian Europe was the first truly monogamous civilisation. In fact, classical Rome made monogamy a marital universe, with this great empire imposing civilisational family values on conquered peoples that would make the governors of British India blush.
Libertarians also believe that marriage should be treated as a private matter. Indeed, in civil law countries, that is the case. It is part of private law, not public law. The state simply provides a legal framework, particularly in the event of divorce or intestacy. In Roman law, marriage was a simple contract. That's very appealing to libertarians, who often propose repeal of the Marriage Act rather than amending it. But, even if we did that, most people would still see a need to regulate for incest, age of consent and polygamy. And in any case, repeal of the Marriage Act would not simply default to contract. There is a mass of common law and old state laws that would rise to the surface. Libertopia is not so easily achieved.
Of course libertarians recognise that, while those have a particular view of marriage should not seek to impose that view on others, neither should it be necessary to approve of other people's marriage choices. If we accept the view that marriage is a private matter between consenting adults, the only choice we each need to make is whether to participate.
Being a private matter does mean that marriage occurs in private, though. A marriage ceremony involves a public declaration of commitment. There must be witnesses. But that's not an invitation to the state to intrude. Its role is to simply record the marriage in a register and issue a certificate. Frankly, I don't understand why gays and lesbians think that matters—or straight couples either. My wife of 33 years and I have no interest in being listed in a register or having a piece of paper. But, since the state does operate a register and it does issue pieces of paper, and since, obviously, these things matter to some people, there is no reason to deny them on gender grounds.
It can't be denied that the community places a certain significance on the institution of marriage. It accepts that individuals can live together in all kinds of relationships, irrespective of gender and numbers, but marriage is different. We need to respect that.
My record on the issue of same-sex marriage goes back to my first speech in 2014, in which I indicated my support. I introduced a private senator's bill to allow same-sex marriage in 2014 and then again in 2016. Unlike the Greens, I have voted in support of same-sex marriage in this Senate on every single occasion, including on procedural matters. They have not. My bills introduced the notion of freedom to marry, rather than marriage equality. I argued that the issue was one of lessening government control rather than of amending government control. I was particularly pleased when Senator Dean Smith, whose bill we are debating, told the media in early 2015 that he had altered his views on same-sex marriage in part because of my arguments. I feel as if I have contributed to this outcome.
The bills that I introduced not only sought to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage but also sought to protect those who held a different view from suffering legal consequences if they acted in accordance with that view. I will be moving amendments to Senator Smith's bill that do the same. Based on the premise that the state should never discriminate, one of my amendments would require public servants to solemnise marriages between same-sex couples who turn up at registry offices, irrespective of the public servants' personal views. But non-government celebrants would not be required to solemnise marriages, either between same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Whether they are a religious celebrant or a non-religious celebrant, the law should not penalise them for declining to participate in a ceremony they do not support. A celebrant who specialises in same-sex marriages should not be obliged to officiate at a heterosexual wedding. This is allowing free choice based on conscience. Religions do not have a monopoly on conscience, so why should they—and only they—receive protection under the law in a secular country such as ours?
My amendment also contains an exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act so that no-one will breach the act for declining to provide goods, services or facilities in connection with a wedding. Again, a service provider specialising in gay weddings would not face consequences for declining to provide services to a heterosexual wedding. Changing marriage law shouldn't be about turning the powers of the state around so that they now constrain opponents of same-sex marriage. That would amount to revenge, and we cannot allow that. Changing marriage laws should be about reducing the powers of the state so that marriage heads back to being a private matter on which we can have differing views without risking legal penalty.
I have heard some say we don't want to remove one source of discrimination and replace it with another. If we are talking about discrimination by the government, I agree. But discrimination by individuals is a part of life. We all discriminate, every day. There are no exceptions. Whether it's based on appearance, behaviour, personal attributes, location, beliefs or whatever, it's natural and it's integral to making choices. How much should the government intervene to prevent us from making certain choices? Libertarians view such intervention as primarily the role of civil society, not the government.
The Sex Discrimination Act tells us we are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy, potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities. This is incredibly broad. The act applies to the government, which is good because it promotes equality before the law. But it also prescribes how we must deal with our fellow Australians in a private capacity. It prescribes our one-on-one dealings, largely irrespective of the circumstances. This is not good.
My amendment will seek to wind back this intrusion in private affairs in a very small respect, although I think it's time we had a discussion about winding it back on a much broader basis. Changing the definition of marriage is not a trivial matter, and there must be room in our society for people to have different views. My amendment will ensure that those who are in the minority view, the 38 per cent who support the traditional view of marriage, are not exposed to the intrusiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Finally, I want to make a few observations about the process that led us to this occasion, where we are about to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. While I have always been a little wary about conducting a public vote on other people's rights, other countries do it regularly via citizens-initiated referendums—Switzerland and California are the most well-known examples—and I don't believe their democracy or rights are diminished as a result.
Those who argued that this matter should have been dealt with by parliament are probably correct in absolute terms, but it would have required a majority in both houses to pass. It would not have achieved that. True, Australian Marriage Equality held the view that there was a narrow majority of MPs in favour. I disagree. Some members and senators that I spoke to were privately in favour of same-sex marriage but would not vote for it for fear of losing their preselection. Others were opposed to it but were unwilling to say so because of their party's position. In a free vote, prior to the plebiscite, I suspect that both groups would have voted no.
On the other hand, I have never had any doubt that a sizable majority of Australians was in favour of change. I have said so regularly. I also don't believe the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns in the plebiscite changed many votes at all. Most people recognised it was time for a change. I do know that some people voted no because they disliked the way the 'yes' campaign was run, but I can't say I know or heard from anyone who was persuaded to vote yes on the strength of the campaign.
My concern all along was to enable those who wanted to get married to be able to do so. To me, it has never been about anything else. The Labor Party, Greens and motley crossbenchers wanted to make it about symbolism, virtue signalling and moral superiority. They were profoundly wrong to have voted against the plebiscite legislation on the two occasions it was presented to the Senate. Same-sex marriage will be legal because we went down the plebiscite path. This would not have been achieved with just a free vote in parliament. But I hope we can now agree on one thing—the less the government intrudes into the private domain of marriage, the better off we all are.
It's appropriate for me to start my contribution on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 by noting the very strong affirmation of support of the Australian people and, in particular, those in my home state of Queensland in calling for clear equality for all when it comes to marriage and the marriage law in this country.
Senator Moore, in her contribution this morning, reflected back on some of the speeches from 2004. My contribution will be interrupted at question time at two o'clock, so perhaps, in leading up to that time, it is worth emphasising, for those who might not be aware, why we're actually here today. We are here today because of that terrible historic wrong that the parliament inflicted on our nation and that hurtful wrong that this parliament inflicted on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people over 13 years ago. If it had not been for that decision in 2004, we would not have had 13-plus years of legally entrenched, legally validated and politically validated, at the highest level, discrimination that said to a significant part of our community: 'You are less equal; your relationships matter less.'
I do agree with Senator Moore that it is worth going back and reading some of the speeches from that time to get a full sense of the context of that debate. It is particularly relevant this week. We will probably be debating this legislation all week. We have an open-ended second reading debate where anybody can speak on this legislation, and then we have the entire week for amendments. Like me, I am sure many other senators in this place are getting emails from people saying: 'This is all being rushed. You're not getting enough time to consider the complexity.' Well, we've had 13 years to do that. It is 13 years since that vote was taken. On that day, Friday the 13th—perhaps quite aptly—in August 2004, the legislation was introduced into the Senate at six minutes past two in the afternoon. The second reading debate concluded two and a half hours later. One hour was allowed for consideration of any amendments—amendments that were moved by the Greens and the Democrats to try and include some protections, to try and reduce discrimination and to try and prevent harmful consequences. One hour was all that was given. A guillotine was brought down with the support of both the larger parties. So it was three and a half hours in total for that legislation and just one hour to consider the amendments.
On top of that, when the legislation was first mooted by the then Howard government, quite rightly a Senate committee inquiry was established to look at what it might mean and, most importantly, to hear from the community and from those who would be personally affected, directly affected and directly harmed. Then the quite extraordinary, not quite unprecedented but certainly extremely rare, decision was made by the Senate to say: 'Actually, forget about that committee inquiry. We don't want to hear from the community. We just want to force this through.' It was forced through. It was during the final sitting of this Senate, before the 2004 election was called, that this discrimination was put in place and this unnecessary harm and hurt was inflicted on so many Australians. It was a deliberate political manoeuvre, using those people as pawns, using them as disposable, collateral damage, as a wedge, leading up to the 2004 election. That's why this happened, and it is wonderful what has happened since: to have the community come on board and create an irresistible push to finally reverse that discrimination, back in this chamber 13 years later. But, as part of that, we should not forget what that parliament did and how it was a deliberate decision, deliberately inflicting harm or, at very best, being callously indifferent to the harm because of the immediate potential political and electoral advantage that was seen at the time.
Senator Moore mentioned the public galleries here at the time—the crowds that were watching that debate in this chamber. For people who look back at the Hansard from that time, the date of the Hansard shows 12 August, the Thursday, but the Senate sat through and debated this into the Friday, which was the 13th. But, if you look for the Hansard, it will say the 12th because we went through into Friday. At the same time, leading up to that debate, there was a huge gathering of fundamentalist Christians in the Great Hall of this place, in the heart of this Parliament House, the people's house, and some of the statements they were making at the time are reflected in the speeches given not just by me but also by former Senator Brian Greig, a gay activist himself who obviously felt even more directly the deliberate barbs of these statements. Some of those people at that event said that people who were not in opposite-sex relationships were shameful, vile, immoral terrorists; that their relationships were unnatural, inherently unstable and harmful to children; and that they were mentally ill with a psychiatric disorder. These were all statements made at a huge gathering in the Great Hall. Many of those people were in the gallery while the debate and vote were happening back in 2004. Those were the views that were being validated by this chamber.
It's an interesting quirk of history that I find myself back in this chamber now and can see how few are still here from that time. I've counted 12 others apart from me who were in this chamber in 2004 when that vote happened. I want to pay tribute to all those from that time, including Senator Bob Brown and Senator Kerry Nettle, who both gave great speeches for standing up and voting against that discrimination—that harmful, hurtful and hateful legislation that was guillotined through—and also Senator Brian Greig, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, Senator John Cherry, Senator Andrew Murray and Senator Aden Ridgeway. As I said at the time, that defeat was clearly a wrong, and the people who recognised it as a wrong would not rest and would continue to campaign until that wrong was reversed.
We are not through this yet. We have the committee stage of the debate and, unlike in 2004, there will be plenty of time for consideration of the amendments. There will be much more than one hour, and I urge the Senate, when they're considering those amendments, to ensure that we do not enable that great wrong of 2004 to continue to stand and that we do not continue to have legislation, the law of the land, that entrenches discrimination and says to people in our community that they are less equal than others and that their relationships matter less than others.
It has taken 13 years, and I want to pay tribute to all of those people who have campaigned throughout that time tirelessly and with genuineness and gentleness of heart, despite all the hurt and despite the potential for rancour. As Senator Rhiannon said in her contribution, we could not have got to this stage without the movements in the community. This issue is a classic case where the parliament, which is meant to act on behalf of the people, actually inflicted oppression upon the community, and it has taken the community itself and the movements within the community to force the parliament to change. That campaign still must continue right through until the final vote happens, but it is a great tribute to many people in the community, and I will mention some of them when I finish my contribution later today. Since that 2004 mistake was made, there have been a range of different inquiries, unlike in 2004, when the Senate committee inquiry was guillotined and closed down. There have been a number of inquiries into this issue.
Debate interrupted.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to former Prime Minister Mr Abbott, who said:
You might not always want to go back to Parliament, but you always have to go back to Parliament, because that's your job.
Is Mr Abbott correct?
Senator Wong, although I haven't seen Mr Abbott's statement I accept from you that that's what he said. Of course, we're in parliament right now. The parliament is sitting: the Senate is sitting. I'm sorry to hear from you, Senator Wong, as a distinguished member of the Senate, that you have the view that the parliament comprises only the House of Representatives. The parliament of course comprises two parliamentary chambers, and one of them—the Senate—is sitting today.
Mr Turnbull and the leader of the House of Representatives, Mr Pyne, have explained perfectly clearly to you why it is that the sitting of the House of Representatives this week has been postponed. It is because we want to deal with the reforms to the law to enable same-sex couples to marry. The government has two particular priorities at the moment. One is to do that and one is to sort out the issue of citizenship, which has affected all political parties, although I'm bound to say that some political parties have been a little bit more forthright than others in identifying those of their members who have a problem.
Senator Wong, what we will be doing is dealing with the question of the reform of the Marriage Act, which I know you strongly support, in the Senate this week. As I said on the radio this morning, the Senate is the great deliberative chamber of the Australian parliament. The legislation of the Australian is forged on the anvil of vigorous debate here in the Senate, and we will have a long and thorough and I believe very historically significant debate this week on Senator Smith's bill to enable same-sex couples to marry, in which a variety of points of view will be canvassed. That bill will then be delivered to the House of Representatives for its consideration next week.
Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
In relation to the decision to cancel the sitting of the House of Representatives, to which the Leader of the Government in the Senate has referred, one coalition MP has told Fairfax Media:
It seems like panic. In this game you put on a brave face, you front up and present an air of confidence. This seems like Turnbull is scared of the party room and the Parliament.
Why is Mr Turnbull too scared to front up to his party room and to the parliament?
Senator Wong—honestly and truly!—I must say that I myself am as calm as a cucumber. If you look at my colleagues on the front bench, you will see that all of them are as calm as can be. Senator Wong, you can come in here and you can quote words attributed to anonymous, unsourced coalition backbenchers if you like. But, really, do you think that does anything to advance the interests of the Australian people? It rather reminds me that in the last sitting week of the Senate, famously, the Australian Labor Party here asked not a single question about policy. For four consecutive days, not a single question about policy came from the Australian Labor Party. Every single question was one of those clever, smart-alec, gotcha political questions that excite people who watch Insiders but mean absolutely nothing to the Australian people. If you want to play political games, you go right ahead.
A further supplementary question, Senator Wong.
Isn't the reason Mr Turnbull cancelled the sitting of the House of Representatives that he is so concerned by the division and dysfunction in the party room that he can't do what former Prime Minister Abbott recognises is the Prime Minister's job: to front up to the parliament of Australia?
Well, Senator Wong, Mr Turnbull and the members of the ministry in the lower house will be fronting up next week in order to deal with the same-sex marriage legislation, which I know you care a great deal about, as do I, because we want to give this the government's first priority. We also want to deal with the issue that has been bowled up to us by the High Court about section 44(i) of the Constitution. And, if that can't be done during the course of next week, then, as Mr Pyne has indicated, the government will schedule further sitting days of the House of Representatives, not currently part of the calendar, in the week commencing Monday, 11 December. So it may very well be that there will be as many, or possibly even more, sitting days than were originally in the calendar. So, far from running away from the House of Representatives, we are fronting up to the House of Representatives in a way that reflects the government's priorities and, in particular, asking it to deal with the same-sex marriage legislation.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the recent relocation of the residents of the Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea to their new accommodation?
Can you believe a word she says?
I thank Senator Bushby for the question.
Can you believe a word this minister says? You can't believe a word this minister says.
Senator Cameron, if we can at least hear from the minister. You started before Senator Cash had even started, so I thought I'd start early myself. Senator Cash.
I can confirm the government of Papua New Guinea has now closed the Manus regional processing centre. I am advised that all residents have now relocated to alternative accommodation, and the Australian government welcomes this development. Residents were told in May of this year that the regional processing centre would be closing on 31 October. They were advised that refugees could relocate to the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre or West Lorengau Haus, and that nonrefugees could relocate to Hillside Haus. The alternative accommodation provides residents with food, water and medical services. These services have been provided since 31 October. The Prime Minister of PNG has advised that the facilities at the new accommodation are better than previous facilities.
The Turnbull government has made it very, very clear that these men will not be coming to Australia. There are, however, a number of options available to them. Those found to be refugees can resettle within PNG under the agreement put together by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill in 2013. They can also apply for resettlement to the United States of America, or, alternatively, they can apply to move to Nauru. Failed asylum seekers who are in PNG illegally are encouraged to return to their country of origin, as hundreds have already done.
One thing we cannot do is allow those who have paid people smugglers, who have subverted our laws, to deliver backdoor paths for non-genuine refugees to enter Australia. The Turnbull government takes a very, very strong stance in relation to this matter, and we will not allow our borders to be handed over to the people smugglers.
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question?
Is the minister aware of reports of individuals or groups encouraging residents of Manus Island not to cooperate with the Papua New Guinea government's requirement to move from the former processing centre?
Unfortunately, I am, and the person actually appears to be in this chamber—and that is, of course, the Greens spokesperson for immigration, Senator McKim, who I understand has travelled to Manus Island to peddle false hope to the residents there. Senator McKim has gone to Manus Island twice to encourage those who were in the regional processing centre to not cooperate with the Australian or the Papua New Guinean governments, and he has done this quite—
Mr President, a point of order: the minister is misleading the chamber. I have actually been four times to Manus Island, not twice.
Senator McKim, that is not a point of order. There is opportunity after question time to address matters raised during question time. Senator Cash.
This type of behaviour is highly irresponsible, as is behaviour that encourages the men on Manus Island to defy the decisions of the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments and that misleads them into believing that they may well be able to come to Australia. Again, the Turnbull government has made it abundantly clear: we will not allow the people smugglers to again take control of our borders.
Final supplementary question, Senator Bushby.
Can the minister inform the Senate of any threats to the government's strong stance against people smugglers?
Yes, I can. We all know the Labor Party does not believe in controlling Australia's borders. It's in its DNA. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition's hand-picked candidate for Bennelong, Kristina Keneally, is a strong advocate—quite proudly so—for weakening our nation's borders. Like the former Labor-Greens government, she would happily see the people smugglers put back in charge of our borders. In fact, she is actually on the record as saying this. In February 2015, Ms Keneally wrote an article for The Guardian, in which she stated:
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. People are not safer because our government stopped the boats.
Well, yes, they are, because 1,200 people died under the former Labor government's policies—1,200 people—when they attempted to come to Australia by boat. A vote for someone who believes in weakening our borders is a vote for chaos and a loss of control.
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the parliamentary delegation from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. I would also like to draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the deputy speakers from the Pacific parliaments. On behalf of all senators, I also wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the minister's Queensland LNP colleague Mr Christensen, who says of the LNP's failure in the Queensland election:
A lot of that rests with the Turnbull govt, it's leadership & policy direction.
Is Mr Christensen correct?
No, I don't think he is, Senator Chisholm. I know that you were involved in the Queensland election campaign, as was I, so you're the last person to whom I need to point out that the Queensland election campaign was entirely fought on state issues.
Now, of course, all state election campaigns have a national dimension, and particularly in a state as big as Queensland. Of course they have a national dimension, but, as you well know, Senator Chisholm, the issues in the Queensland election campaign were state issues. The LNP mounted a critique of the government of Annastacia Palaszczuk as a do-nothing Labor government—from which, by the way, I don't for a moment resile—and the ALP mounted a critique of Tim Nicholls and his LNP colleagues as being, as they had it, 'under the shadow of Campbell Newman'.
As you also know, the Adani coalmine was a very big issue in the election campaign, particularly in relation to the state government's attitude towards supporting an application for NAIF funding. And there was the question that the Labor Party prosecuted, with some success I'm bound to say, about the possibility of a hung parliament. I might say we don't yet know whether there will be a hung parliament, and we wait to see whether Annastacia Palaszczuk, in the event that her party does not have an absolute majority of seats, keeps to her word of no deals with any crossbench or minor party.
But, Senator Chisholm, as you know, and I don't detect any vigorous dissent from what I'm saying, it was an election fought on state issues. We both know that. It was an election in which the Labor Party did quite well—may I congratulate you; may I congratulate Premier Palaszczuk on her relative success—but to suggest that it was fought on federal issues, as we both know, is fanciful.
Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
This morning, Minister Birmingham warned coalition MPs and senators against 'flirting with parties like One Nation'. Does the Prime Minister agree that flirting with One Nation cost the Queensland Liberal National Party seats in Saturday's election?
Senator Chisholm, I don't know what the Prime Minister has had to say about the matter. But I'll tell you what I've had to say about the matter, and I will repeat it here: flirting with One Nation is poison. Flirting with One Nation is poison for my side of politics. My attitude to One Nation, with whom I deal courteously and professionally in this chamber, by the way, is, nevertheless, that One Nation has nothing to offer the people of Queensland. You make a debating point, Senator Chisholm, but isn't it interesting that if the government of Annastacia Palaszczuk is returned with a majority, that majority will be comprised of seats won from the LNP on One Nation preferences—seats like Mansfield, seats like Aspley and seats in Brisbane won by the Labor Party on One Nation preferences. (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left. Senator Chisholm is on his feet, but he won't get the call until there is silence.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Order, Senator Wong. Senator Chisholm's on his feet. I'm sure he'd like to ask his question. Final supplementary question, Senator Chisholm.
Who does the Prime Minister blame for the Liberal-National Party's poor performance? Is it the Turnbull government's leadership and policies as Mr Christensen suggests, flirting with One Nation as Senator Birmingham suggests, or the 'very, very mediocre' Queensland LNP as the minister himself has suggested?
Senator Chisholm, you talk about flirting with One Nation. I'll tell you what my experience was at the polling booths in Brisbane on Saturday. Regardless of what the Labor Party how-to-vote cards may have said, Labor Party booth workers, obviously under instructions, and trade unionists who were there at booths advancing the Labor candidate's interests were saying to voters as they entered the polling booths, 'Put the LNP last'—in other words, 'Give your preference to One Nation.' We are very familiar with the Labor Party talking out of both sides of its mouth. Don't worry about what your official position was, Senator Chisholm—your booth workers and your trade union surrogates were saying the opposite.
Order, Senator Brandis. On a point of order, Senator Cameron?
A point of order on relevance: the question was about the poor performance of the party and whether the Turnbull government's leadership and policies are flirting with One Nation or—
Senator Cameron, you do not get to restate the question. You have raised your point of order on direct relevance.
He should answer the question.
The minister is being relevant to the question as asked. Senator Wong?
Mr President, it is common practice when a point of order on direct reference is raised for reference to be made to the question in order to make the point of direct relevance. I trust you're not suggesting that that can't occur?
No, I'm not suggesting that, Senator Wong. I'm suggesting the question shouldn't be restated in a point of order. But a point of order can always draw attention to the question.
I was referring to the part of the question that raised the issue of flirting with One Nation and I was pointing out that, notwithstanding their public position, Labor Party booth workers and trade union surrogates were asking constituents to preference One Nation. (Time expired)
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney inform the Senate of the importance and the outcomes of the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Council on Law and Security held in Brisbane over the weekend?
A serious question for a change! Thank you, Senator Fawcett. On the weekend, together with the Minister for Justice, Mr Keenan, I hosted the fourth meeting of the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Council on Law and Security in Brisbane. We were honoured to welcome the Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, General Wiranto, the Indonesian Minister of Law and Human Rights, Dr Laoly, and their very senior delegation. Participants also included the leaders of our key national security agencies, including ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and others, along with their Indonesian counterparts. It was the most senior Indonesian delegation to visit Australia since President Widodo visited much earlier this year.
Since its establishment in December 2015 the ministerial council has become an integral component of the Australia-Indonesia relationship. It's the principal piece of bilateral architecture between Indonesia and Australia for cooperation on national security issues of mutual concern. With the rise of global terrorism—including its presence within our region and here at home, the threat of the return to our region of foreign fighters and such issues as international criminal syndicates—close practical cooperation between Australia and Indonesia is crucial to community safety in both countries and beyond. Our talks over the weekend focused on that practical cooperation in responding to current regional security threats, countering terrorism financing, countering violent extremism and preventing deradicalisation as well as such issues as cybersecurity, including encryption and broader law, justice and security cooperation.
Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Can the Attorney advise the Senate of other regional cooperation on security that has arisen from the ministerial council?
Yes, I can. As General Wiranto stressed yesterday, the close partnership between Australia and Indonesia through the ministerial council has resulted in a further element of cooperation on security issues—namely, the subregional ministerial meetings on security issues, the genesis of which was our ministerial council and the first of which was inaugurated in Manado in Northern Sulawesi in July. The Manado subregional meeting, co-hosted by Australia and Indonesia, also brought together ministers from the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and New Zealand to focus on foreign terrorist fighter and cross-border terrorism issues, specifically in the context of the terrorist threat in the southern Philippines, evident most particularly in Marawi. As General Wiranto said, the Manado meeting resulted in concrete steps to address issues related to terrorism and deradicalisation to assist the Philippines in addressing the issues in Marawi.
Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Can the Attorney advise the Senate of further important outcomes of the law and security dialogue with Indonesia?
Yes, I can. The subregional meeting in Manado, which was co-hosted by General Wiranto and me in July, has been credited with helping to bring about the major progress since then in Marawi and elsewhere. As well as a follow-up meeting on those issues to be held next year, future regional security meetings co-hosted by Indonesia and Australia will turn their attention to other issues of concern. As well, the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Council on Law and Security, which is the ministerial council that met in Brisbane over the weekend, will meet again for its fifth meeting in mid-2018 in Indonesia, where we will continue to build on our bilateral partnership to keep our communities safe from threats of terrorism and transnational crime. As I said to General Wiranto, Australia regards Indonesia as our principal regional partner in addressing these issues. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Brandis. The minister will recall the question my colleague Senator Di Natale asked when the Senate last met, which referred to the Adani corporation seeking funding from Chinese government owned agencies for its reef-cooking, job-destroying coalmine in Queensland. Subsequent reports indicate that funding agreements between Adani and Chinese government owned sources is imminent. Given that Chinese government owned enterprises and export credit agencies invariably require materials for projects they fund to be sourced from China, can the minister confirm that this Adani deal would be at the direct expense of local jobs, further illustrating just how hollow and false the jobs claims about this project are?
No, I can't confirm that. The proposition you've put to me is not correct. In fact, notwithstanding certain claims made during the Queensland election campaign which were very much at variance from the truth, on 18 February last year the Treasurer of the Queensland government, Mr Curtis Pitt, wrote to the then federal Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Mr Josh Frydenberg, and requested that the railway construction project across the Galilee Basin to service the Adani Carmichael project be considered for funding through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. You wouldn't have thought that, to hear some of the rhetoric that came from Ms Palaszczuk and Mr Pitt during the election campaign, but it is the case, I can tell you, Senator Bartlett, that Mr Pitt actually wrote to the federal minister in February of last year asking for that consideration through the NAIF.
Order! Senator Bartlett on a point of order.
My point of order goes to relevance. My question was explicitly about the jobs impact of Chinese government finance, not about the NAIF.
I can't instruct Senator Brandis how to answer the question. He has 47 seconds remaining, and I remind the senator of the question.
We can take that as preamble or prologue, Senator Bartlett, but I thought context mattered here. As to the commercial arrangements that may be made between Adani and other potential financiers, I'm not in a position to speak, Senator Bartlett. But what I can tell you is that the successful financing of the Adani project does hold the prospect of the greatest increase in job opportunities for people in Central and Northern Queensland for many years, if not decades, which is why the federal government supports it. I know it has been controversial. I know many claims, including many wild claims, were made about this in the Queensland election campaign, but we have our eyes focused firmly on jobs.
Senator Bartlett, a supplementary question.
Seeing the minister has mentioned the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, if the Adani corporation does make funding agreements with Chinese government owned agencies, as is expected, will the federal government then withdraw its support for the provision of any funding through the NAIF for this economically unviable mining project—a use of taxpayer funds which, the minister would know from the Queensland state election, is clearly opposed by taxpayers?
I don't accept any of that. For a start, the way these major infrastructure projects are financed is through financing from various sources, and often that financing comes from the public sector. Senator Bartlett, your memory may stretch back to the development of the Bowen Basin by Sir Leslie Thiess in the 1960s and 1970s, one of the great coalmining projects in Australian mining history. There was a lot of public financing that went into the financing of the Bowen Basin way back in the 1960s and the 1970s, so the suggestion that public funds may not be invested to finance major state infrastructure projects is, quite frankly, ridiculous. As to what the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility does in relation to any possible financial accommodation made by some Chinese interests, I'm not in a position to tell you.
Final supplementary question, Senator Bartlett.
Noting the federal government's stated intent to ban donations to political parties from foreign corporations and that electoral disclosure records show the Adani corporation has donated tens of thousands of dollars to both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party at both federal and state levels over recent years, does the minister accept that political parties should now stop taking donations from Adani?
If there is an application to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, as I understand there is, then it will be considered by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, or the board of governors of that entity, in due course. By the way, on the question of the issue of public investment in the funding of major infrastructure, it has been pointed out to me by one of my colleagues that the Rudd government invested $1.2 billion of public money in Hunter local rail through the Australian Rail Track Corporation.
Order! Senator Bartlett on a point of order.
My point of order is on relevance. The minister seems to be one question behind each time. My question went directly to the issue of receiving foreign donations from the Adani corporation.
Senator Brandis.
Senator Bartlett, as you rightly point out, this government is committed to banning foreign donations. My colleague Senator Cormann, the Special Minister of State, will be introducing legislation into the parliament in the near future to do that very thing. And we look forward to the Australian Greens—themselves no mean receivers, by the way, of foreign donations—and the Australian Labor Party supporting that.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Cash. Last week, Minister Dutton told Ray Hadley on 2GB that he had 'a gut feeling about the source of the recent cabinet leaks'. Who was responsible for leaking from cabinet?
I thank Senator Farrell for his question. I am not aware of the statement made by Mr Dutton, but if you'd like to ask me a question in relation to immigration, border protection and ensuring our borders are kept safe I'm more than happy to provide you with an answer.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
Minister, given that Minister Bishop has been forced to defend herself against suggestions that she was the source of the cabinet leak, has Minister Dutton discussed with Minister Bishop his 'gut feeling'?
I'm merely representing the minister and I'm not aware if the minister has or has not discussed anything with Minister Bishop in this regard.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Minister, I again refer to Minister Dutton, who says, 'If you've got leaks out of cabinet, it's a poor reflection on the character of that person.' Which of the minister's cabinet colleagues does he consider to be of poor character?
Again, I'm merely representing the minister here and I'm sure Minister Dutton holds all of his colleagues in high esteem.
My question is directed to the Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, representing the Prime Minister. For the last five months, One Nation has held a Senate inquiry into the conduct of banks and receivers towards rural customers and the devastating impact their erroneous behaviour has had on families around Australia. This inquiry received 85 submissions and unearthed some disturbing and horrifying stories of dishonesty by bank appointed receivers and liquidators, farmers who have been left financially ruined and some who, unfortunately, have committed suicide as a result of such unlawful foreclosures. When will the government be able to finally announce the date of implementation of the revised voluntary banking code of conduct?
Thank you very much, indeed, Senator Georgiou. It's a very important question, and I agree with you. But the issue of the conduct of banks and, in particular, their treatment of a large number of customers—in particular, categories of customers belonging to the vulnerable groups you have mentioned—has been a proper subject of national discussion now for some time. The question is: what can the government most effectively do to address the concerns?
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron over there says there should be a royal commission. The problem with a royal commission is that it will take forever and achieve nothing. That's the problem. It will take forever and achieve nothing—except for the bevy of lawyers who will be able to afford new beach houses on the strength of all the fees that they will charge.
Senator Georgiou, what we are doing is taking action that will be much more effective and immediate. Let me run you through what we are doing. We've set up a new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body to ensure that consumers and small business can access fair compensation straightaway—not years into the future after a royal commission that might go for five years but straightaway. We've introduced new legislation for banking executive accountability to make bank executives more accountable to their customers. We've introduced a major bank levy to ensure a fair contribution to budget repair from institutions that have benefited from our stable financial system. We've strengthened the resources and powers of ASIC, the regulatory body, through an additional $127 million invested in that body and introduced an industry funding model for ASIC. (Time expired)
Senator Georgiou, a supplementary question.
It's not just the banks, Senator Brandis. In one submission, the inquiry was told that transporting 3½ thousand sheep from a property in Western Australia should have cost around $15,000. Instead, the receivers, KordaMentha, charged the farmer more than $90,000. What action is the federal government intending to take, and when, to make receivers and managers accountable for their actions, not to the banks that appoint them but to the parties they are administrating?
Once again, Senator Georgiou, a very, very relevant question. Senator Georgiou, corporate insolvency is an area of law in which I used to practise, I might say, and I am very well familiar with the way in which corporate insolvency practitioners sometimes charge from the estate, from the administration, extremely large fees.
Corporate insolvency practitioners are subject to very, very rigorous regulation under the Corporations Act. They are also subject to very rigorous regulation and oversight by their professional body. But nevertheless, Senator Georgiou, you are right. You are right to say that the level of fees and charges charged by corporate insolvency practitioners such as receivers and liquidators and administrators is something that should be kept under review, and it is something that the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, and the assistant Treasurer, Ms O'Dwyer, do keep under review.
A final supplementary question, Senator Georgiou?
There have been at least 17 inquiries into Australia's finance sector post the GFC, including the government's own Ramsay report, which found that over 80,000 customers were affected—that's 80,000 customers—with losses totalling more than $5 billion. When will the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister wake up, show some leadership, act to stop this unlawful and unreasonable behaviour and hold a royal commission on the banks?
Well, Senator Georgiou, if there have been 17 inquiries, including parliamentary inquiries, since the GFC then perhaps that's a good argument why we don't need another one. Perhaps that's an argument that what we ought to be doing—as this government is doing—is to get on with implementing the recommendations of those 17 inquiries, which is precisely what we are doing.
Some of the measures that the government has introduced that I just ran you through in answer to your first question, Senator Georgiou, are evidence of the government giving effect to the recommendations of the 17 inquiries we've already held. In relation to the Ramsay review, the government is responding to the second report of Professor Ramsay's review, addressing the issue of legacy cases of bank misconduct. The reason we had the Ramsay review and the reason the government are responding to it to get a real outcome for those customers are that we've adopted the recommendations of one of those inquiries.
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. I ask this question as probably the happiest senator in Australia on Friday with the wonderful OPV announcement. My question to the minister is: could she please—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order. On my left! Order!
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Western Australian industry, Senator Carr—WA industry!
Order, across the chamber! Senator Carr, please. Senator Reynolds, your question?
Can the minister please advise the Senate how the offshore patrol vessel project will help establish a sovereign naval shipbuilding industry?
Thanks very much to Senator Reynolds for her enthusiastic welcoming of this decision by the government last Friday.
In fact, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence Industry and I announced that renowned international shipbuilder Lurssen will be the prime contractor and designer of our offshore patrol vessels. It's a $4 billion investment in cutting-edge naval technology that will create a thousand jobs across the country. Importantly, these OPVs will be built in Australia and are the start of our sovereign continuous naval shipbuilding plan that we set out in the 2016 Defence white paper.
The selection of Lurssen follows a competitive evaluation process to select the best capability and to build a sovereign naval shipbuilding industry. Importantly, we know that these OPVs will be able to deliver from day one, because it is a proven in-service design. For decades to come, these vessels will have a vital role in securing our borders and protecting our interests in the broader region. The new vessels will be larger and more capable than the current Armidale class patrol boats, and will have a key role in border protection. Their role will be to conduct enhanced patrol, intelligence and surveillance missions; search and rescue; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and border protection missions, both in peacetime and, potentially, in time of any conflict. They will have state-of-the-art sensors and a Saab-Australia-developed 9LV combat management system. The OPVs will be world class. They will provide the Royal Australian Navy with the best capability possible, most importantly.
We find ourselves in a very complex strategic environment, which necessitates a strong focus on security. That's why the Turnbull government is undertaking an unprecedented modernisation in peacetime of our ADF. The decision we've made on the OPVs is a key part of our unwavering commitment to our nation's security.
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that answer. Can the minister also advise how the OPV project will help lock in a sovereign naval shipbuilding industry and also protect our borders?
I am very keen to reinforce the government's commitment to creating a sovereign Australian shipbuilding industry.
This government has indeed brought the OPV project forward to avoid a capability gap and to secure as many Australian shipbuilding jobs as possible, after those opposite, as I have said before in this chamber, did nothing for six years. By selecting an experienced international design partner we're ensuring that technology, intellectual property, business processes and workplace cultures are transferred to Australian shipbuilders and to supply chains so that we can grow a long-term and sustainable sovereign naval shipbuilding industry.
I note that during the competitive tender process there was no Australian design house competing to be part of the design team, as some have asserted. Under Lurssen, the OPVs will be built in Adelaide from 2018 and in Western Australia from 2020, using Australian shipbuilders and maximising the use of Australia's shipbuilding industry. (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
I again thank the minister for the confidence in Western Australian manufacturers and shipbuilders. Can the minister advise the Senate what other investments the Turnbull government is making to support the introduction of these larger, more capable vessels?
There are some important developments, in infrastructure in particular, at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, at HMAS Coonawarra in the Northern Territory and at HMAS Cairns in Queensland.
The upgrade of those facilities, which will cost over $900 million, will include larger wharfage, logistic support infrastructure and capability-specific training facilities—particularly at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, which will be the main support base. This is very good news for local construction firms and tradespeople, that will have an opportunity to participate in these upgrades—particularly under our new Local Industry Capability Plan policy. SMEs in those locations are able to participate also in the ongoing long-term support and sustainment of the new vessels at each of these locations. They are opportunities which will flow for decades to come.
These investments in WA, in the Northern Territory and in Queensland are a further demonstration of the government's commitment to ensuring that local communities benefit from our $200 billion investment in defence capability over the next decade.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to former Prime Minister Howard, who said:
I would be staggered if the coalition proposed a banking royal commission, that is rank socialism.
Is Mr Howard correct?
We're not proposing a banking royal commission. I don't know if you've been keeping up with this debate very closely, Senator Gallagher, but what Mr Howard said was to endorse the government's position of opposing a banking royal commission, for all the reasons I explained to Senator Georgiou. It was Senator Georgiou who pointed out to the chamber a few moments ago that, since the GFC, we've already had 17 inquiries. Intelligent political decision-making consists of identifying an issue and responding to it in an appropriate way. The government's view is that a banking royal commission is the least effective and most cumbersome way to respond to this issue, because, as I pointed out to our colleague Senator Georgiou, it will go forever—it will go for years, literally for years—and nothing will happen for all the years that the royal commission is underway. In the meantime, lawyers will make a fortune, customers will get nothing out of the process and we will have a long, navel-gazing inquiry into the integrity of the financial system, which our economy doesn't need, without any productive outcome. As a result of the government's response to several of the inquiries to which Senator Georgiou has referred, the government is already responding to instances of banking misconduct, and is responding in particular to the hardships of customers which have been suffered as a result of that misconduct.
Let me mention to you again the review being conducted by Professor Ramsay of the University of Melbourne— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce has today indicated that the Nationals are 'only too willing' to consider a banking royal commission. Has Mr Joyce discussed his position with the Prime Minister?
I haven't seen Mr Joyce's remarks, so I won't be commenting on them—assuming, which is always an unsafe assumption, that they are being correctly attributed to him. However, let me, as I started to do with Senator Georgiou, tell you more about the way the government has responded to the legitimate public criticism of some of the conduct within the banking sector. We've made the banks—
Order, Senator Brandis! Senator Gallagher?
A point of order on relevance: the question was whether Mr Joyce had discussed his position with the Prime Minister. It wasn't going to where Senator Brandis's answer was heading.
Senator Gallagher, the minister was being relevant to the question as asked.
Among the many other things that the government has done to respond to the legitimate public criticism of decisions of some of the banks, we've made the banks more accountable to parliament by requiring them to regularly appear before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. If faced with a choice between making an appearance before a royal commission, which will not produce a finding for years, and having the immediate obligation to appear before a parliamentary committee several times a year, I know which is a greater accountability measure. (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.
Given that four coalition MPs and 10 coalition senators, including former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, are reported to support a banking royal commission, which of these coalition MPs and senators does the Prime Minister regard as rank socialists?
I don't know where you get those figures from, Senator Gallagher. I am not aware that there is such a number of individuals. I know that a couple of individual backbench members have made that observation but I don't agree with it. What I think the Australian people expect the government to do, rather than waste hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers' fees on a royal commission that will go for years, achieve nothing in the short term and have doubtful outcomes in the long term, is something much more important, which is to deal immediately with the needs of people who feel they've been ripped off with the banks. That is why, for example, we asked Professor Ramsay to deal with and go through the case load of legacy cases of people who have complained they've been treated badly by the banks, and Professor Ramsay has done that. The government is responding now—not in five years time, but now.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister update the Senate on the government's success in advancing the National Energy Guarantee to provide Australians a more reliable and affordable energy system?
I thank Senator Duniam for his question and for his strong commitment to ensuring the most affordable energy is available to Australian households and consumers whilst being reliable and as low-emission as possible. I'm thrilled to inform the Senate that on Friday the COAG Energy Council agreed to the next steps of implementation of the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee. As the modelling that was tabled from the Energy Security Board to the COAG Energy Council demonstrates, this is about delivering a policy that will drive prices down compared to what they would be and drive reliability up—and will do so in the lowest emissions way possible. This is, in many ways, the holy trinity of energy policy: improved reliability, improved affordability and lower emissions. That's what the National Energy Guarantee is delivering.
The Labor Party called for modelling when the policy was released, and modelling has been undertaken by Frontier Economics, the same people the Labor Party federally and in South Australia have been happy to use and rely upon. So I trust, having been happy to rely upon those modellers in the past, they are happy to accept the findings of those modellers today. Those findings make clear that wholesale energy prices will fall by an average of 23 per cent and as much as 30 per cent under this policy setting. Household bills will be some $400 a year lower compared with today, with $120 in savings coming from the National Energy Guarantee. The impact for businesses will be particularly profound. Small businesses, such as cafes, could save hundreds of dollars a year. Medium-sized businesses, such as supermarkets, could save an estimated $400,000 a year. Large energy-intensive manufacturers could save millions of dollars. (Time expired)
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
I'm thrilled with that answer. I now ask: will the minister inform the Senate as to the importance of a national approach to energy policy?
We have seen the damage that state based, go-it-alone type policies have done. In Queensland, the gaming of the system by state owned generators drove up wholesale prices and cost households and businesses enormously. In Victoria, the tripling of coal royalties and the reckless state renewable energy target helped to drive the closure of Hazelwood. Everyone knows about the impact of the 50 per cent renewable energy target in South Australia which was done with no plans for back-up or storage. Of course, we saw the consequences there for reliability and affordability. If energy policy had gone so well in South Australia, you have to ask yourself: why is it that Jay Weatherill's answer after the statewide blackout was to come along and install diesel generators to keep the state going through this summer until the next election? We have 'Green Jay' out there with his green policies, and yet his solution is diesel generators to get through until March next year—hardly a green solution.
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
In light of that answer, I wonder if the minister will advise the Senate about the urgent need for the Labor Party, both state and federal, to put the national interest first?
We are thrilled that, as I said, the COAG Energy Council delivered progress on Friday. But, sadly, the South Australian Labor Party sat there with the Greens energy minister from the ACT and continued to say that they were against it. Sadly, those opposite continue to give ambiguous answers about what their policy position is. We would urge them not only to listen to the government and look at the modelling that we have commissioned that demonstrates our case but also listen to the broad cross-section of 16 industry groups—a large range of stakeholders from the Australian Industry Group through to the National Farmers' Federation, the Council of Social Services, the ACTU and Vinnies—who all urged parties to work together in good faith and in the spirit of compromise to make further development of the National Energy Guarantee their top priority. It is certainly a top priority for the Turnbull government. We are pleased other states are willing to work with us, and we urge those opposite to do so too.
My question is to Senator Cash, representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister, I refer you to the humanitarian calamity your government has created on Manus Island. After cutting off drinking water, food, medicine and electricity, your detainees were violently forced out of the detention centre by being beaten with metal bars last week. This is despite the fact that your so-called alternative accommodation is not ready and, even if it was, would not be safe or appropriate. Minister, why does your government continue to claim that all of the alternative accommodation facilities are ready when the UNHCR and many others have made it abundantly clear they are not finished, they are not finished today and, even if they were finished, they would be totally unsafe and inappropriate?
Senator McKim, yet again you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I fundamentally reject the premise of all of Senator McKim's questions. But I also would make the point that, Senator McKim, you have stood here proudly today and stated that you have been to Manus Island now four times. Four times you went up there and you encouraged the residents not to comply with the directions given by either an Australian government or the PNG government. You go up there quite deliberately but quite proudly, as you say, to enflame tensions in relation to this matter. You go up there quite proudly again, as you have stated, to give the residents false hope that they may come to Australia. Senator McKim, like so many activists, you have encouraged the residents to stay in a centre where there was no food, no electricity and no water just so that you could make a political point.
I'm not going to make a political point; I am going to put facts on the table as to why the government will not waver when it comes to border protection. Senator McKim, you were unfortunately but in your political party quite proudly associated with the former Labor government that did lose control of our borders. Because of that, in excess of 50,000 people arrived here illegally by boat, and we are still dealing with that issue. But, in particular, Senator McKim, the policies that you supported meant that 1,200 people died at sea trying to make the journey to this country. (Time expired)
Senator McKim, a supplementary question.
Minister, who is lying, you or the United Nations, in regards to the facilities being ready? Secondly, Minister Dutton wanted his prisoners out of his detention centre and the PNG security forces did as he asked, driving starving, dehydrated and defenceless people out by beating them with metal batons. Did you toast those beatings in your party room, Minister, as you saw those blows rain down? Did you congratulate yourself on an outstanding policy success?
Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator Brandis on the point of order.
Senators during question time are entitled to frame their questions in such a way as to make sharp rhetorical points, but I think, with respect, what has fallen from Senator McKim goes way beyond the bounds of acceptability or decency in this chamber and ought to be ruled out of order.
Senator Di Natale on the point of order?
On that point of order: that comment from Senator Brandis is a little rich. We were here in this chamber a little over a week ago when Senator Brandis accused Senator McKim of inciting violence. We heard that accusation repeated now. I think the question was entirely in order and the minister should be forced to answer it.
Senator Bernardi on the point of order?
Yes, Mr President, on the point of order: to put it simply, the use of the term 'lied' or to imply that the minister had lied is entirely unparliamentary, and I would ask you to rule this question completely out of order.
On the point of order—
An honourable senator: That's actually two.
Yes, that's technically correct. That is a second point of order from Senator Bernardi. On the first matter, I will allow the minister to answer those parts of the question. I will reflect exactly what was recorded. I was trying to take notes on the language but I didn't get every word and, if appropriate, I will bring that back to the chamber. I call Senator Cash to answer the parts of the question that were asked before the clock ran out. Senator Cash.
Thank you, Mr President. Senator McKim, most of what you said was actually political rhetoric, nothing more and nothing less. But you did ask whether or not this government was proud of policy success. In relation to your question, the answer is: we are very proud of the policy success that we have had in relation to securing our nation's borders.
Senator McKim interjecting—
As I said, Senator McKim, you and I are going to have to disagree. On this side of the chamber, we will always put the national interest first. On this side of the chamber, we understand that the No. 1 priority of your Commonwealth government—
Order! Senator Hinch.
Mr President, are we going to start this session the way we ended the last one, where the interjections just roll over the answers?
Again, I will ask all senators to particularly keep in mind—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order, please! We have had a senator ask for some degree of silence from the far end of the chamber so that they may hear the answer. Can those adjacent to that senator who might have been interjecting keep that in mind. They have their place, but senators need to be able to hear answers to questions. Thank you, Senator Hinch. Senator Cash.
As I was saying, on this side of the chamber, we put our border security and national security as a fundamental priority of our government. We make no apologies in that regard. Senator McKim, I am often bemused that you stand up here and criticise government policy, because in criticising the policy successes of this government you openly endorse open borders. You openly endorse 50,000—
Order, Senator Cash. The time for the answer has expired. Senator McKim, a final supplementary question.
Minister, as the UNHRC said:
… medical care remains inadequate, and caseworkers, interpreters, and torture and trauma counselling are completely unavailable.
Are you bloody serious, Minister? How you can leave innocent refugees—
Order! Senator McKim, that sort of language isn't appropriate. I'll give you the opportunity to rephrase your question with appropriate language.
Are you serious, Minister? Are you seriously suggesting that innocent refugees can be deprived of essential services when they have been tortured, dehydrated and starved by your government for so long?
Order, Senator McKim. The time for your question has expired. Senator Cash, I invite you to answer the part of the question that was asked prior to the time expiring.
Again, Senator McKim, what you have said is political rhetoric, nothing more and nothing less, and it is not supported by any of the facts. In relation to the health services that are being provided on Manus Island, Senator McKim, you were actually encouraging the residents to stay in accommodation that did not have food, that did not have electricity and that did not have water. You were the person who was actively encouraging them to do that. We, on the other hand, wanted them—and they now all have, I'm very pleased to advise the Senate—moved to the alternative accommodation, which now has all of those facilities.
In relation to the health care, Senator McKim, you would be well aware, because you have been up to Manus Island four times, that International Health and Medical Services continues to provide health care to both refugees and failed asylum seekers in PNG's Manus province from a clinic base at the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre. You would also be aware that health care is available at Lorengau hospital.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chisholm today relating to the Queensland election.
Once again, we see in question time on display, on the other side of this chamber, a government in disarray. We see on the other side a government in disarray—perhaps in terminal disarray—and I think the results of the Queensland election paint a very stark picture. There is the principled approach taken by the Queensland Labor government and, in contrast to that, we see the hopeless division on the other side when it comes to critical issues that are important to the Australian people. I want to pay tribute to Premier Palaszczuk for her principled position of putting One Nation last and making it very, very clear that there would be no deals in relation to One Nation. This is quite different to the other side of politics, where Mr Nicholls put One Nation ahead in 49 seats. I think Mr Nicholls has paid the political price for that unprincipled position. I know that the Attorney-General in his response today indicated that to deal with One Nation is 'poison'. He's made that comment himself, and that is to his credit. However, in Queensland, we saw this flirting with One Nation—the deal with One Nation—for which I think a political price has been paid. As I understand it, we are now looking at Labor winning 47 to 48 seats across Queensland and the LNP suffering a 7.8 per cent reduction in their vote, ending up with 40 to 41 seats. Under the circumstances, this is a very good outcome.
The questions in question time today related to the comments from Mr Christensen, who's Senator Brandis's Queensland LNP colleague. He has quite clearly identified that there is a fault here with the Turnbull government, that the concern that One Nation voters are expressing comes out of the lack of direction and lack of leadership of the Turnbull government. We know that Mr Christensen himself, in his own electorate, has championed the concept of a banking royal commission. It's quite different when he comes to Canberra, of course, but he has made comments in support of a banking royal commission. He has also made comments in his electorate about supporting penalty rates and he has supported changes to the law which protect penalty rates. Again, these are two issues which put Mr Christensen and some of his Senate colleagues from the LNP against the leadership of this government. This is clearly what Mr Christenson is pointing to—that we're not seeing leadership from Mr Turnbull on these critically important issues for the Australian people, and this is feeding into the concern of voters.
When it comes to the issue of a banking royal commission, I reiterate the point that we have a government that's hopelessly divided on that particular point. In this place, we see Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Williams adopting a principled position of seeking to advance the cause of having a royal commission. They understand the pain that's been caused to ordinary Australians and ordinary Queenslanders in that area. They want to see a change there. But we're seeing steadfast support for the major banks by the Turnbull government, and the Australian people are very concerned about that.
On the issue of penalty rates, we know that low wages growth is one of the huge problems for our economy. In fact, the Treasurer himself has indicated that low wages growth is the greatest threat to our economy, but we see a government that, whilst making that point, is not prepared to lift a finger to stop the cuts to penalty rates that are going to occur and that will affect 700,000 workers across Australia. How can that help our economy if we're seeing the earning power of ordinary people, low-paid workers, being impacted? It's quite clear. Also, Senator Macdonald has been reported to say that the federal leadership doesn't appear to be terribly interested in what's going on in North Queensland. It's time for this government to wake up to itself. The people of Australia have already woken up to it.
There will no doubt be much discussion and analysis of the Queensland state election over coming days, weeks and months, but I want to draw to the attention of the chamber one phenomenon that was apparent during the Queensland election and, in particular, on polling day. Senator Ketter claims that the Queensland branch of the Labor Party took a principled stand of putting One Nation last. That was certainly their cover story, but, as is so often the case with the Australian Labor Party, you have to focus not on what they say but on what they do.
I can tell you, Madam Deputy President, as someone who spent a good part of Saturday handing out how-to-vote cards in three different electorates, that Labor Party booth workers, plainly operating under instructions, were saying to each elector who entered the polling booth, 'Put the LNP last,' and that was in seats where there was a One Nation candidate. So the how-to-vote card may have made a public recommendation, but the private recommendation of Labor Party booth workers and operatives was not to put One Nation last.
Furthermore, the Labor Party cause was supported at the polling booths not merely by the Labor Party booth workers but also by their surrogates, people from the various trade union movements and from the trade union council, handing out their own leaflets. They, of course, have as much right as anybody else to participate, express their point of view and make a recommendation to electors, but they as well, surrogates for the Australian Labor Party, were contradicting by their conduct the public message of, 'Put One Nation last,' by saying to electors, 'Don't put One Nation last; put the LNP last.' That's what they were saying, plainly as a result of a deliberate strategy. As we heard Senator Ian Macdonald say in a contribution to the adjournment debate some weeks ago, that was of a piece with conduct that he observed in North Queensland, where the Queensland Council of Unions mounted a campaign saying, 'Put the LNP last,' in seats in which there were One Nation candidates. So, as I say, don't be so concerned with what the Labor Party say and what their public position is; see what they do. I witnessed it with my own eyes and I heard it with my own ears on the ground in Queensland on Saturday.
I might also make the point that if Ms Palaszczuk forms a government, which seems likely, she will form a government on the basis of having won seats in Brisbane from the LNP—seats such as Mansfield, Mount Ommaney and Aspley—on the basis of One Nation preferences. I don't know what deals were done secretly behind the scenes between the Australian Labor Party and One Nation, and, by the way, I am not making that accusation, but it is a fact that, if the Labor Party in Queensland and Premier Palaszczuk form a government, it will be because they won seats from the LNP off One Nation preferences in at least three cases in the city of Brisbane that I can reference—Mansfield, Mount Ommaney and Aspley.
So be careful what you wish for, I say through you, Madam Deputy President, to those Queensland Labor senators opposite. Senator Hanson dobbed you in earlier in the year when she pointed out that your state secretary, Evan Moorhead, had made an approach to her for a mutual agreement whereby One Nation and Labor would run dead in certain seats, we have the phenomenon of Labor booth workers and their trade union surrogates saying, 'Don't put One Nation last,' and we know that three Labor MPs at least were elected on the basis of having received One Nation preferences. Those are the facts. (Time expired)
That was an unfortunately sad contribution from the government Senate leader, George Brandis. What he knows and what, more importantly, the people of Queensland know is that the Queensland Labor Party have consistently put Pauline Hanson last. No matter what incarnation, ever since Pauline Hanson has been on the political scene in Queensland, we have put her last. When Pauline Hanson has been a threat in Queensland, we have benefitted from that because we made a principled decision to put her last.
It was interesting on Saturday night that, when this was a topic of conversation, Senator Canavan said of Tim Nicholls, who was happy to preference One Nation in 49 seats and happy not to rule out forming government with them, 'He was just being honest.' Unfortunately, I think he was. They were happy to preference them, and that sent a message to the people of Queensland. More importantly, they were happy to form government with them if they needed them to form a majority. This is what actually cost them seats in the south-east corner. It has happened before; it happened in 1998 and it happened in 2001.
When those opposite do deals with One Nation, they pay a price, but they don't get any benefit out of it. This is the point. They didn't do well in regional Queensland. They didn't pick up seats en masse from Labor in regional seats where One Nation did get a significant vote. But it hurt them in the south-east corner. It hurt them in Aspley, Mansfield and Mount Ommaney because people in Queensland—particularly in the south-east corner—understand the damage that would be done to Queensland's reputation if we had a government at the state level of an LNP and One Nation coalition. That is what cost them seats. That is what those opposite didn't understand 20 years ago. They've had numerous lessons and they still can't understand it now.
We have seen since the election result the differences of opinion. We've seen the member for Dawson, George Christensen, basically say that we need to appease those One Nation supporters. We saw Senator Brandis in question time, to his credit, say that any time you touch them you are damaged by it. But the state ALP failed to heed that lesson.
What we've seen from a Senate point of view as well—this is was a factor during the state election campaign—is that 85 per cent of the time in this place One Nation vote with the LNP. This was an issue we ran hard on, particularly in Ipswich. I just want to particularly make note of that election result, where my good friend Jen Howard convincingly beat former senator Malcolm Roberts. I want to dispel once and for all the myth that Ipswich has somehow been a One Nation heartland. Sure, Senator Hanson won a seat there more than 20 years ago, but the Labor Party has been representing that area for a long time. We've had some fantastic representatives at the state and federal levels, and I was particularly pleased to see Jen Howard's emphatic victory on Saturday night.
The discussion we have seen since shows that they have taken no lessons from that election campaign, and this goes to the chaos and dysfunction of those opposite—with the decision to cancel parliament and Senator O'Sullivan pursuing a banking royal commission. The divide between the Libs and the Nats in Queensland is only going to get larger as a result of this election campaign. That's why they performed so badly in regional Queensland. That's why they performed so badly in the south-east corner, where the swing against them was eight per cent on primary. That's why the principled stand of Annastacia Palaszczuk and her leadership, where we said, 'We will put One Nation last; we will not do deals with them', resonated across the whole of Queensland. In an environment that is really tough for political parties to win, it was an outstanding result for the Premier. She is someone who was prepared to stand on her record and was prepared to put principle before politics.
It shows how desperate those opposite are that Senator Brandis is prepared to throw around accusations that are baseless. They are absolutely baseless. We made a principled decision to put them last. Every Labor how-to-vote card in the state had One Nation last. Until the LNP realise that, they are going to continue to suffer from their relationship with One Nation. It happened in Queensland on Saturday and it's going to happen federally as well. We know that in most places in regional Queensland they actually came third; they were beaten by One Nation. (Time expired)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. It's great to have you back. I too rise to take note of questions asked at question time, specifically by Senator Chisholm, around the Queensland election. What we know—having been up in Queensland over the course of that state election—is that this was definitely a state election fought on state issues. For Labor Party senators to come into this place and argue otherwise merely misrepresents what happened on the ground. There are still many votes to be counted, and we should wait until all the facts are in and we have a full analysis before those from the other side start crowing. It's too cute by half.
Once again, we had a policy-free zone in the Senate question time from the Labor Party. It's very rich to come in here and talk about the principles of the presumptive Premier of Queensland when, yet again, we had from those who seek to be in government a question time in the Senate that was devoid of any issue that any Australian gives two hoots about. There were no questions on health policy, no questions on our record investment into education, no questions around energy policy—the No. 1 topic for those out in the community—on how to bring power prices down and how to actually ensure businesses can invest in creating jobs, and not paying off their power bills. Again, there was not one question today from the team who seeks to lead this nation on anything of interest to anyone in the nation.
Really, it encapsulates what's wrong with politics right here today. We're talking about the ALP crowing about a potential election result in Queensland and of a potential Premier elected on the back of One Nation preferences. They want to talk about a principled approach. Well, let's talk about the fact that you're very happy to take the preferences if that leads you to the premiership palace. You want to walk around pretending you're principled when, meanwhile, you're stacking those preferences in your back pocket and marching into the premiership. If you succeed in winning majority government, it will be riding on the coat-tails of One Nation, and you will owe them everything if the Labor Party wins a majority government in Queensland.
I went up to Queensland to look at some things with universities and some Defence issues. I had the opportunity to get into the state seats of Keppel and Rockhampton and I spoke to people on the ground in Townsville and in Emerald. They were not concerned about the issues that the Labor Party has raised here; they were concerned about power prices, regional jobs, energy prices and our meat processors. For Rockhampton, the meat capital of Australia—but, please, don't tell my producers down south—that is the No. 1 issue.
We saw the phenomenon that assisted the state Labor government throughout the weekend—the use of trade unions and GetUp! in state election campaigns—in my home state of Victoria, with the use of firefighters, in particular, through the last state election campaign. Daniel Andrews is still paying the debt back to the UFU, and we see that played out in our state issues around the CFA day in, day out.
North Queenslanders aren't afraid of regional mining jobs. The backflip by Ms Palaszczuk during the course of that campaign was absolutely reprehensible. In the former safe seat of Rockhampton, you guys are under pressure there, because in the preselection you rolled Margaret, the candidate that supported the Adani mine and supported regional jobs. You rolled her in the regional state preselection and you put big bad Barry in there. Do you know what? Margaret is ahead in the polling in Rockhampton. That shows that regional Queenslanders, particularly in the north, support mining, support jobs and know how to grow their regional economies. It's a pity that the state Labor team actually backflipped on growing those jobs in North Queensland.
I really hope that the Labor Party tomorrow can dig deep and give us some policy questions, because we are very keen to talk about what we have planned as a legislative agenda. (Time expired)
This month we've seen a repudiation of the myth that Queensland is actually comprised of 4.9 million clones of Senator Canavan. And, actually, that didn't just happen once: it happened twice. First, there was the postal survey, where Queenslanders voted strongly for marriage equality. And now, in the state election, Queenslanders have shown that they're not sitting in their homes quietly hoping for a ferociously conservative government.
Those on the other side need to stop projecting their own hopes and their own desires onto the people of Queensland. Note to you: nobody else is pining for the Bjelke-Petersen government—nobody but you. The results on the weekend do lay bare a real crisis in conservative politics. You could call it a clash of ideas, but it's not really that. In truth, it's a clash between a group of moderate Liberals, who have few ideas and even fewer convictions, and a group on the far right who strongly believe in a lot of ideas that simply aren't very good.
I recognise that in politics there are going to be people who don't agree with me. It's healthy; it's how politics works. What is worse is to have people who don't believe in anything. And that's unfortunately the fate that has befallen the Liberal Party. There are large swathes of the Liberal Party that simply don't stand for anything anymore. Entire sections of their party room are populated by careerists whose ideology is nothing more than a hollowed-out managerialism combined with a deep and entitled belief that they deserve power.
We saw an example of it in action last week. It is astounding the Prime Minister cancelled parliament, and the excuse he gave is also telling. The government is waiting for the Senate to deal with marriage equality. Was there nothing else that could have been debated in the other place and passed in the meantime—not a single other initiative? I tell you what, Madam Deputy President, during the Gillard government a week in parliament was a chance to get something done. Parliament wasn't a chore, it was an opportunity.
The problem, of course, with this collapse in ideas in the Liberal Party is that the far right have taken the opportunity to fill the vacuum. Our country faces real challenges. How are we to deliver health care to an ageing population? How should we respond to stagnant wages? What work will people do in an age of automation? What should be the future of our energy policy? Well, I tell you what, we know the LNP's answer, because the Queensland LNP, under Nicholls, had exactly the same policy as that advocated by Senator Canavan. They want a government-funded coal-fired power station in the north of Queensland—an old technology that nobody thinks would be funded by the market, instead funded by the government.
The so-called thought leaders on the right of Australian politics are not equipped in any way to answer serious questions. And it doesn't matter whether they're in the right of the Liberal Party, whether they're in the Nationals or indeed, if they're in One Nation. They have spent too long mucking about in the culture wars. They've learned the wrong lessons, fighting about school curricula and fighting about halal certification instead of thinking seriously about the real problems that confront us and the problems that concern the people of Queensland: jobs and education. You would think that Prime Minister Turnbull, who famously claims to value calm, methodical, grown-up policy debate, would have the good sense to reject this nonsense out of hand. Instead, he actually cuddles up to them. He cuddles up to One Nation. Perhaps it's actually just too difficult to reject the far right's vision when you have none of your own.
The far right are in no position to deal with our challenges. Good policy does actually make good politics. But the converse is not true, and far-right solutions are either the types of glib quotes that look good on a fundraising email sent into your base or they simply deflect attention off to the social issues where they feel more comfortable fighting. These are not real solutions; they are fake solutions, and the results from Queensland show that Queenslanders, like the rest of Australia, see straight through it. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating refugees.
Last Friday this government hit another new low in its disgraceful treatment of refugees and people seeking asylum on Manus Island and Nauru. Having cut off drinking water, food, electricity and medicine to the desperate and vulnerable people in its care, the government decided enough was enough. Immigration minister Peter Dutton decided that his prisoners on Manus Island had defied him for long enough. Of course, in a courageous, peaceful protest, under incredible pressure, as they were starving and dehydrated as a result of the Australian government withdrawing the essentials of life, the many hundreds of brave men on Manus Island held out for weeks. Their peaceful resistance, under the most extreme provocations, is one of the most inspirational examples of nonviolent action that the world has ever seen. But, of course, Mr Dutton decided enough was enough and the Papua New Guinean government jumped when he asked them to and drove the starving, dehydrated and defenceless prisoners on Manus Island out of that prison with metal rods.
Make no mistake, Mr Dutton's actions are those of a tin-pot dictator who has no respect for his fellow human beings, let alone the rule of law, the convention against torture or the refugee convention. I've gone on the record recently and described Mr Dutton as a racist, a fascist, a monster and a serial abuser of human rights.
Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am assuming you heard what was said?
Yes. Senator McKim, I would ask you to withdraw those remarks. They are unparliamentary.
On a point of order and in response to Senator Brandis's point of order: the direct quote was that I've gone on the record and described Mr Dutton as those things. I seek your guidance as to whether or not you are still maintaining that I need to withdraw.
Senator McKim, you will recall previous rulings made by the President about the use of direct quotes, and that statement from the President went to not repeating what would be considered unparliamentary language in the parliament, so I would ask you to withdraw those comments.
Alright; I withdraw those comments. The simple fact is this: Mr Dutton continues to get away with a rampant trampling of the human rights of people who are in his care. The reason he is getting away with it is the complete failure of the Australian Labor Party to oppose him. The Labor Party went to the last election in Australia promising the same policy on people seeking asylum in Australia as the Liberal Party did. Here are the consequences: starving, dehydrated and defenceless people being driven out of Australia's Manus Island prison by being beaten with metal bars. All the hand-wringing, the letter writing and the crocodile tears we see from the odd Labor member from time to time will not change the fact that the Labor Party is in absolute policy lock step with the Liberals in regard to trampling the human rights of our fellow human beings on Manus Island and Nauru. The Labor Party has not taken one single practical step to get those people out of the hellholes on Manus Island and Nauru and bring them to safety and freedom. The Labor Party can get upset with the Greens all it likes, but we will not be silenced when it's the cowardice of the Australian Labor Party that put these men on Manus Island in the first place and that is giving licence to the disgraceful attacks on them that we've seen perpetrated in recent weeks by the Australian and the Papua New Guinean governments.
The Greens desperately want to bring the sorry chapter in our country's history of offshore detention to an end, but we cannot do it on our own. We need the support of the Australian Labor Party to bring that sorry chapter to an end. I say to the Australian Labor Party today: stop wringing your hands. Enough with the crocodile tears. Join with the Greens in demanding that offshore detention ends now and that every single man, woman and child that is currently on Manus Island or Nauru or in Port Moresby is brought here to freedom and safety in Australia. If the Labor Party were to rediscover its conscience and demand those things and join with the Greens—not just demand them but vote for them in this parliament—offshore detention would be over and the best of Australia could shine again.
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 16 November 2017 of the Hon. Wallace Clyde 'Wal' Fife, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Farrer, New South Wales, from 1975 to 1984 and the division of Hume, New South Wales, from 1984 to 1993. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 16 November 2017, of the Hon. Wallace Clyde 'Wal' Fife, former Minister for Aviation, Minister for Education, Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and a former member of the House of Representatives for the divisions of Hume and Farrer, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Wal Fife was born in Wagga Wagga in New South Wales on 2 October 1929, the second son of William Clyde Fife, an agricultural produce merchant, and Myrtle Elizabeth Wyatt. He began his schooling at South Wagga Public School before transferring to Wagga Primary School. Born on the cusp of the Great Depression to a family which, for many years, would struggle to make ends meet, there was little in Wal's background to suggest that a long and distinguished parliamentary career beckoned, but the political bug bit early.
As Wal recounted in later life, 'In September 1940, aged 10, I played "election day" the way other children played "cops and robbers" or pretended to be firemen or engine drivers'—a feat of which you, Mr President, may not even have been capable at the age of 10. He went on to say, 'My parents returned home from voting at the South Wagga School booth with a handful of how-to-vote cards. They might have been good scribbling paper, but I used them to set up a make-believe polling booth using boxes in the garage and handed them out to imaginary electors.' It was the earliest inkling of a life's ambition. When, a number of years later, Wal was given the choice of boarding schools between Newington College in Sydney and Canberra Grammar School, he chose the latter to be nearer to Parliament House, which he would visit frequently throughout his school days to view the proceedings. Wal, as apparent from those early yearnings, had an insatiable appetite for politics and was restless to learn everything there was to know about the political process, from the way business was transacted on the floor of parliament to the inner machinations of the party apparatus.
In 1947, when he was in his final year as a boarder at Canberra Grammar, Wal Fife chanced upon an article in The Canberra Times which reported that the federal opposition leader, Mr Menzies, had moved to establish a Federal Secretariat of the Liberal Party. The 18-year-old wrote to Mr Menzies to seek his guidance and to request a position within the party's new organisational wing. To his surprise and delight, a reply came by mail from the opposition leader's private secretary shortly after to say that Mr Menzies would be in touch. A brief meeting was scheduled in Parliament House, for which he was given permission to leave school early. Early the following year, in January 1948, Wal Fife, newly graduated from Canberra Grammar, began work as a junior clerk for the Liberal Party Federal Secretariat, then based in Sydney, so beginning a political career that would span nearly half a century.
For Wal Fife, 1947—his final year at Canberra Grammar—was consequential for another reason, for it was in that year he would meet one Marcia Hargreaves Stanley, also in her final year of schooling, at Canberra High. The pair struck up a conversation after school sports and would see each other as often as their studies and limited funds would allow. When Marcia moved to Melbourne two years later to train as a nurse, they continued to correspond. Marcia returned to Wagga after three years of training, and on 31 May 1952 the couple were married.
There can be no doubt that Wal Fife had always harboured aspirations to run for elected office, but his father was adamant that some worldly knowledge and experience outside of government were required before Wal would be ready to enter the political fray. At the end of 1948, he transferred from the federal secretariat to the Liberal Party's New South Wales division to work as an assistant organiser, conveniently based in his home town of Wagga Wagga, where he could also join his father and brother, Harold, in the family business, Fifes Produce. For nearly a decade before his eventual election to the New South Wales parliament, Wal was active in local politics. In 1949, still too young to cast a vote of his own, he helped to manage the campaign of the future Menzies and McMahon government minister David Fairbairn in his successful tilt for the seat of Farrer.
Wal Fife's first chance at candidacy in his own right came at the New South Wales general election of 1953. At the urging of the party's state executive, the by now 23-year-old Wal Fife was given the unenviable task of carrying the flag in his unwinnable home division of Wagga Wagga against the long-serving Labor Minister for Agriculture Eddie Graham, a familiar rite of passage for many who go on to significant political careers. Labor easily retained the seat at the 1953 poll, but Wal did better than expected. He managed to outpoll the Country Party candidate, even though it was a regional seat. He ran again for Wagga Wagga at the 1956 election and narrowed the Labor Party's margin but failed to unseat its veteran MP. His perseverance was rewarded the following year, however, when news spread that Eddie Graham had fallen ill, with talk that he would have to retire from parliament. He died in office on 13 November 1957, and a by-election was scheduled for 14 December. It attracted what Wal Fife described as a 'Melbourne Cup field' of candidates for the newly competitive seat, including the late Eddie Graham's nephew, Dudley Graham, who was endorsed to stand for the Labor Party. Of the seven candidates, Wal was the only one who had previously stood as a candidate for Wagga Wagga, and, though he was young, his earlier experience was rewarded. In 1956, the former member Eddie Graham had won the election with an absolute majority of just over 3½ thousand votes.
In 1957, Wal Fife won the by-election by roughly 3,000 votes. At 28 years of age, he became the youngest member of the New South Wales parliament. He was sworn in in February 1958 to cries from the government benches of, 'He's only a boy.' When Wal was made Assistant Minister for Education in 1965 at the age of 35, he was, at the time, the youngest minister ever appointed in New South Wales. Between 1967 and 1975, he would serve in the New South Wales government as Minister for Mines, Minister for Conservation, Minister for Power, Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways as well as serving as the Assistant Treasurer from June 1972 until January 1975. However, it was in the mines and energy portfolios that Fife cemented his national reputation as a capable administrator and shrewd politician, successfully streamlining New South Wales's energy sector and steering government policy through the state's harsh union strikes of 1974.
Though Wal Fife's career in state parliament had been productive and successful by any measure, with all the hallmarks of a future Premier, one suspects that, from his misspent youth peering down from the public galleries of Old Parliament House to his time at the centre of decision-making in the cabinet of Robert Askin, it had always been Canberra, not Macquarie Street, which shimmered on the horizon of Wal's ambitions. He had, after all, chosen Canberra Grammar over Newington College and, by the end of 1975, he had his sights set on the federal division of Farrer to replace its retiring member, the Hon. David Fairbairn, whose first campaign he had helped manage and who was to retire at the following election. Wal was preselected, and it is notable, for what was regarded as a safe seat, that he was preselected unopposed on 9 September 1975. He resigned from state parliament on 15 October and in the double-dissolution election that followed he was elected as the member for Farrer.
Of a federal parliamentary career spanning over 17 years, Wal Fife would serve only the first 18 months on the back bench before his elevation to the Fraser ministry as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the role vacated by the ascendant member for Bennelong, John Howard. He would go on to serve as Minister for Education from December 1979 to May 1982 and as Minister for Aviation from May 1982 until the defeat of the government in March 1983. He also served three stints as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister: twice in the area of federal affairs, from August 1978 to December 1979 and from November 1980 to March 1983, and as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters from May 1982 until March 1983.
From 1982, Wal Fife's encyclopaedic knowledge of parliamentary procedure was put to use—first in his role as deputy leader of the House, which he held from August 1982 until March 1983. Returned as the member for Farrer in the 33rd Parliament, Wal Fife served as opposition spokesman on housing and construction until the 1984 election. An intervening electoral redistribution had since moved Wagga Wagga into the division of Hume, which had been won at every election for the preceding decade by prominent National Party member Steven Lusher. In a hard-fought, three-cornered contest, Wal Fife prevailed over the National Party and Labor to win the seat, which he would retain until his retirement from parliament. However, to his great disappointment, he was not included in the shadow ministry and would remain on the back bench for the final months of the 33rd Parliament.
In April 1987, he was elevated once again to the shadow ministry as shadow spokesman on defence before moving to the primary industry portfolio in May 1987 and then to the administrative services portfolio in August of the same year. It was also in August of 1987 that Wal Fife assumed the role, for which he was perhaps best suited, as Manager of Opposition Business in the House. Wal Fife served as Manager of Opposition Business until his resignation from the opposition frontbench in May 1992, when he announced his intention not to seek re-election. The late 1980s—indeed, the whole of the 1980s—were turbulent times for the Liberal Party which saw a series of changes of the leadership of the party. Between 1989 and 1990, under the leadership of Andrew Peacock, Wal Fife served in the party role of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives and thus, by the late 1980s, had become one of the most senior statesmen of the Liberal Party which he had served for so long.
He was hospitalised from a stroke in December 1992 and he did not return to parliament to see out the rest of his final term before the March 1993 election. Writing of his time in the role, Wal Fife remarked that he had found being Manager of Opposition Business 'enjoyable, though exacting, even more difficult than being Leader of the House'. He noted that Bob Hawke, in his remarks on the night of his resignation as Prime Minister, had made reference to the relationship between the then Leader of the House, Kim Beazley, and Wal Fife, calling it 'remarkable'. Wal concurred with this assessment, writing that he believed 'that among all the other occupants of the positions, no two have got on so well working in the interests of our own parties and in the joint interests of the House'. Strong though it was, I dare say the amity between the two current occupants of those positions, the member for Sturt and the member for Grayndler, might give Wal Fife and Kim Beazley's friendship a run for its money—but we shouldn't press the similarities between Mr Fife and the member for Sturt or, indeed, the member for Grayndler too far.
Described by those who worked alongside him as a 'gentleman statesman', Wal Fife left parliamentary life with the reputation as a hardworking local member, an intelligent and capable administrator who could be relied upon as a safe pair of hands across a wide variety of policy areas. But perhaps the most transformative of his legacies came in the field of education. When he first stood for the New South Wales parliament as a candidate in 1953, the establishment of a rural university in the Riverina was among his central campaign platforms. It was a commitment that followed him from his early days as an assistant minister for education in the Askin government until well into his time in federal parliament, culminating in the establishment of Charles Sturt University on 1 July 1989. It was a long and painstaking project and one in which Wal Fife played a pivotal role, first in establishing a college of advanced education in Wagga Wagga, then in helping facilitate the college's move to its Boorooma campus, before finally winning government support for the incorporation of the Wagga Wagga Agricultural College into the then Riverina college in 1977, ultimately culminating in the establishment of one of Australia's finest regional universities.
For his tireless efforts, Wal Fife was conferred as honorary Doctor of Letters by Charles Sturt University in April 1993, a most fitting recognition of his work in its behalf. As the Leader of the Nationals at the time, Tim Fischer, noted when Wal Fife retired: 'It was his vision, determination and dedication which I have always said brought about the breakthrough in relation to this vital higher education project.' In 2001, Wal Fife received the Centenary Medal for service to Australian society through the Commonwealth and state parliaments and government and, only hours before his death, Wal Fife was advised that he had been awarded life membership of the Liberal Party—the Liberal Party's highest honour.
And so we remember Wal Fife as one of Australia's longest-serving members of parliament, both federal and state. We remember him as a statesman of consequence, as a parliamentarian respected for his diligence and loyalty, as a loyal and lifetime servant of the Liberal Party and, most importantly, as a husband and a father who never lost sight of the importance of family and, in particular, the love of his wife, Marcia, which sustained him through triumph and disaster—but mostly triumph—over half a century of public life. Today our thoughts are with Marcia, with their children, David, Allan, Carolyn and Susan, and with their 10 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren, to whom I offer my deepest condolences on behalf of the government.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to also acknowledge the passing of the former minister and member of the House the Hon. Wallace Clyde Fife, widely known as Wal, who passed away on Thursday, 16 November at the age of 88. At the outset, I convey on behalf of the opposition our deepest condolences to his family and his friends. Wal Fife served as a member of parliaments in Australia for over 35 years, first in New South Wales and then in the federal House of Representatives. He was regarded as a statesman in his local community and as someone whose political friendships on all sides of politics were testament to his character. A highly regarded parliamentarian, he was a minister at state and federal level with responsibilities ranging from education and mines to transport and consumer affairs. Wal Fife dedicated a lifetime of service to the Australian people and sought to enhance not his own standing but that of the offices he held and the parliament as a whole in the eyes of those he represented.
Wal Fife was born in New South Wales in October 1929 and grew up in Wagga Wagga before finishing his education at Canberra Boys Grammar. As Senator Brandis has outlined, he took an early interest in politics. The Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser records that he once wrote to Winston Churchill and even received a reply. Prior to his election as a parliamentarian, Wal Fife worked in the Federal Secretariat of the Liberal Party, but his principal employment was in his family's produce business. It was this business that was his focus in the first decade of his working life, and he continued a connection with it when he went into state parliament, continuing to serve as a director until 1975. In 1952, he married Marcia, and they would go on to have four children, 10 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren.
Wal Fife first served as a member of parliament in New South Wales, elected as the member for Wagga Wagga in 1957. Next month, in fact, it will be 60 years since he first won that seat on 14 December. At that time he was the youngest person elected to the New South Wales parliament, having not yet attained the age of 30. He would continue to hold the seat until 1975, when he resigned to move into federal politics. At the state level, he held a range of positions, including Assistant Minister for Education, Minister for Mines, Minister for Conservation, Minister for Power and Assistant Treasurer, during the life of the Askin government. When Tom Lewis replaced Premier Askin in January 1975, Wal Fife took the transport and highways portfolios until his departure from state politics.
Moving to the Commonwealth parliament in 1975, Wal Fife first represented the division of Farrer, which at that time included the major centres of Albury and his home city of Wagga Wagga. After Wagga Wagga was redistributed out of Farrer ahead of the 1983 election, Mr Fife moved to Hume and continued to represent that division until 1993. As a Liberal, he was notably pleased when the division of Farrer—which, following his shift to Hume, had been held by Tim Fischer, the former National Party leader—returned to the hands of his own party in 2001.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Fife's first speech to the Commonwealth parliament had the development of regional cities as its focus. He addressed the need for the advancement of industry and commerce as well as tertiary education facilities. When it came to the latter, Mr Fife would later play a driving role in the development of Charles Sturt University, which is recognised today as one of Australia's premier regionally based universities. This is a central aspect of Wal Fife's legacy.
He did not have to wait long after arriving in the Commonwealth parliament before continuing ministerial service at a federal level, taking up his first portfolio, Business and Consumer Affairs, in 1977 and going on to serve in Education and in Aviation during the life of the Fraser government. He was described as one of the more capable Liberal politicians on the backbench. However, his early ministerial career was not without some challenges. He faced a motion of no confidence from the opposition in 1979 for his administration of matters relating to the Federal Narcotics Bureau. He served as Assistant Minister for Education in his first portfolio, under Robert Askin, and he assumed the federal education portfolio in 1979. He often commented on the importance of education in providing the basics, as well as helping students develop certain skills to ensure they were ready for future employment. As I said, the legacy of Charles Sturt University is testament to that drive. He sought to be a minister who proceeded with a carefully administrative approach, consulting with interested bodies and reflecting his political inclinations towards consensus over conflict and individualism.
Perhaps in a demonstration that some issues never quite go away, in 1981 Mr Fife approved a project to increase the breadth of sex education in schools by enabling the factual discussion of the problems faced by homosexuals, compared to those faced by heterosexuals, and an appreciation of the variety of emotional expression in human relationships. This occurred against an emotive debate not unlike that which we have seen in recent times. He went from Education to Aviation in 1982 and served in that portfolio until the defeat of the Fraser government.
After the election of the Hawke government, Mr Fife continued to serve on the front bench, now in opposition Amidst regular leadership changes and well documented turmoil in the parliamentary Liberal Party through the eighties and nineties, it speaks to Mr Fife's approach that he was chosen as Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives between 1987 and 1992. He was a man who sought to build bridges of unity within his own party in difficult times. He was also a man who was well regarded across both sides of politics, as Senator Brandis has referenced.
Whilst Wal Fife had already decided not to contest the 1993 election, ill health forced his absence from the House of Representatives at the end of 1992, and he didn't return prior to the 1993 election. At the time of his retirement he was the longest serving member of any parliament in Australia, his service from his first election in 1957 being well over 30 years. In an interview with the Albury-Wodonga Border Mail he recalled:
A chap said to me today that I walked through a minefield and I came through virtually unscathed—I am very proud of that.
He went on to say that he modelled himself to be a good local member and a capable administrator. In retirement he continued to maintain an engagement with politics, in particular through the meticulous records he maintained through his lifetime in the public sphere. He kept a close watch on the activities of parliamentarians and some bureaucrats, and wasn't afraid to hold them to account when required. Alan Ramsey of The SMH described in 2007 the extensive amount of correspondence with the Art Gallery of New South Wales over the course of several years in an attempt to have the Captain Cook gallery appropriately identified. Mr Fife had particular interest, as the minister who had originally arranged for the provision of funds for the construction of this gallery.
He remained in Wagga Wagga and still ran a family sheep property for many years after leaving the House. Wal Fife represented a classical model of a country Liberal member. Throughout more than three decades as a member of the New South Wales parliament and of the federal House of Representatives, much of the time as a minister or shadow minister, he never lost sight of his local community. He always sought to represent his constituents diligently and with decency, as well as with respect for the institutions he served, as he believed they should rightly expect him to do. The obituary in The Daily Advertiser in Wagga Wagga describes him as 'the gentleman MP'. I think that is a very fitting tribute from your local community. On behalf of the opposition I extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends at this time.
It is a great honour as a senator for New South Wales to make some brief and personal remarks about the Hon Wal Fife, a lifelong Liberal and a great citizen of Wagga Wagga. Wal had an extraordinarily impressive career for many reasons, which both the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition have enunciated in the chamber here this afternoon, but not least of it was the length of his service as a parliamentarian, both in New South Wales and federally: some 17 years, 10 months and two days in New South Wales, and almost 18 years here in the federal parliament—35 years is a considerable service to the public in anyone's terms.
I came to know Wal Fife through the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party but most particularly through the roles I had over a period of time working here in the federal parliament as an adviser, including—to show my age, Mr President—in the old parliament as an adviser to Andrew Peacock, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and subsequently as an adviser to Robert Hill as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate here in this parliament. We also worked together, with me as a junior woodchuck of nondescript talents, I'm sure, through the federal executive of the Liberal Party and the New South Wales state executive of the Liberal Party.
If one seeks to identify the City of Wagga Wagga in a person, then I think that person was Wal Fife. His service, both, as I have said, as state and as federal member, included moving from Farrer to Hume in not controversial but at least contested circumstances post-redistribution, as he followed his beloved City of Wagga Wagga, which had moved electorate in that redistribution. Wal Fife is a Liberal Party legend. You can't say that about everybody. His guidance and his leadership were much respected and often sought.
There is one special recollection that I would briefly relate. As Senator Wong noted and Senator Brandis alluded to, he has been called in recent articles since his passing 'a statesman', 'a true servant of the people', 'well regarded' and 'well respected'. I particularly remember him as also an old-fashioned gentleman, including with one particularly charming quirk. In my life, three men have always moved to the kerb side of the street when walking beside a lady so as to protect them from splashes from passing carriages: my father, my friend John Brogden and, I fondly recall, Wal Fife. It always made me smile. I am honoured to have the opportunity to pay my brief respects here today. My condolences also go to Marcia, who was by his side through all those years, to their children and to their extended family. Vale, Wal Fife.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dodson for the parliamentary sitting week beginning today, for personal reasons, and for Senator Gallagher for Wednesday, 29 November and Thursday, 30 November, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I give notice of my intention, pursuant to standing order 77, to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in my name for today, proposing that the Direction—Operation of Certain Unmanned Aircraft made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 be disallowed, as follows: after 'That', insert 'section 8 of'. Mr President, I seek leave to make a very brief statement in relation to the matter.
Leave is granted for one minute.
For the information of senators, I intend to amend the notice of disallowance motion so that it relates to a particular section in the direction rather than the entire direction. The section proposed for disallowance relates to directions relating to the operation of remotely piloted aircraft near people. This notification is to enable any other senator to take over the other provisions of the disallowance notice.
On behalf of Senator Di Natale, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations be extended to the last sitting day in March 2018.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) expresses its grave concern that a social media account, passwords and potentially the internet-enabled device or devices of the Minister for Defence Industries (Mr Pyne) may have been hacked;
(b) further expresses concern about the potential that Australia's national security may have been placed in a compromising position; and
(c) calls upon the Attorney-General to report back to the Parliament, before it rises, on investigations that have been conducted into the matter.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The account in question was a public online social media account not a Defence, government or parliamentary social media account. There are no defence or national security implications. These things are not uncommon. For example, the Treasurer suffered a similar incident last year, as did the Foreign Minister in 2014. All appropriate action has been taken. It is a salutary reminder to all of us that not everyone out there wishes us goodwill and to routinely change passwords and be mindful of cyber security. The minister's office was alerted by Facebook the previous day that there were also attempts to breach his Facebook account.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes ABC media reports on 15 November 2017, referring to Operation Manitou and the fact that, on 14 August 2017, the Royal Australian Navy conducted a training exercise with its Saudi Arabian counterpart in the Red Sea;
(b) further notes that Saudi Arabia is currently enforcing a naval blockade of Yemen, which has led to widespread food shortages; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by no later than 12.45 pm on 29 November 2017, any documents relating to the joint training exercise between the Royal Australian Navy and its Saudi Arabian counterpart on 14 August 2017.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers be extended to 6 December 2017.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor is not supporting Senator Hanson's motion at this time because the Senate committee has not met to consider the reporting date extension. It is important that proper parliamentary processes are followed with regard to the work of the committees to ensure confidence in our parliamentary process.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern the high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care;
(b) acknowledges the urgent need to address this issue; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to show leadership and work with state and territory governments to ensure the implementation of Aboriginal Family-Led Decision Making, delivered in partnership with Aboriginal agencies.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The states and territories have responsibility for child protection systems, and this motion should be directed to those jurisdictions. However, the Commonwealth is working closely with all states and territories, and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and communities, to address the underlying factors that lead to higher rates of contact with the child protection system and to better support families. The safety of our children is paramount, and the Commonwealth is providing over $450 million a year to get Indigenous children to school, to improve education outcomes and to make communities safer.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That—
(a) the order of the Senate of 15 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be varied as follows:
Omit subparagraph 3(b), substitute:
(a) on Tuesday, 28 November 2017:
i. the hours of meeting shall be 10.30 am to 11 pm,
ii. the routine of business from 10.35am to 2.00 pm and from not later than 7.20 pm shall be consideration of the bill only, and
iii. the Senate shall adjourn without debate at 11 pm.
This is to provide for consideration of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
This report is an absolutely critical report. As the commission itself says in the conclusion of this multivolume report, this presents an opportunity to bring about a fundamental shift in policy, not only in the youth justice and child protection system but in the wider NT community. Anybody who has read this report would have been devastated by the situation it outlines in the Northern Territory.
We saw the awful vision from Four Corners that ensured that this royal commission was kicked off. The report makes a large number of recommendations. Most of them are directed at the Northern Territory, but many also have direct relevance for the federal government. Many of the recommendations go into a lot of detail about the Northern Territory system, but many of them are also raising issues that have been repeated time and time again.
There are recommendations that talk about the care and detention systems. The report talks about the distressing mistreatment of Aboriginal children who never should have been in prison in the first place. It talks about children who have been subjected to the most appalling and distressing mistreatment. The system was cruel and uncaring. The report makes a large number of recommendations about the need for change: the need to ensure that we have better residential accommodation; that the arrest system is better; that the bail system is better; that diversion is practised; that the court system is better; that the child protection system is better; and that we have early supports that need to focus on children in the care system—on children receiving the care and on supporting and enabling families.
It talks about giving kids a voice. The recommendations talk about an audit of Commonwealth expenditure and of the Commonwealth engaging in place based approaches to early interventions and child support. It talks about partnerships with the Aboriginal community, something that the government has talked about for years but has never practiced.
Today, down on the front lawns of parliament, we saw the Change the Record group, which talks about smarter justice and safer communities, release their document, Free to be kids: national plan of action. It outlines eight approaches that need to be taken to address the appalling rate of Aboriginal children going into the justice system and how they are treated.
This report also outlines some of the processes that the royal commission addresses: things like supporting children, families and communities to stay strong and together; raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14; and getting children who are not sentenced out of prison. A large number of children that were in prison that are addressed in the royal commission report should not be there. They have not been sentenced; they're on remand in there. It talks about adequate funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled legal support systems and ending abusive systems in prison. The report outlines appalling treatment and use of restraints in the NT juvenile justice system. It talks about setting targets. Again, we are talking about setting targets to end overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in prison. It talks about improving the collection and use of data, something the royal commission talks about, and working through COAG to reform states and territories that breach children's rights. All these issues are issues the Commonwealth need to be working on as well, not washing their hands, not trying to pretend it's all the states' and territories' responsibilities. The Commonwealth has a big responsibility here.
I would like to take the opportunity to table the Change the Record Free to be kids: national plan of actionreport and urge senators to read this as well as reading the royal commission.
Leave granted.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that people that stand in this place in the future never, ever have to talk about the appalling findings of a royal commission into children in detention in any place in this country. Please read it. Please implement it.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Before question time, when I was speaking on this legislation, I was mentioning some of the history in regard to it because I think it is important for not just the chamber but, more importantly, the public more broadly to be aware of not just the history regarding this particular issue of marriage equality but the wider issue in regard to this parliament's actions and inaction in regard to discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people. It was also to recognise the key role—in fact, the absolutely essential role—that the wider community had played in getting action that was often belated but was action nonetheless to address that inequality and that discrimination.
I would like to point out just how much the decision of this parliament in 2004 to ram through discriminatory aspects to the Marriage Act just in the lead-up to the federal election stands in contrast to so many of the ways the parliament has dealt with so many efforts of people to try to get discrimination addressed. I go right back to the very introduction of the Marriage Act in 1961, when it was first proposed to bring together a single legislative regime nationally regarding marriage. That particular vote was one that was a conscience vote for both the major parties at the time. With thanks to the fabulous research service in the Parliamentary Library: I found that during the committee stage of that debate a Senator Hannan from Victoria sought to insert a definition of marriage, presumably in accordance with his own beliefs, that it be defined as:
… the union of one man with one woman for life to the exclusion of all others …
That amendment was voted on according to conscience, and—thankfully for many people—it was defeated by 40 votes to eight.
Many times throughout the last 30 years when the issue of marriage has come up it has been dealt as a conscience vote for both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. But in 2004 during that pre-election rush—when the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, sought to use gay, lesbian and transgender Australians as a electoral fodder to wedge the then opposition in the lead up to the 2004 election—there was no conscience vote. Both of the larger parties forced all of their members to vote to introduce that discrimination. They also forced their members to guillotine debate on that legislation, allowing just an hour for consideration of all the amendments that were put forward to try and minimise some of that discrimination. They basically shut down the Senate committee inquiry that would have enabled the public to be heard. There was no conscience vote then.
Yet in the time since, when people have sought to reverse that travesty, that injustice, the conscience vote has suddenly reappeared. That 2004 legislation amended the Marriage Act to insert discrimination and signalled that it was the views of the leadership of the two major parties that the relationships of people who were not of the opposite sex had less value than others. Since then there have been 23 different pieces of legislation that have attempted to reverse that discriminatory decision. Three of those have come to a vote in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives. Each time it was a conscience vote, which was denied in 2004 when the discrimination was first introduced. I pay tribute to all of those people, from all parties, who sought to reverse that discrimination and who continued to push the issue. One of those was my former colleague Senator Stott Despoja, who with me introduced legislation in 2006. With people across the community and across all political persuasions, we have continued to push to get that discrimination reversed.
The Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) last year looked extensively at the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 and reported earlier this year. There was a Human Rights Commission position paper in 2012 and previous Senate committee inquiries into other legislation in 2009 and 2010. They are all things that were denied by the guillotine decision of the major parties in 2004 when the discrimination was first introduced.
This bill is a tribute to the huge number of people who have continued to fight to reverse that discrimination. I will name some of them, particularly some of those from my own state of Queensland. Even though we are giving all of this week over to debating this legislation, I expect that there will be a lot of time spent on amendments. This is probably the only time I will speak on this legislation, so I want to take the chance to acknowledge some of those people. It will of necessity be an incomplete list. Shelley Argent, the national spokesperson for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, or PFLAG, played a huge role in making people recognise that this is a human issue, that it is about the impact on individual people, on our families and on our friends, and that it is not an ideological battleground on which people should be used as political pawns. Phil Browne has been the convenor for Brisbane LGBTIQ Action Group. Bill Rutkin is a former president of the Queensland Aids Council and a long-time equality activist. Shirleene Robinson is a current board member of Australian Marriage Equality. Geraldine Donoghue was one of the founders of Australian Marriage Equality in 2005. I acknowledge Dr Sharon Dane and Nita Green. Focusing on other Queenslanders, Thomas Coyne is a young man who campaigned hard in the city of Toowoomba. Toowoomba is often seen as a very conservative town, and it certainly has its conservative aspects. But it was another area where the basic message of love that shone through in this debate really did shift many hearts and minds because of the tireless and genuinely fearless efforts of people like Thomas. I also acknowledge: Andrew Wheatland and Ben Dawson in Cairns; Fiona Anderson and Robin Bristow on the Sunshine Coast; Luke Cashion-Lozell in Townsville; Mr Peter Black—involved in Australian marriage equality and also Brisbane Pride over many years; and organisations like the LGBTI Legal Service based in Brisbane. I also include past advocates—well, they're still advocating, but were even more active in the past—such as John Frame. John spent many years lobbying at a state level to address a range of discriminatory measures. It is worth noting that—whilst I very, very much hope the Senate and then the House of Representatives reverses this discrimination—there is still plenty of unfinished business when it comes to discrimination with regard to people of all sexualities and transgender and intersex people.
Shayne Wild is also someone I know who worked very hard in Queensland for a long period of time. I acknowledge those within the Greens Party—the Rainbow Greens network—across the country, but I particularly acknowledge those in my own state of Queensland, currently chaired by Steven Purcell and Bridget Clinch. There are others I know personally from around the country. I won't start naming all of those because I will run out of time, but I acknowledge Peter Furness and also Brian Greig. Brian Greig was in this chamber and spoke so eloquently in 2004. His voice was a voice heard over so many years every time discriminatory views were put forward. Senator Brian Harradine, some may remember, strongly put forward his particular religious view, which was fine for him to hold, but he expressed very discriminatory and derogatory views in regards to other Australians and other people for decades. As Senator Rhiannon did earlier, I acknowledge those people who are part of the origin of what is now known as the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and other pride parades and festivals around the country. They are the people who have worked to highlight the human reality of discrimination.
My own recollection goes back to the very important report of the Senate Legal And Constitutional References Committee on sexuality discrimination that former Senator Sid Spindler initiated around 1994. That was the first time I became aware of the very specific challenges and discrimination that transgender people faced. It is a real shame that, nearly a quarter of a century later, many of those challenges are still not addressed and there is still so much fear and ignorance and misunderstanding. We still have a lot to do and a long way to go. A lot of it is about misunderstandings. So many people have done such a great job over the last 13 years, since 2004, to addressing those misunderstandings in the community and to help people realise that marriage equality is not something to fear; it is something to celebrate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. In doing so, I echo the sentiments of almost five million Australians who, like me, voted no. Some senators have touched on the history of the Marriage Act. You would think that the traditional definition of marriage commenced only in 2004, conveniently overlooking the fact that the amendment passed the parliament with barely a whisper of opposition. In fact, the division on the final bill even showed Senator Wong as listed among the ayes.
The Howard amendment, of course, merely confirmed what common law—a near universal understanding—had known for centuries: that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. Today, even to suggest this point of view quickly leads to cries of bigotry or to being labelled homophobic or fascist.
The coalition government went to the last election with a commitment to the Australian people to hold the plebiscite on this matter. The plebiscite was blocked by a cabal led by Labor and the Greens. Why? Because they feared going to a general election at the same time that Australians would be asked to vote on changing the definition of marriage. Eight of the top 10 'no' voting electorates were Labor-held seats, mostly in Western Sydney. This highlights Labor's hypocrisy. They knew their MPs, including those on the Right, who in the past had supported the views of their electorates, had given in to Labor's Left flank and were compelled to vote yes. There was no way that Labor would expose their MPs to a vote at a general election when those MPs were advocating the opposite of what many of their constituents believed and wanted, and, more importantly, by those constituents who had been stacked into their Labor branches. Labor cynically opposed the plebiscite. We saw sanctimonious and false protestations of concern for the feelings of same-sex couples. This was just a smokescreen. Sussex Street knew very well the sentiment on the street of these electorates.
The Turnbull government, faced with the defeat of the plebiscite bill, opted for a non-binding and voluntary postal survey. The survey provided the ignition of intense passion from both sides. Regrettably, the vitriol seemed to have been primarily directed at the 'no' camp. Most of the calls to my office were rude and abusive. Whilst no federal moneys were provided to the respective camps, we did see taxpayers' money and resources used. You could not walk through the CBD of Sydney without seeing the sea of 'yes' campaign flags, all funded by the City of Sydney ratepayers. You could not walk around Canberra without seeing the rainbow-coloured buses funded by the ACT taxpayer.
The campaign to redefine marriage was well-resourced, funded and campaign hardened. It had advocated its position for more than a decade. Their campaign website boasted support from 884 corporations, including iconic Australian brands such as Qantas, CBA and the NRMA. CEOs were anxious to join the rainbow message, giving little or no thought to the views of their shareholders, workers, or, for that matter, using their money to fund a political cause like this. A conveniently overlooked statistic is that 16 million voters were eligible to participate and of those just 7.8 million returned a 'yes' on this survey form. This represents 48 per cent of the voting population. This is not the enormous majority that the elites are spinning. Indeed, it is not a majority at all. In fact, 52 per cent of the voting population either voted no or did not vote at all. In my home state of New South Wales, the figure was higher, with 54.2 per cent of eligible voters either voting no or not voting at all. I do not mention this to undermine or belittle the result. I do so to merely provide context and underscore the irrefutable fact that more than half of Australia has not embraced this issue in the way in which we have been led to believe.
Since 1945, we have welcomed 7.5 million migrants to Australia. We have grown to a population of over 24 million people, with half of us either born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas. A quarter of us speak a language other than English at home. Indeed, some don't speak English at all. No region in our country better reflects this than Western Sydney. Of the 17 federal electorates that voted no, 12 were in my state of New South Wales, with the majority falling within Western Sydney. As I said earlier, eight of the top 10 'no' voting seats are currently held by Labor. According to the 2016 census data, each of these electorates has a population born overseas, exceeding the national average. Most of these electorates have second language speakers at levels almost double the national average. Many of these seats have been my patron seats during my time as a senator. I know these communities. As I said at the National Press Club two years ago and as I have repeated on other occasions, in an ageing, culturally and religiously diverse Australia the polls were not reflecting the 'no' sentiment of many of these communities.
Some have suggested that the swell in the 'no' result is due to the rising influence of Islam. This argument might have credibility if we looked at just Blaxland and Watson, with Islamic populations of 29.2 per cent and 23.4 per cent respectively. But what of the other electorates? How does this reconcile with the result in Parramatta, with a Hindu population almost double that of the Islamic population, or in Fowler, where the Buddhist population totals more than three times that of the local Islamic community. Let's look more closely at some of these seats, not just in terms of the participation rate but at the actual eligible voters in those seats who voted no.
The highest 'no' vote in the country was in Jason Clare's seat of Blaxland. It returned a 73.9 per cent 'no' vote, with a 75.2 per cent participation rate. Of its 104,000 or so eligible voters, almost 58,000, or 55.5 per cent of the electorate, voted no. The second highest was in Tony Burke's seat of Watson: participation, 77 per cent; 'no', almost 70 per cent. In this seat, 53.5 per cent voted no. The third highest was Chris Bowen's seat of McMahon, returning an almost 65 per cent 'no' vote. Of its 107,000 or so voters, 50.4 per cent voted no. The pattern was the same in Anne Stanley's seat of Werriwa. Next was Chris Hayes's seat of Fowler, where the vote certainly reflected the views of the local member. However, people like Chris Hayes will be stifled. Fowler returned a 63.7 per cent 'no' vote, with a 72.4 per cent participation rate. Of its 106,000 voters, 46 per cent voted no. And the story goes on in other seats, like Parramatta, Chifley and Barton.
As the most recent census reveals, Australia is increasingly a story of religious diversity, with Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam and Buddhism all increasingly common religious beliefs. The reality is that the support for traditional values transcends all faiths. Importantly, we must understand the values that come with this cultural diversity. Migrants have come from the four corners of the globe, bringing with them a fierce determination to succeed but also a set of values and beliefs based on family, faith, hard work and self-reliance. But, above all, a respect for the traditional family unit has become the cornerstone of success for so many migrant families. Call it traditional values, call it conservative values: these are the building blocks upon which millions of migrants in this country have built their success story. For me, they are the values that shaped my upbringing as I was growing up in working-class Wollongong.
Those who seek to dismiss these values and beliefs in contemporary Australia fail to take into account the influences of that diversity. Those who advocate a rich and diverse immigration program must ponder the consequences of silencing these values. Our diverse and pluralistic society will be put in jeopardy if we ignore the views of our religiously and culturally diverse community. Unless we provide for religious freedoms we are risking alienating those we seek to include and grow strong with. The strong vote in Western Sydney also demonstrated the strength of our interfaith dialogue. Faith leaders from across the entire religious spectrum worked very closely together to defend the fundamental tenet that is common to all their religions: that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Let me say to the people of Western Sydney, to our rich and diverse migrant communities and to the almost five million Australians who rejected the notion of redefining marriage: we hear you, we have supported you and we will continue to support you. Many of you have in the past placed your faith and trust in Labor. Indeed, at the 'no' campaign in Sydney I urged community and religious leaders to ignore any pressure that may be put on them by those pushing for a 'yes' vote and to stay true to themselves and to the communities they represent and continue to advocate a 'no' vote. Labor has ignored your views. They are not listening to you. They have abandoned your values and are seeking to crush what you hold so dear. You should never be made to feel that your values are wrong or your concerns insignificant.
Since the release of the survey result, the leading 'yes' campaigners have dismissed the need for the protection of basic freedoms that would be lost should this bill be passed in its current form, and this really worries me. This bill provides protections surrounding the wedding ceremony, but only to ministers of religion. It fails to address protections for speech, conscientious objection and broader religious rights. Freedom of religion is a broader concept than mere freedom or worship. Religion is a whole-of-life concept. For some, it shapes their entire world view and how he or she interacts in daily life. I believe the alleged religious safeguards in this bill are not adequate.
Whilst we commonly refer to Australian values encompassing freedom of speech and freedom of religion, it is unclear to what extent there is an implied right to religious protection under section 116 of the Australian Constitution. The most relevant case dates back to 1912, Krygger v Williams, where the High Court upheld the law requiring attendance at compulsory peacetime military training by an individual who conscientiously objected on religious grounds. The court held:
To require a man to do a thing which has nothing at all to do with religion is not prohibiting him from a free exercise of religion.
If this reason were adopted by the contemporary High Court then, arguably, section 116 might offer a very limited constitutional protection for a person who may be required by Commonwealth law to carry out acts which conflict with his or her religious beliefs.
Senator Fawcett will foreshadow five sets of amendments which I and other senators will be supporting. They represent (1) the definitions of marriage and traditional marriage celebrants and the basis for refusing to solemnise a marriage; (2) a new part VAA of the Marriage Act, 'Protection of freedoms'; (3) chaplains and authorised officers; (4) charitable and tax status; and (5) amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. These amendments, informed by extensive research and legal advice, cover key areas of concern including: that the definition of 'marriage' should separately recognise both man-woman marriage and two-person marriage as valid marriages in Australian law; religious and conscientious protections to celebrants; freedom of expression and recognising legitimate beliefs; an antidetriment shield provision protecting individuals and organisations with a genuine traditional marriage conviction from being subjected to unfavourable treatment by public authorities because they hold, express or lawfully act on that conviction; freedom from being required to express, associate with or endorse a statement or opinion about marriage which is inconsistent with a person's or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage; protections for charities; nondiscrimination in government funding; protection of religious bodies and schools; and parents having the right to withdraw children from certain classes.
I welcome the decision by cabinet last week to establish a panel of eminent Australians led by Philip Ruddock to consider the adequacy of religious protections. However, the Ruddock committee will not report until March next year, and therefore it is vitally important that this bill be amended now. Any further legislative changes can be considered after the Ruddock committee reports.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage without adequate protections for freedom of religion and conscience will have very real and very serious consequences. We have already seen some of these consequences overseas where same-sex marriage has been made legal. In September this year, the English High Court ruled that a Pentecostal couple was ineligible to adopt children as the couple was unlikely to celebrate homosexuality. This was despite the court's acknowledgement of the couple's outstanding record of adoption, because equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence. This case is yet to run its full course, but it is easy to foresee the calamitous discriminatory effect it will have upon prospective parents of faith. Heartbreakingly, a number of faith-based orphanages and adoption agencies in the UK and the US have been forced to close due to the incompatibility of their religious tenets and the provision of their services to gay adoptive parents. The consequences of legalising same-sex marriage go much further than the mere act of marriage itself. Numerous organisations, particularly religiously affiliated ones, are threatened by vague protections: employment agencies, charities, social housing, refugee services, retirement homes and hospitals—the list goes on.
Worryingly, we have already begun to see the ugly beginnings of it here at home. During this survey campaign, we saw a number of doctors and medical staff being disparaged and accused of violating the medical Code of Ethics and even being threatened with deregistration by the 'yes' campaign simply because they voiced their objections to same-sex marriage. An 18-year-old Canberra girl lost her job as a children's entertainer for holding traditional views on marriage. Last year a Green activist dragged Hobart's Archbishop Julian Porteous through a lengthy legal process following the archbishop's pastoral letter defending the Catholic Church's teachings on marriage. We cannot permit those that hold values based on religious teachings to be silenced through our court systems with time-consuming, costly and stressful antidiscrimination suits. As a constituent recently wrote to me, the process becomes as much about a punishment as about any outcome.
Religious and conscientious exemptions in this critical area must be unequivocal and must be implemented nationwide. One issue I hold serious concerns about is the impact this bill will have on our schools. Parents, school administrators and teachers have raised these concerns directly with me. Any proposition to redefine marriage, whether or not we want to admit it, has implications for children, particularly in the school curriculum and especially in religiously diverse schools. In the UK, teachers with traditional religious beliefs have lost their jobs when refusing to teach about same-sex marriage and parents have been denied the right to withdraw their children from these classes. Independent schools—most recently, a Jewish girls' school in north London—failed school assessments for inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment as it failed to ensure a full understanding of fundamental British values. These examples highlight the validity of the principal concerns cited. They cannot be ignored.
Once this bill is passed it will be law. It will be part of our culture and an integral part of our civil rights. The opportunity is presented to us as parliamentarians to be part of a unifying piece of legislation that allows those wanting to be married to do so whilst allowing another significant part of our nation to hold true to their values and beliefs also. Let us keep this diversity, this tolerant and pluralistic Australian community where freedoms are strong and stable; where people can maintain and flourish in their culture whilst embracing this wonderful country; and, above all, where they practise their faith and where they can raise their family according to long-held convictions, beliefs and culture. This is what makes our uniquely multicultural society the envy of the world. As legislators we cannot abdicate our responsibilities and leave this to chance. We must ensure the inclusion of substantial religious protections for all Australians of faith in this bill. The 52 per cent of the Australian voting public who either voted no or did not vote deserve consideration. They deserve respect and they deserve inclusion of their fundamental principles and beliefs before passage of this bill.
I rise to make some brief remarks in relation to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. It seems to me, after serving some two decades in this chamber, that for a considerable part of those two decades I've been waiting to speak on a bill like this—that is to say, a bill that by all estimations is likely to pass and that will enshrine in Australian law the ability to achieve marriage equality. The journey to today has been, from time to time, convoluted and fraught to say the least. However, as an Australian whose rights, privileges and freedoms, at least in contemporary society, are rarely brought into question, if I feel like it's taken a long time, then the Australian communities for whom this means so much must have felt it as an eternity.
I want to acknowledge the length of that battle or campaign. I want to acknowledge those who kept this outcome or this prospective outcome in sight through the occasionally contorted travails of governments of both colours, it's fair to say. Today, I particularly want to acknowledge and recognise my Senate colleague and friend Senator Dean Smith—whose timing is impeccable—who brings this bill to the chamber with its co-sponsors. Nobody should doubt the strength and resilience it takes to do what Senator Dean Smith has done. In a party by its nature a combination of conservatives and liberals, the tenacity required to see this process through to this point is considerable and, in my view, commendable. I want to acknowledge a number of other colleagues as well, notably Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, who over some years now has played a leading role on my side of politics on this issue. I've lost count of the discussions, the debates and the drafts of bills toured through Entschy's office over many, many years. But we, Australia, are now on a path to legislate for same-sex marriage, as many other jurisdictions have done. In recent years, I've watched numerous friends and acquaintances travel overseas to be married in other jurisdictions in the absence of the opportunity to marry here and in the absence of the opportunity to affirm their love and commitment along with the rest of the Australian community. Similarly, I know many Australians who have been waiting for the opportunity to marry here. If this bill passes then that will change in Australia. That is a very important step in recognising rights and freedoms for our whole community.
This bill, which has been in the public domain for some time, builds in a number of protections and mechanisms to protect religious institutions in particular. I support the inclusion of those provisions. On the matter of further amendments, I would note that I, along with all of our colleagues in this chamber, I am sure, will consider those on their merits; however, I do not want to see the resolution of this bill delayed. I note that the Prime Minister has, in the last week, announced the establishment of a review, under the Hon. Philip Ruddock, to examine whether Australian law adequately protects the right to religious freedom. I welcome this process. I very much encourage engagement in that process. I note and respect the view that my New South Wales colleague Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells expressed in the speech immediately preceding this. I do think that the examination with which Mr Ruddock has been charged is an important one in terms of examining religious freedom protection in Australia. As I said, I strongly encourage participation in that process, particularly in relation to concerns that have arisen out of the discussions and the debates leading to the presentation of this piece of legislation. However, I also note that, in my own view, it is not tenable under the guise of this debate to wind back our existing, longstanding legislative provisions and protections against discrimination, discriminatory behaviour and actions.
I want to speak briefly about the national postal survey. Others have noted—and it is most certainly fair to say—that it was an action disagreed with by many. But, importantly, given the nature of our election commitment before 2016, the undertaking of the national postal survey kept faith with the coalition's publicly enunciated and advocated position of engaging with the fullest breadth of the Australian people on this very important matter of marriage equality. We took that policy to an election and we implemented it, and we implemented it through the national postal survey of the ABS.
I also acknowledge—and I heard Senator Carr making these points himself in the chamber in the previous sitting week—the proponents of a parliamentary process for this change. It's a fair argument that that is what we are paid to do but, in light of the outcome of the survey, the level of participation and the strength of the response, I do feel very sure that as the parliament goes down this path we do so with the people's voice of affirmation for marriage equality ringing loudly in our ears.
I've been part of a failed referendum bid as a republican in the previous republican referendum. I know the bitter disappointment of not being able to bring the Australian people with you. But in this case, with such high participation levels, a strong 'yes' vote of over 60 per cent, we can progress this bill confident in the support of the Australian community. Those that responded to the postal survey in the negative, their responses should be acknowledged, should be respected. Our hope is that, as the parliament works through this, concerns which may have led them to respond in the negative can be addressed. But for some, of course, that will never be the case. That is, in my experience, the nature of the democratic process: it is the opportunity to exercise one's view, to exercise the right to express one's view, as we have done and as almost 80 per cent of Australians have done, but it is not always the case that the outcome is the one for which we voted, or, in this case, were surveyed.
So today, for some of my very dear friends—those friends whose commitment ceremony I went to so many years ago, decades ago, in Glebe, Bruce and Greg; for my friends who went to Denmark to marry, Shane and Yasper; for the thousands and thousands of Australians who, with the passage of this legislation, can now take that very special step—is very important. It is very special. It is momentous even. I am very proud to be in this parliament, albeit somewhat later than so many of us would have wished, as this bill is debated, and I look forward, at the appropriate opportunity, to have my chance to vote in this chamber and to vote 'yes'.
I, too, rise to make some comments on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. It is in response to the postal survey which, as everyone knows by now, on 15 November indicated the will of the Australian people, some 61 per cent, to change the definition of 'marriage'. I do so in the context as the chair of the then Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, which was appointed late last year, following a motion in this chamber, to examine the implications for religious freedom should a bill to change the definition of 'marriage' be passed in the Australian parliament. That's probably the most extensive examination of this specific issue that I think Australia has had, certainly for some years, if not ever—that is, looking particularly at issues of freedom of religious and conscientious belief in the context of a change to the laws around marriage.
Where we are at today, I think, is that there is an acceptance, certainly by the vast majority of people in this place, that the Australian people have spoken, and so, without unnecessary delay, we need to pass the legislation through both the Senate and the House to respect the will of the Australian people. But there is a need to do it in a balanced way that respects the rights and the beliefs of nearly 40 per cent of the Australian people, and that's what the Senate select committee sought to examine and understand—that is, how would you go about that.
One of the disappointments I have coming out of the Senate select committee is that many people seized on the word 'consensus' and said, 'We have a consensus report, therefore it gives us a road map on the way ahead.' But it's a little deeper than that. I would just like to cover off on some of the issues where we did find consensus, because they go to the debate that we will be having in this chamber over the coming days. They go to how we find that balance between the differing views of people in the Australian population, as well what I think were some of the important things that we recognised about our society during that debate, which, moving forward, we also need to address. I will then talk a little about some of the ways to remedy the lack of balance that, potentially, will exist following a change and about some specific amendments that I foreshadow that I will be moving in conjunction with my colleague Senator Paterson during the committee stage.
The first consensus that the committee reached surprised a lot of people. There was consensus between the members of the committee, who were drawn from across the parliament, from the Xenophon team, Greens, Labor, the Nationals and Liberal. Despite the rhetoric that said that this was an issue of human rights and that there was discrimination, the committee found, with a consensus view, that under international law—under findings of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and also the European Court of Human Rights—Australia did not breach any of its obligations under international human rights law with respect to either equality or discrimination in holding that marriage was between a man and a woman and that as long as we recognised and protected same-sex relationships through another structure then that held to be true. If there is no discrimination under international law, there is no basis upon which you can derogate another right. So, as we come to this discussion around people's conscientious and religious beliefs, if there is no discrimination to start with then there is no basis upon which you can derogate or remove somebody's rights. That's an important starting point that we need to keep in mind.
The other conclusion that we came to unanimously, which has not been discussed by many people, is that this is a complex debate. There are a complex range of issues which go to the intersection of state and federal laws and, even federally, into things like charity and tax law, which are tied up with the definition of marriage. That surprised a lot of people, and the committee recognised that there was a deficit in the protection of religious freedoms across the nation. It was a consensus view. The committee recognised that complexity. It said, in the executive summary of its report:
… that should legislation be enacted to change the definition of marriage, careful attention is required to understand and deliver a balanced outcome that respects the human rights of all Australians if the nation is to continue to be a tolerant and plural society where a diversity of views is not only legal but valued.
My disappointment, following the survey, is that because people have not been prepared to engage with that sentiment from the report of the Senate select committee and examine these things in detail we are left in the Senate this week to canvass some issues that are relatively complex but need to be considered if we're going to get a balanced outcome. One thing that was done after the select committee inquiry was the kicking off of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the status of religion and belief in Australia, so that we have a good benchmark, and the work that Mr Ruddock will be doing can look at how we might implement that in the future. That's a very broad issue.
In the recommendations and comments of the Senate select committee, we recognised that addressing that deficit in freedom of religion could go at one end of the spectrum from a bill of human rights, which I personally don't support, through to the concept of antidetriment provisions, which was one of the likely models that the committee said would probably work—or even trying to align antidiscrimination laws across our states and territories. I would note for the chamber that the last time an attempt to align antidiscrimination laws was made was when Nicola Roxon was the Attorney-General. The process proved to be so complex that, essentially, it was shelved, because it was too hard to get that many different legislatures to agree on what the standards should be and how they should align. So I have little confidence that that approach of trying to align laws across the whole range of issues that would be engaged in this would work.
That brings us to the survey. I know there has been disagreement on the concept, but personally I'm happy the Australian people have had their say. The outcome was not what I voted for, but I respect the fact that we have a clear outcome. The conduct was positive, with some 80 per cent participating or just under. Given it was a voluntary survey, I think that was very successful. The context, though, of the survey and how the community responded, is important as we come to this debate, because people have been told by political leaders and other advocates that there is nothing to be concerned about in terms of their religious freedoms and their ability to associate or speak freely—some of the basic freedoms we enjoy in this pluralistic society we live in—but when you look back over the period of the survey and indeed the months leading up to it, whilst there was a lot of concern about what the no campaign may do, and while there were some fringe elements on both sides, it would be fair to say that you could characterise some of the blockade-type protests by yes campaigners, which sought to frustrate the ability of people to meet and associate and discuss these issues, as some of the worst breaches of what we would call civilised conduct in the country.
We saw, for example, media fraud, where the media, who saw a Twitter or a Facebook post about a poster that was supposed to be in Melbourne, fabricated an image to put on the nightly news, and so again swayed opinion, even though there was no basis of fact to what they had put up, as well as boycotts, whether it be pubs who said, 'We will no longer allow Christian groups to come and hold events here,' printers who said, 'We won't print the book, because we don't agree with your point of view,' or advertising agencies who used denial of service as a virtue-signalling exercise. People who hold a traditional view of marriage have seen a number of their rights to speak, to associate, taken away by fairly strong advocacy by businesses, by activists and by others, and so they're concerned, as they look at the overseas experience plus the experience here, about what the impact might be.
These are not people who are undesirables. In fact the US Supreme Court, when they made the decision in 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage, said of the respondents:
Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.
I think that is true of the nearly 40 per cent of Australian whose voted no in this survey. The interesting part is that, whilst 61.4 per cent of people voted yes, 62 per cent of people, according to Newspoll, said that, regardless of whether they vote yes or no, protections are important. That's why we need to address it in this bill.
We've heard a number of comments from people saying there is nothing in this bill, and nothing in federal law, that enlivens discrimination or takes away protections for people. To a large extent that is true, but we've seen, both in evidence to the Senate select committee and since, that the operation of state and territory antidiscrimination and antivilification laws has chilled the ability of people to have free speech, in some cases freedom of association, and caused concerns. The amendments that we're looking for here are amendments not to create any new forms of discrimination, but in fact to prevent discrimination against what is, if you like, the new minority in Australia—that is, people who hold that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The issue with the state and territory laws is that they vary across the states. South Australia and New South Wales, for example, have no protection in law for religious freedoms. The ACT probably has the most robust, Victoria has some, but across the states and territories a vastly different standard is applied in each state, to the extent that the Human Rights Commission here has called on a couple of occasions for the Australian government to look at legislating for article 18 and in fact the United Nations, in its sixth Universal Periodic Review of Australia's human rights, has called for us to implement article 18. Why is that important? Because, under law, if you're trying to balance two competing rights but only one of them is in your domestic law then it's very hard to find the balance because there is no counterbalance that the judiciary can apply there. It uses things like the Siracusa principles, which the United Nations has come up with, as the way to find that balance when, inevitably, the human rights that each of us enjoy—and it is each individual person—come into conflict. The UN, in its various guidance notes and comments around the human rights outlined in the ICCPR, is very clear that there is no one right that trumps another. You do need to find a balance. But the starting point for that is having, in an operational sense, those elements in our legislation here, and preferably at a consistent national standard.
The amendments that I'm foreshadowing are limited in scope. As I look back at Nicola Roxon's difficulties in trying to align antidiscrimination law, I recognise that the only way we will do this in a timely manner, if at all, is to limit the scope so that it deals with the topics we dealt with in the Senate select committee, which were around the issue of marriage and how we balance those two competing rights. They are based predominantly on the concept of antidetriment provisions and, importantly, they act as a shield. It's not licensing people to discriminate but it's saying, 'If you express your view and you are discriminated against, here is a protection for you.'
To give you some examples of the antidetriment by public authorities, what we saw in Tasmania was that when Archbishop Porteous wrote a pastoral letter to the parents of children at a Catholic school he was taken to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal because somebody took offence and felt vilified by what he had said. Having read what he said, I believe it was not controversial at all. It was very mild in its tone. It was very compassionate and embracing in the way he wrote it. But he wrote the view that the Catholic Church has about marriage and family. Many people think that that case was dismissed by the tribunal in Tasmania, but in fact the commissioner, in evidence to the Senate committee, indicated that the complaint had been withdrawn. That means there is no case law, which means that that action could be taken again. Archbishop Porteous highlighted the tens of thousands of dollars and the months of angst that he and the Catholic Church went through in getting ready to defend that case, and that possibility remains open now. In fact, there are two other individuals in Tasmania, one a pastor and one associated with the church, who are currently before the tribunal down there again because they were speaking out on the church's view on what marriage was and they have been taken to account over that.
We see similar things overseas in detriment being applied by government-like agencies: organisations that register teachers or lawyers, for example, refusing to allow into the teaching profession or the legal profession—this is in Canada—graduates of a university that holds to the traditional view of marriage. We see students in the UK being kicked off their courses because they express a view supporting the traditional view of marriage. Even through to the High Court, their removal from the course has been held to be appropriate because at some point in the future they might offend someone. So we are seeing someone's ability to actually complete their education and move into a career being limited by the state because they hold a traditional view around marriage.
We heard a lot of evidence during the Senate committee inquiry around the impact on charities and the two laws in terms of the public benefit and public policy tests that we share in common with other nations, such as the UK and New Zealand. We have seen charities there disadvantaged as a consequence of the change to the marriage laws. We've seen similar decisions taken here already where, for example, St Vincent de Paul's has been held not to be a religious body. That has flow-on effects for things like the Sex Discrimination Act and exemptions around its views on marriage under that.
For many years, Australia has had a pretty commonsense approach to parents' rights to oversee the moral education of their children in accordance with their convictions. If a parent has a child in primary school, they can say, 'I don't want them to take part in the RE class, thanks very much.' They can go to the library, do an alternative class or play some sport. Everybody has been relaxed about that sensible accommodation. But what we are increasingly seeing is that, when it comes to other issues that have the title of 'equality' around them, that same right, which is guaranteed under article 18(4) of the ICCPR, is not being afforded to parents. It has gone to the extent that, following a change to the Sex Discrimination Act—a federal piece of legislation to include gender issues—South Australia has now issued directives to principals in its schools to implement programs around gender fluidity and that the principals are to override the will of the parents if their son or daughter, even those in primary school, wish to transition their gender. I think most Australians would think that is just beyond the pale, but that's what we are seeing currently. So, again, in the current climate, a change in federal legislation around marriage can be expected to lead to the same situation that we've seen overseas where parents are unable to have a say in the education of their children or in the things which their children are exposed to.
Freedom of expression: people need to be free to express themselves not in a way that threatens or harasses. Because we have such a lack of standardisation around the country, these amendments look at using the Sex Discrimination Act, with some amendments, to provide a standard basis across the country. There are also things around the protection of religious bodies, schools and celebrants. I'm aware that both the Attorney-General and, I think, Senator Leyonhjelm have some amendments on that—it came up during the Senate committee report—and we will certainly be looking to support them.
Why are these protections important? The evidence we saw in the Senate select committee inquiry said that the current protections were inadequate. We've seen from overseas and we've seen already in Australia that actions are being taken. The reality is that the change to the definition of 'marriage' is not the end of the story. We've seen in the UK, we've seen in the US and we've seen in Canada people saying that there is more to do. The Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK has said, 'We won't have true marriage equality until we've got rid of all these protections for churches and other things and anyone can get married in any church.' If we are going to make this change to a fundamental institution in our society then we need to at the same time put in place the protections so that we protect the rights of all Australians in a balanced and reasonable way and not just kick the can down the road for some future inquiry that may or may not result in the balance that Australia needs to be a plural and inclusive society. (Time expired)
Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I was saddened to get a text message this week from former Labor senator Ursula Stephens about the loss of our mate former Senator Hutchins—a good mate of yours and a good mate of mine. I'm sure more will be said about that in the Senate as time goes on.
For the whip's sake, I won't be taking the full 20 minutes. I just want to put a few things on the record. I was alarmed to hear my good friend Senator Fawcett say that principals in South Australia have already been directed by the education department to help transition students if they wish to change their gender, without consulting the parents or with the parents having no say in that. That is very concerning. I'm a 'no' voter. There is no secret about that. I have made the point clear for many, many years that I believe marriage is a Christian sacrament, the sacrament of matrimony, between a man and a woman—not that I will be following in the footsteps of Mary MacKillop. I can assure you of that, Mr Acting Deputy President. You can bet your house on that!
I congratulate the 'yes' vote. It is no surprise to me that the 'yes' vote got up. There was a bit of a betting ring going on here, in the parliament, about who was going to win and by how much. I invested two $5 and I had both of them on the 'yes' vote. So it's no surprise to me. I thought the 'yes' vote would get up. Mr Acting Deputy President, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will pass both houses of parliament, you can rest assured of that.
However, I have concerns. In my 9½ years in this place, I've done a lot of work with banks and people in financial trouble, and my advice to them has always been: 'Stay out of the courtrooms'. I hope what is happening here with the legislation is that it does not promote a feast for solicitors and people going to court. I welcome the arrival of Senator Paterson into the chamber. I just wish that Senator Smith and Senator Paterson had worked more closely together on this private member's bill so that people will not be sued. I believe the legislation will exclude, for example, a situation where a Catholic priest or an Anglican bishop says to a same-sex couple, 'No, I will not marry you in our church.' They will be protected. What if the couple says, 'Well, you're not going to marry us in the church, but we're still going to hold the ceremony in your church'? Are they protected then? That worries me.
Senator Rice interjecting—
I'm getting an interjection from Senator Rice; yes, it is. But as we get into the committee stage of amendments, these will be questions we can ask, Senator Rice, to see that they are protected. It's all right to get yes from one side, but I want it in black and white and to be guaranteed that we're not seeing people—
Senator Steele-John interjecting—
Order! Senator Williams, just ignore the interjections. You have the call.
I will. That might be his first speech, perhaps—his interjection!
It's not.
It's not? You want to classify that before you interject, perhaps. I mean, if I can speak freely: we have not been interjecting on anyone around the chamber. The 'yes' people have had free speech, have not had interjections or any mud thrown. But this is typical—
Senator Rice interjecting—
Senator Rice. All the conversations I've heard today have been very respectful of both sides, and I would urge that we please continue that trend.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President; you've said it perfectly. Thank you very much. It has been a respectful debate, even though it's very divisive amongst many people in this place and I'm sure in the other place as well. We have a right to disagree, to differentiate. That's our democratic right in this country, and I'll use that right now. I straightaway said congratulations to the people who support the 'yes' vote; I think that's being fair. And there was basically a 60-40 vote for it in the postal vote around Australia. But, as I said, I want to see people protected. What it's going to lead to in the future I don't know. Will it be a situation where schoolteachers cannot refer to 'boys' and 'girls' in their classrooms in primary schools? Will they have to refer to them as 'students'? Will students have to talk to the teacher of 'my parents' instead of 'my mum and dad'? I don't know, but I hope we don't become embroiled in things like that in the future. This is about changing the act so that same-sex couples can get married, and that is the situation. As I said, it will pass the parliament.
We've seen in America—and this is my concern, so I'll just harp on this a bit—when the court ruled to allow same-sex couples to be married there were lots of stories of people being sued in small business, disagreeing with whatever. That is what I hope does not happen here—that the legislation, when passed, secures and protects people who may have a different view, whether it be through personal beliefs, religious beliefs or whatever. We can't just pass legislation and leave people unprotected. And I want to thank Senator Paterson and Senator Fawcett for the good work they've done, along with my colleagues Senator O'Sullivan and others, to try to make it a change of legislation whereby people are protected and don't face having writs served on them and expensive, long, drawn-out court cases. If you go to court, it could be three years of hearing a case in a courtroom, and you'd probably wait another six months for the judge's decision. In South Australia you'd wait longer; the courts are jammed up down there. Then it might be an appeal—another two years—so you could be looking at five, 5½ or six years if court action were to eventuate, which is a lot of cost and a lot of stress on individuals. As I've said in the media and in other comments I've made: now that the legislation will be passing, let us do our best to see that people are not being sued and do not have to live with all that trauma, pressure and cost because of a decision we make in this place.
Once again, I congratulate the 'yes' vote. I will be voting no. With about 19 months left in this place, I have no intention of making a hypocrite of myself. The bill will pass; we all know that. That's the situation I find myself in as I live with my conscience, and I've said no all the way through. I strongly and firmly believe in equal rights for same-sex couples. I have friends who are gay, good friends, and I believe they should be treated equally, that they should have the same entitlements as my wife around separation, splitting of assets, superannuation or whatever. We've done so much work on it, and Mr Philip Ruddock did a lot of work on it many years ago, back in 2004 in the Howard government. I believe they should be treated equally, as I treat them equally. Every day in this place, I work with people of same-sex leaning, if I can put it that way.
I hope that the legislation does not open up a Pandora's box of legal fights, a field day for the lawyers. I hope we get it right. If we don't get it right the first time and amendments that have been proposed by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, by Senator Paterson and by others are rejected—and I hope they're not—I hope that in time we can correct that legislation. Let's face it: we spend a lot of time in this place correcting legislation that hasn't worked as we planned it would work. I remember sitting over there in opposition alongside Senator Boswell, where Senator Rice is now. We were doing some amendments to some laws that went through in the Howard government era. I said to Senator Boswell, 'Bozzie, did you make a mess of this?' He said, 'We made a mess of it all right, and that's why we've got to correct it and fix it up.' That's not the first time, and it won't be the last time, that legislation has passed this place with consequences that could not be foreseen. So let's hope we get it right. If not, it means coming back here in with further debates and further inquiries, no doubt, and correcting any mistakes we make. So that's where I stand on it. I leave it for others to have their say.
I must say at the outset I'm extremely happy and proud that we're actually at this stage, debating the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, with the very real prospect that it will deliver legislation that Australians voted for. This is an issue that should have been resolved a long time ago. For too long our nation's politicians lacked the courage to do what was right. For too long our nation's politicians were beholden to the interests of those who were on the socially conservative fringe. As far back as 2010, polls showed that 65 per cent of Australians believed the time had come for marriage equality. This is an issue that should have been resolved in this parliament, and it is deeply regrettable that it wasn't. There have been a number of bills brought before the Senate that would have delivered marriage equality, including one in 2012 that I co-sponsored with my Labor colleagues former Senator Trish Crossin and Senators Pratt and Marshall. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated at the second reading stage. Rectifying a wrong required real leadership from our politicians. Sadly, it was not forthcoming, and it was left to the Australian people to lead the way.
The Australian people provided the leadership when this parliament would not, and in doing so they have said loud and clear what supporters of marriage equality already knew: that we are a country of tolerance, a country that respects our LGBTI community and a country that believes in fairness. Australia said yes to marriage equality and no to fear and division. Australians voted yes because they knew that denying loving same-sex couples the right to marriage was not consistent with the Australian ideal of fairness. They voted yes because they knew that giving same-sex couples the same rights as those in heterosexual marriage would not take away from their marriages but would give LGBTI Australians the equality that they had been denied for far too long.
Over the course of the campaign, we saw LGBTI rights groups join together with other community organisations, politicians from across the political spectrum and the trade union movement to campaign for equality. I want to make a particular point on the role trade unions played during this debate. We've seen from the Turnbull government so often a vilification of our nation's unions and, in particular, the obsessive singling out of the CFMEU. I've always been a proud supporter of the union movement, and I was even prouder over the course of the marriage equality campaign. The CFMEU, like other unions, saw the injustice that LGBTI Australians faced and decided that they could not allow it to continue without doing something. They were told by some to stay away from the campaign, but in response they said:
You might want to tell us to stick to our "bread and butter"—to winning you better wages and conditions at work. But here's the thing about that: a better, fairer Australia where more people are equal? That's our bread and butter. That's what we work towards every day.
Sure, most of the time we achieve that by helping construction workers stand together and be paid a fairer wage, or be safer at work … but that doesn't mean we won't also stand up for our LGBTI members. Or for our LGBTI friends, family and neighbours. We stand for a fair go. We stand steadfastly with all our members who've waited far too long to be equal before the law.
That response sums up the attitude so many of our nation's unions took during the campaign, and, after a long and at times divisive postal survey, we now finally have a bill before us which all MPs and senators will have a free vote on. The road to this point has been long, and it has been hard for many LGBTI Australians and their supporters. As we know, the fight for marriage equality began long before the start of this postal survey. It has been a debate that has often dominated political discourse over the past decade, and it's important to acknowledge those without the tireless dedication of whom we would not be standing here today discussing this bill.
Thankfully, more than a decade on, attitudes have changed, and Labor has also led the way on that. There will still be work to do for LGBTI Australians, but, when it comes to achieving marriage equality, the end is now finally in sight. Over the course of the equality campaign, led by the fabulous Tim Gartrell and Alex Greenwich, I saw rainbow Labor and the wider Labor Party, mobilise the campaign. The campaign showed what we can achieve when we work together. The issue of equality is not and never should be viewed as a partisan issue. The emphatic 'yes' vote was the result of different parties, community groups, sporting codes and religious groups coming together with a common cause and a shared belief that discrimination against same-sex couples has no place in the Australia of 2017.
Our nation has come a long way on LGBTI rights. The process began in 1975 when South Australia decriminalised homosexuality, with Tasmania being the last state to decriminalise homosexuality. But I am very proud to say that Tasmanians voted 63.6 per cent in favour of equality. In fact, every single electorate in my home state said yes, and we recorded the third highest 'yes' vote of any state. I'm proud but I was not surprised. From Hobart to Burnie and everywhere in between, thousands of Tasmanians from the LGBTI community, their families and friends came together at market stalls and phone-calling nights to passionately campaign for equality.
When we look to the voices that joined together over the course of the campaign, we see teachers, police officers, doctors, defence personnel, nurses, labourers, office workers, mums, dads, sisters, brothers, neighbours and friends joining together. The 'yes' campaign was not about vested interests or a small minority; it was a grassroots movement which involved Tasmanians from all walks of life. That campaign was joined by Tasmanians United for Marriage Equality, with Rodney Croome, who has dedicated so much to the cause of marriage equality. I'd also like to take a moment to mention those who campaigned tirelessly alongside Rodney: PFLAG; Robbie Moore, president of Rainbow Labor, of which I am proud to be the patron; and Rajan, Michael, Megan, Robyn, Radek, Andrew, Rick, Vincent and Kym. And to Sam Watson, who, at 17, couldn't vote but was tireless in his advocacy for a 'yes' vote: your work saw a wonderful result.
The result on 15 November was met with euphoric scenes of jubilation across the country. Those were the scenes that were relayed in our living rooms on the nightly news, but I know of many who quietly took in the result themselves or in small groups, breathing a sigh of relief at the result and that the divisive and hurtful postal vote process was finally over. Equality had won.
Australia could have followed the lead of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Africa and so many other parliamentary democracies in voting on this issue in parliament. And I want to make this point again because, despite the resounding 'yes' vote and despite the overwhelming joy we felt as supporters of marriage equality, it should never have got to this point. We should be proud of the result but we should not be proud of this process. Thankfully Labor, with others, was able to stop the plebiscite from going ahead. We did so because we believed it would be divisive and unnecessary. Regrettably, the Turnbull government chose to get around the will of the parliament and introduced a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey. Sadly, we were unable to stop that from proceeding.
Forcing LGBTI Australians and their supporters to stand on street corners or to knock on the doors of strangers, asking to have equal rights, was a shameful way to help achieve marriage equality. Subjecting the LGBTI community to the vitriolic abuse of the 'no' campaign over the course of a nationwide postal survey on their basic rights was hurtful, unnecessary and something we look back on with a great deal of regret. Labor warned the government prior to the survey of the sort of harm they were about to unleash. Sadly, we saw over the course of the campaign an increased need for counselling hotlines and mental health services for LGBTI Australians. It is my hope that the wounds from the campaign can now heal, and it is now the responsibility of this parliament to ensure we vote on the marriage amendment bill quickly.
I believe that the time is long overdue for Australia to legislate for marriage equality. I believe in marriage equality because I believe that all Australians deserve to be treated equally before the law. Our current marriage laws do not allow that to happen. The principles of equality and justice in Australia cannot be met if the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. Marriage is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. All loving couples in Australia should have the right to participate in this institution if they wish. To deny same-sex couples this right based simply on their sexual orientation is discrimination and it has no place in Australia.
As Australians, we pride ourselves on our reputation as a generally inclusive, egalitarian and tolerant society, and we should use this opportunity to demonstrate these values. The core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity underpin the debate surrounding marriage equality. The proposed amendments in the marriage equality bill are about respecting the rights of all Australians to be equal before the law. They are the final steps towards equality for same-sex couples. We should allow our friends, families and colleagues to define, formalise and celebrate their commitment to each other as they wish, whether they are straight or gay. That is why our current marriage law must be changed.
It is important to note that what we are discussing is not an amendment to how churches conduct marriages or for whom they conduct them. That will remain unchanged and at the discretion of churches. What we are discussing and what we are about to amend is the act relating to the civil institution of marriage. Amending the Marriage Act will remove this last barrier to full legal equality for same-sex partners and protect Australia's reputation as a proud multicultural, multifaith, vibrant and diverse country. The Australian people have done their part; now it is finally time for this parliament to do its part.
This bill will allow civil celebrants to solemnise marriage, understood as the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, and voluntarily entered into for life. This will remove the discriminatory amendment put in place in 2004. The postal survey asked a rather straightforward question: it was a question about marriage. It is disappointing that those who are opposed to marriage equality in this debate want to debate everything but the actual issue.
Despite the distractions thrown out by those opposed to equality, the postal survey vote was not about bakers baking cakes for weddings, the Safe Schools program or political correctness; it was a question of whether Australians believed it was appropriate to make our marriage laws equal. We cannot allow the same distractions used during the postal survey process to be used during the parliamentary debate, and we cannot allow a determined minority to delay thwart, twist and divert the will of the Australian people, 61.6 per cent of whom said yes to marriage equality. The survey was about the civil institution of marriage, and that is what this debate in this chamber must be about. We cannot allow this bill to become derailed by those opposed to seeing marriage equality.
The religious freedom arguments and proposed amendments are nothing more than last-ditch attempts to delay what people now need to accept is inevitable and the will of the Australian people. Churches currently, as I've indicated, are under no obligation to marry couples they do not wish to. That choice would not be removed with the passage of this bill. Australia voted to remove the discrimination against LGBTI people within the Marriage Act. They did not vote to impose different forms of anti-LGBTI discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, and nor should this bill.
As I've said previously, marriage will survive; indeed, it will be strengthened. Australia will survive and it will be strengthened too by showing that we truly believe in respecting all citizens. I urge you all to think deeply about the core principles of our fine country. I urge you all to reflect on the meaning of justice, the meaning of fairness, the meaning of equality, the meaning of love—because, when it comes down to it, that is all this is. It is very, very simple. It is saying to all Australians that, in the eyes of the law, we all have the same rights and we are all equal.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that not one single state or territory voted no during the postal survey. If we are serious about being a chamber which reflects the will of the Australian people then we need to acknowledge the overwhelming 'yes' vote recorded on 15 November. My state of Tasmania voted overwhelmingly in support of marriage equality, and my vote will reflect that. It is an important step towards ending discrimination. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whose name is on the bill; the names that will matter are those of the couples who will, for the first time, be able to have their names on a marriage certificate. More than 7.8 million people said yes to marriage equality. The strong 'yes' vote delivers a message loud and clear: discrimination against LGBTI Australians must end. Australia voted for marriage equality, and that is what this parliament must now deliver. Thank you.
Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I, like you, rise to speak in support of marriage equality. My contribution won't be as colourful as yours, but it is certainly one that I am proud to make. I was pleased that the Queensland result in the postal survey was so strong, with a high percentage and an overwhelming majority of electorates voting yes. I would like to pay tribute to our friend Nida Green, the Queensland campaign team and the national campaign team as well. It is always dangerous in these sorts of scenarios to single out people, but I want to mention Shelley Argent. I don't know Shelley that well, but I have met her in this job. I know the work she has done behind the scenes in Queensland, publicly and quietly advocating for marriage equality for a long period of time. And I also want to mention Rodney Croome, whom Senator Brown mentioned. They both came to see me a couple of months ago to make the case for marriage equality, which I'm happy to support. I will come back to Rodney's history and a bit of a connection with my family that I want to touch on. From meeting Shelley and Rodney, I developed a real understanding of how important this is.
I respect that people have different views and see marriage equality through a different prism, but for me it is about ending discrimination. Whilst I was happy with the survey result and excited for those who will be able to marry in the future, I could not help but feel for all those same-sex couples who have passed away—or where one partner has passed away—without the opportunity to marry. I hope they lived a happy life, but I can't help but think it could have been happier and more fulfilled if they were able to marry.
So, whilst pleased with the survey outcome, I was not pleased with the process or a supporter of the process. I'm sorry for what it has put people through and the distress it has caused. It was a failure of leadership and sets a dangerous precedent in a democracy. I believe a conscience vote in the parliament was the correct way to resolve this issue. But I was happy to support the campaign on marriage equality, and the one positive I take in regard to the survey, apart from the overwhelming 'yes' result, has been the conversation it has prompted amongst family and friends in my community.
My young children are inquisitive types, always asking questions, particularly my two eldest girls, who are almost nine—nine on Thursday—and six. Whenever they've asked about marriage over the years, my wife and I have always explained that we hope one day in the future people of the same sex will be able to marry. We have always taught our children that one day we hope this will become a reality. And, as part of my support for the campaign, I printed marriage equality posters and made them available to people who wanted to put them up: family, friends, those in the community. We had some posters up on our house as well, and what it did was prompt conversation with us, with family, with friends and so forth—friends who had a similar view with their children as well. So they started talking to their children about how they hope that one day people of the same sex will be able to marry. For me those were conversations I enjoyed having with people about marriage equality that they also had with their children.
But as a Labor Party senator I respect that this is a matter for a conscience vote. The current party position of support for marriage equality in the platform but that it be a matter for a conscience vote is one that I support. I wish the Liberals and Nationals had granted a conscience vote on this issue many years ago; we may not have had to be here today. Some will criticise that Labor has taken too long to progress marriage equality, and I wish it had been quicker, but throughout the history of the party we have always been at the forefront of important social change, and a conscience vote has played an important role.
Some of the important changes the Labor Party has been at the forefront of over the last 50 years include, under Gough Whitlam, the Family Law Act 1975, which was effectively no-fault divorce. There was the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Under the Hawke government there were the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Under Keating there was the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. More recently, under Rudd-Gillard there were the same-sex relationships acts of 2008, which were effectively ensuring equal treatment in Commonwealth laws, amongst other important changes. So Labor has a proud record of ending discrimination, and again we will be at the forefront of ending discrimination in regard to marriage.
I pay tribute to those who worked tirelessly inside the party for change, in particular my colleagues in this chamber Senator Wong and Senator Pratt, and give a special mention as well to Rainbow Labor, a national network that has been so effective. I have nothing but admiration for your courage and determination. I wish it had been easier. I wish it had been quicker. But I will be honoured to vote alongside you to end discrimination.
I was brought up on what I would describe as traditional social justice principles. You treat people equally, no-one is better than you and you do what you can to help people less fortunate than yourself. This continues to guide me, and I continue to learn. One thing I learnt in this campaign was some history about how appallingly LGBTIQ people were treated in this country for too long. One such report came from Ulverstone in Tasmania and struck a special chord with me because it's where my parents, brothers and sisters and extended family are from and many still live. It is hard for me to comprehend that it was only 20 years ago that homosexuality was decriminalised in Tasmania. Journalist Angus Livingston, who I haven't met, alerted me to an antigay march that took place in Ulverstone in 1996. The reports of this event are distressing and alarming. The arguments mounted at the march are familiar in the current debate. I want to read an extract from a paper written by Sally Gibson that comments on this rally that occurred in Ulverstone:
One community rally organised to oppose the decriminalization was organised in Ulverstone on Tasmania's north-west coast and was attended by 700 people. The keynote speaker at the rally was Chris Miles, a Federal Liberal politician—
and the federal member for Braddon—
Miles linked reform of Tasmania's laws against homosexuality to infiltration by homosexual activists of the education system. He said, "if we give in on this one the rot will continue. This will just be the tip of the iceberg."
We can see some similarity in the arguments that were running 20 years ago with what we've seen from the 'no' campaign here. I note that the federal electorate of Braddon voted 54 per cent in favour of 'yes' in the recent survey.
I feel for family members who grew up and experienced life as gay Tasmanians through that period. I feel for family members who moved away or, if this impacted on them, were not living a life where they were comfortable in their sexuality because it was not welcome in their home state. I know that there would be similar historical examples of this throughout Queensland and the rest of Australia as well. I can't correct a historical wrong, but I can help ensure it never happens again. I support marriage equality.
I am very pleased to rise to speak today on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I approach this debate like I approach many others—through a prism of freedom. I have always believed and have long advocated that it is not the appropriate role for government to prevent two people who love each other from formalising that relationship in a ceremony in front of their family and friends and calling it a marriage. Government should not get in the way of that love. A government which outlaws that is a government which is too big for me. Denying gay couples the freedom to marry has always sat uncomfortably with me as a Liberal, which is why I am very proud that it is now coming to an end—and it's doing so on the Liberal Party's watch through a process which we put in place. It's why I voted 'yes' in the postal survey and why I have consistently argued that we should change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry since I was first publicly asked about it in June 2011. I warmly congratulate my colleague Senator Dean Smith for all the work that he has done to bring this bill to the Senate, as well as our colleagues in the other place Tim Wilson, Trevor Evans, Trent Zimmerman and Warren Entsch for putting this issue firmly on the agenda.
When I heard the results of the postal survey two weeks ago, like many Australians I was relieved. The wait will soon be over for all of those gay couples who have wanted to get married for so many years, and that is a wonderful thing. The strong turnout of just under 80 per cent and the clear margin of almost 62 per cent of Australians voting 'yes' leaves no room for doubt. The Australian people want the law to change to allow same-sex couples to marry. It is now our task, as parliamentarians, to deliver it. We must do so by carefully considering the issues at hand but without a moment of unnecessary delay. I believe the Senate can, and must, pass this bill this week. Between now and then, there is going to be a lot of debate about the detail. There should be. This is a substantial change and we must get it right. People of goodwill who want to see this change happen can legitimately disagree about how to do so. As long as I have advocated for same-sex marriage, I have also advocated for the freedoms of other Australians. I have never believed, as some have argued, that granting the freedom to marry to gay couples needs to come at the expense of anyone else's freedoms. I have always argued that we can do both.
The postal survey confirmed what we already knew: Australians fundamentally disagree about how we should define marriage. As much as it might be nice if we all shared the same view, part of living in a free society is accepting that we don't all agree, including on fundamental issues like marriage. Given that, our challenge is to find a way to harmoniously coexist, including on fundamental issues like marriage. The second step is putting in place a legal framework that allows us to live alongside each other amicably whilst holding these different views. I believe a framework based on freedom and individual liberty gives us the best chance of doing so. That means accepting that we should not use the power of the state to force our views about marriage on anyone else. We should absolutely try to persuade each other to our point of view. We should encourage those who disagree to reconsider their perspective, but we should not compel them to change their mind. If we do, we will turn what should be a great unifying moment in Australian history to one that is divisive and defined by recriminations, not love. We would be violating the individual conscience of our fellow citizens, something that no free society should ever do.
I am not here today to speak on behalf of the 4.9 million people who voted 'no'. Given that I voted 'yes', there are others who are better placed to do so. But I do want to remind senators that these are our fellow Australians. They are our neighbours and our colleagues and our friends. They have lost this political contest and they should not be able to stand in the way of this change. But nor should they and their concerns be totally disregarded. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the many Australians who voted 'yes' but who don't want to see this change come at the expense of anyone else's freedoms.
I believe many Australians voted 'yes' for the same reasons that I did: out of a very Australian live-and-let-live attitude. The simple act of allowing a gay couple to get married has no effect on my life, so why should I stand in the way of their love? There is some evidence to support my conclusion. Many polls conducted throughout the survey period which showed a clear majority of support for same-sex marriage also showed high levels of support for protecting freedoms at the same time. When asked in a Newspoll between 21 and 24 September whether parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion, 62 per cent agreed. A Guardian Essential poll last week found that 63 per cent of Australians supported allowing both ministers of religion and civil celebrants the right to refuse to solemnise a same-sex wedding. A Lonergan poll reported in The Guardian early in November found that 49 per cent of Australians supported granting commercial service providers the same protection, with 35 per cent opposed. It mirrored findings from University of Sydney's US Studies Centre which showed 43 per cent in favour of the same provision and 39 per cent opposed.
Many Australians who voted 'yes' were reassured by the promises from across the political spectrum that no-one else's freedom would suffer as a result of changing the law. On 15 September, the Prime Minister said:
I just want to reassure Australians that as strongly as I believe in the right of same-sex couples to marry, as strongly as I believe in that, even more strongly, if you like, do I believe in religious freedom.
On the same day, the Leader of the Opposition argued:
I am a supporter of marriage equality, but I also have been raised to be a person of faith. I can give this guarantee to the Australian people: I and Labor will not support legislation which impinges on religious freedoms in this country.
Others, myself included, made similar promises. We must now deliver on that promise. In my view, we must do so within this bill, and I want to take a few moments to explain why.
Whilst I very much welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to ask Phillip Ruddock to conduct a review into the adequacy of protections for religious freedoms in Australia, it is not a substitute for incorporating sufficient protections into this bill. As senators are aware, I recently released my own draft bill to legalise same-sex marriage. It contained broader protections for freedom of speech, religion and conscience than are provided for in this bill, but it did so in a narrow and targeted way, only relating to marriage. It did so because we recognise that beliefs that people hold about marriage are stronger than the beliefs they hold about other issues. For many people, it is integral to their faith. My bill did not attempt or pretend to offer wider protections for religious freedom. This was deliberate. The problem it sought to solve was a practical and immediate one: our disagreement over the definition of marriage, not a theoretical or future problem on how religious freedom interacts with other important rights. That is a worthy topic to discuss, but it will not be a short or straightforward conversation. It has the potential to go on for some time and to stray into other unrelated areas. Our prospects of achieving consensus in this area are remote in my view.
My bill will not be introduced to the Senate, but key elements of it will be introduced as amendments to this bill. They will seek to cover the issues my bill sought to address except for one major element, which was to extend to commercial service providers the right to conscientiously object to participating in a same-sex wedding. I have heard the concerns of many Australians that to do so would be to extend discrimination. That was not my intent. My objective was to protect freedom of religion and conscience, and to avoid people resolving their different views about marriage by suing each other. Although I'll not be seeking to incorporate this provision as an amendment, I remain concerned that in the absence of it we will see divisive court cases that attempt to force people to participate in weddings that are inconsistent with their values. Most gay couples just want to get married and most wedding service providers will be delighted to have the extra business, but I do fear that activists will seek out those few conscientious objectors to use them as test cases for the law. I hope that I'm wrong.
The remaining amendments from my bill are much less contentious. Senator Fawcett, who is co-sponsoring them, has already outlined them in his contribution to this debate, so I won't go over them in detail. But, in broad terms, they seek to better protect the freedoms of civil celebrants, parents, charities and freedom of speech. I look forward to discussing them in more detail in the committee stage. The strongest argument that I have seen against these less contentious protections is that they may not be necessary. We are assured by many advocates of the bill in its current form that it has no impact on these freedoms and that we need not worry about explicitly protecting them. I do not have the same confidence. Even if I did, what harm would be done by reassuring all Australians with these protections?
Although my bill will not be legislated, I am proud to have released it. Doing so sparked the biggest debate about freedoms that we've had in this country for many years. It has led to a number of amendments being proposed, and I hope it will contribute to a better bill with stronger protections passing this chamber than otherwise would have. And we now have a holistic review of religious freedoms in the Ruddock committee.
As senators may know, I am not religious myself—I am agnostic—but I recognise the vitally important role that religious liberty has played in producing one of history's most tolerant, diverse and pluralistic societies that we all enjoy living in today. Equally, freedom of conscience and free speech are among our most important liberties. Without them, we can never truly be free or democratic. Standing up for them does not always win you universal acclaim, particularly when you do so on behalf of people who hold unpopular views—even when you don't share those views yourself. But when I came to this place I promised that I would be a strong voice for classical liberal values. I would not be true to that promise, or my own conscience, if I didn't fight hard for these freedoms. I hope that all the amendments that I propose and support this week are successful. But if they're not, at least I will know that I have done everything I can to protect the freedoms of all Australians and this will allow me to do something that I have always hoped that I could—to vote for a bill to extend a freedom to gay couples that they should have enjoyed years ago: the freedom to marry.
I rise to support the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. If people have been listening in, they would think that this is a bill solely about religious freedoms. This is a bill about marriage equality. Fundamentally, it's a bill that has been the subject of debate in this place on many occasions, and a bill that is the result of what I think is the courage and commitment of Senator Smith in bringing it forward, after having thought deeply about his position on marriage equality, changing his position and becoming an advocate for marriage equality.
This bill amends the restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman. The bill allows two people the freedom to marry in Australia regardless of their sex or gender. The requirements for a legally valid marriage otherwise remain the same. If you listen to some of the debates that have been in here today, you would think this was the end of religious freedoms in this country. I will come back to that issue, but I want to go to the key issue that we're dealing with here—that is, for all Australians to be treated equally. For all Australians who love one another—whether that's in a male-female relationship, a male-male relationship or a female-female relationship—that is acceptable and always should have been acceptable. We should not be here now debating this. It should have been law in this country some years ago.
We've had long debates about this. I congratulate a number of people who have been pushing this forward over the period I have been involved in parliamentary politics: Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese and Louise Pratt from the Labor side, who have pushed this bill continually and have advocated on behalf of same-sex couples; the members of Rainbow Labor, who have fought for fairness, justice and equality for all Australians; and Shelley Argent and the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays for helping to educate the public and politicians on the rights of gay and lesbian Australians.
Most importantly I thank the mother of a young gay man from Greystanes, who rang my office in 2009 seeking my support for marriage equality and who outlined to me the discrimination, bullying, violence and social exclusion faced by her son growing up as a young gay man in Western Sydney. I also thank the gay man who approached me around the same time in Albury-Wodonga to outline the challenges faced by gay men growing up in the sixties in regional Australia. It was these personal stories that convinced me as a backbench Labor senator to speak out against my own party's support for a policy that denied equal rights for all Australian citizens. I decided that love and commitment should be the test for marriage in Australia, not outdated and discriminatory acts of parliament.
As a result of this I attended a rally of about 2,000 Australians in support of marriage equality outside Sydney Town Hall in November 2010. I broke with party policy and indicated I would be supporting marriage equality at the upcoming national conference of the party. I did this because, in my previous life as a blue-collar worker and a union official, my union had always supported the rights of oppressed minorities in this country, and no-one was more oppressed than gay and lesbian Australians. I'm pleased to have played a small role—only a small role, with many others—in bringing together parliamentary support for marriage equality.
Unfortunately, it has taken too long to come to the position we're in today. The parliament should have done its job and provided equality to all Australians many years ago. Politicians should simply have done their job and dealt with the matter, without wasting over $120 million of public money on a divisive and unnecessary postal survey—$120 million of public money wasted on a survey that told us exactly what everyone knew: that the Australian public supports marriage equality.
I want to turn briefly to the strategy some conservative politicians are adopting in an attempt to delay marriage equality in this country. Arguing that religious freedoms will be affected by this bill beggars belief. In a country where religious institutions have significant economic and political power, to argue that providing equality to same-sex couples will result in religious discrimination is just unbelievable. I know a bit about religious discrimination, having been brought up in the west of Scotland. The divide between Catholics and Protestants when I was being brought up was huge. I married a Catholic, and I was brought up a Protestant. And I must tell you, it was not easy to go through this process with parts of my wife's family and my own family. It was one of the reasons I decided I'd had enough of that nonsense and would not have my kids brought up with religious discrimination and in such a divide. I was fortunate enough to have a trade and to be able to emigrate to Australia, where I took the view that a much more relaxed position was adopted between different religions in terms of marriage.
That proved to be true, but to listen to some of the contributions over the last couple of days on this bill would lead you to believe that the end of the world is nigh for those who have a religious faith in this country. I am an atheist, so I come to this with a different point of view from that of some of my fellow senators. I don't see that religion should impinge upon the rights of atheist Australians, Australians who are agnostics or Australians who do not have a spiritual faith or believe in some spiritual being. I know many, many people, as we all do, who have strong religious beliefs and who use those religious beliefs to try to guide their life, and many of them do that in a very productive and progressive manner. Others, when you hear some of the debate that goes on, use their religion to try to discriminate against individuals who want the same right as they have: to marry the person they love. The proposals we've heard today from Senator Paterson are not what I would consider to be appropriate in this debate.
This is a simple proposition that says that all Australians should be treated equally, that all Australians should have rights in the context of becoming married. The bill itself provides significant protections for those who are religiously minded or have religious views. It protects religious freedoms in relation to marriage. Ministers of religion will be able to refuse to solemnise a marriage, in conformity with their religion's doctrine, even though I can't understand why a gay Catholic can't be married in the Catholic Church. I can't understand that at all. If you are a practising Catholic or a practising Christian, I always thought the argument put forward by religious proponents was that religion was about tolerance and love—except if you're gay or a member of the LGBTIQ community. I don't get that. As an atheist, I just don't get it. It is unacceptable in my view to discriminate against the LGBTIQ community in relation to marriage, health support and help when they become old and infirm. It is not something that I can understand as being compatible with what people argue religion is about.
I want to look at the argument that religion is under this huge attack because of this bill. Religious organisations in this country are amongst the most powerful organisations in the country. They are amongst the richest organisations in the country. They are not there as defenceless bystanders in Australian political life. They are not there as defenceless bystanders in the Australian economy. They are big players in the economy. They are big players in the parliament.
I take the view that there should be the separation of politics and religion, but that's something that does not happen in this place. When we come together in the morning to commence parliament, and the Senate, we say prayers—I think the Catholics say a different prayer to the Protestants—and we get a different approach to this. I come along because it's part of the tradition. It's part of respect for the parliament and respect for other people's views. But religious people should not be telling me, an atheist, how I should live my life, how my children should live their lives and how my grandchildren should live their lives.
If you look at the New South Wales public school system, you see religious teaching in public schools in what should be a secular society. But we've got religious teaching in public schools. My grandkids, along with about 40 per cent of the other kids in the school, have to go away to a quiet room and do something on their own while religious teaching is taking place. I find that objectionable. It's a public school system in a secular country and my grandkids should not be stopped from getting an education because of religion.
Some senators today have the hide to say that religion will be forever changed. Religion has its fingers everywhere in this community, even in the public school system. We've got chaplains going into the public school system and they are not supposed to proselytise, but they're in there. We should have support for children based not on religion, but on their mental and physical health. That's the thing that should apply, not religion.
I don't accept the argument being put up that having marriage equality in this country will lead to the end of religious freedoms in this country. These powerful bishops, these powerful people, have been out there influencing politics in this country for as long as we've had an Australian state. They don't need protection, but the public, young kids, have needed protection from them in the past. I just don't get this argument that there will be an end of religion if this goes ahead. I want to indicate clearly that I won't be supporting any amendments to this bill. I want to indicate that I'm concerned that the government has thought it necessary to set up a special inquiry to look at religious freedoms in Australia. I hope it's a broad based inquiry and that my freedoms as an atheist are taken into account. The single biggest group in Australia is not Catholics, it is not Anglicans and it is not Presbyterians. It is people who have no religion. I belong to that group, and I don't want religion stuffed down my throat by anyone. It's unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable in this parliament. That's really what we've got coming here with these amendments: it's about imposing religious beliefs on the parliament of Australia to give benefits to religious organisations that should not be there in a secular society. If people want to practise a religion, they are free and entitled to practise their religion. This parliament should not be making it more difficult for people who are not religious to have no religion as the basis of their lives.
I have said before in this place that I've been married since 1971. I was offended when I heard Senator Brandis and others talking about the sanctity of marriage, that you can only have a decent marriage if it is sanctified by God or if it is done in the eyes of religion. I've been married for a long time, and my marriage is as good and as strong as any religious marriage in this country. We've had our ups and downs, as both religious people and non-religious people have, but I've got a strong marriage and a fantastic wife, whom I love dearly, and I object to it being treated as second-class because I was not married in a church or under some sanctified mumbo jumbo, as far as I am concerned.
So this is a big issue. It should not be simply about protection for religion. Religion is privileged in all areas of society in this country. The people who have not been privileged in this country, and who have certainly been placed in a position of deficient rights in this country, are the LGBTIQ community. I say it will now be a problem for some of the atheists in this country if we get more so-called religious freedoms, which is simply code to be able to discriminate against the LGBTIQ community. I've got some great friends in the churches, some fantastic political friends, who go out there with progressive views helping people. But just because you're in a religious position, it should not make you any better than anyone else in this country. It should not be about religious freedoms but about rights for everybody in this country. (Time expired)
In the very short time before the dinner break, I'm going to make a start on my speech. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017.
As many have already commented in this place, 15 November, just a couple of weeks ago now, was certainly a historic day. For me, it was the day that the Australian people told politicians—as they have in various polls over the past few years—to get on and legislate for marriage equality. As many others have also said in this debate so far, I'm one of those who didn't believe the survey was needed and that the $100 million—or however much it turns out to be—spent on holding it could have been used for so many more worthy pursuits. The harm that has been done, particularly to the LGBTIQ community and their families, will, for many, take a long time to overcome.
The Australian community voted overwhelmingly—
Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30
Before the dinner break I was saying the Australian community has voted overwhelmingly to remove discrimination from marriage and to support equality, and now it is time for the Australian parliament to act and reflect that will of the Australian people in the bill that we are debating today. I'm not going to speak for too long, but I wanted to concentrate my remarks on the history of the equality campaign here in the ACT that I've now been involved in for more than 15 years. I think it is somewhat appropriate that we are debating this legislation here in Canberra which, whilst it is the nation's capital, the seat of government and the place where politics happen, is also a very strong and supportive community and town which has fought very hard to ensure that there is equality across the statute book and that all members of our community are treated equally.
I'll start by acknowledging that the ACT community in the recent same-sex marriage survey—and that includes Norfolk Island and Jervis Bay, for whom I am a proud senator—achieved both the highest jurisdictional result from the survey, with a 74 per cent 'yes' vote, and the highest response rate, at 82.4 per cent. In total, 236,979 people from the electorates of Fenner and Canberra completed their survey, with 175,459 voting 'yes' and 61,520 voting 'no'. This result did not surprise me at all. As thousands gathered in Braddon on the night of the 15 November to celebrate the success of the 'yes' campaign, it struck me just how long the campaign for equality has been running here locally and how many community events, rallies and meetings I've gone to over the years to progress marriage equality.
For me the majority of my involvement in this campaign has been during my years as a territory MLA, where a commitment to removing discrimination on the basis of sexuality from the ACT statute book was an election campaign back in 2001 in the very first campaign in which I stood as a candidate for Labor. Labor won that campaign and we began the work of amending various laws to remove discrimination against LGBTIQ people, their partners and their children in all ACT laws. This included various laws such as the Discrimination Amendment Act, the Parentage Act, the Sexuality Discrimination Legislation Amendment Act, the Human Rights Act and the Adoption Amendment Act.
In the second Stanhope Labor government we took a commitment to the 2004 election to establish civil unions for same-sex and other couples to provide equal and legal recognition with marriage under ACT law. The bill was called the Civil Unions Bill 2006 and it caused controversy at the time, particularly for the Howard government. Even though this was a clear election commitment from Labor prior to the election and it was an election where we won majority government for the first time in the history of self-government, the Howard government, with the then Attorney-General Mr Ruddock, threatened to intervene and overrule the bill should it pass the assembly. It did pass in May 2006 despite the threats from the Commonwealth at the time and it came into force on 9 June 2006. Four days later, with the swipe of a ministerial pen, the democratic will of the people of the ACT was overruled when the Federal Executive Council asked the Governor-General to disallow the act.
Not to be deterred, several months later the ACT cabinet, of which I was a member, advised by the very capable Attorney-General Simon Corbell, agreed to introduce another bill to recognise same-sex couples with the Civil Partnership Bill 2006, which sought to provide the same legal protections and recognition as the Civil Unions Bill. Despite seeking to amend the laws to remove the word 'union' from the bill, as that had caused a lot of the concern with the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth, represented again by Attorney-General Ruddock, indicated that the proposed legislation opened the door to bigamy and contradicted the Marriage Act's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Howard government threatened again to disallow the bill should it be passed into law. We took the decision at the time that as it was obvious that the Howard government were about to lose the federal election we would hold the bill over until after the federal campaign, when we hoped we'd have a more sympathetic government.
But even though the government did change in 2007, and whilst Prime Minister Rudd indicated that he would not override ACT legislation, the path to reaching agreement with the Commonwealth on a suitable bill that allowed the ACT Labor government to deliver on our commitment to the people of the ACT, whilst also being agreeable to the Rudd government, was not easy. Over several months the negotiations went back and forth and seemed to me to hinge on something so minor that I couldn't, and still can't, understand the strength of the Commonwealth's views at the time—which, I should say, were immoveable. In the end the ACT compromised, as we felt that the need to put in place laws that allowed the recognition of same-sex couples was more important than passing laws that clearly would likely be disallowed for the second time in a year.
So, almost two years after we had started with the draft legislation of the Civil Unions Bill, the Civil Partnerships Act commenced on 19 May 2008. The sticking point of the legislative ceremonies was removed from the bill, with an administrative ceremony instead being performed by a representative of the ACT Registrar-General. Further amendments were made in 2009 to reinsert ceremonies to be conducted with civil partnerships, making the ACT the first territory in the country to legalise civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples. The Commonwealth continued to threaten to disallow the laws, but further amendments were made to address their major concerns, and the bill passed the assembly late in 2009.
In 2012, some six years after the original Civil Unions Bill passed the assembly, we continued our quest to ensure that same-sex couples were able to have their relationships recognised legally and to enjoy the same rights as people married under the Marriage Act. At the time, and based on legal advice that we had, the ACT government, of which I was now the Chief Minister, flagged our intention that we would work with Tasmania to progress same-sex marriage legislation, as it was clear certainly from all the discussions we had had that it was not going to happen nationally at that time. So Labor went to the 2012 election with a commitment to introduce a same-sex marriage bill into the assembly during the next term. We delivered on this commitment in 2013 when we introduced the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013. I said at the time:
We’ve been pretty clear on this issue for some time now and there’s overwhelming community support for this.
Relevant to the debate we are having today in this place, I went on to say:
We would prefer to see the Federal Parliament legislate for a nationally consistent scheme, but in the absence of this we will act for the people of the ACT.
This bill was debated in the ACT Legislative Assembly on 22 October 2013, more than four years ago now.
When the legislation came into effect on 7 December, 47 couples had registered their intention to marry. This was despite the very early announcement—even before the bills actually passed the assembly—from Senator Brandis that the Commonwealth was going to challenge the validity of the laws in the High Court. Thirty-one couples married over a five-day period, between 7 and 12 December, which was the date the High Court annulled the laws, finding that the ACT laws were inconsistent with the federal Marriage Act and that only the federal parliament could make laws in relation to marriage, with the judgement finding that:
… under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law—
as a majority of the territory Legislative Assembly decided—
is a matter for the federal Parliament.
Over the almost four years since that decision I have often reflected on whether pursuing marriage equality on our own was the right course to take. I was very aware at the time that, whilst this was a legal battle between two governments, real people and families were caught in the middle. Those who had been married under our scheme would have their marriage annulled as though it had never existed, when it was clear to everybody who attended one of those ceremonies that the union did exist and that they did matter.
But overall, and on reflection, I believe it was the right thing to do. We had made a commitment to our community that we would ensure that every one of our citizens would be treated fairly and equally before the law. We stood up for that principle, and it's an important principle which I support today.
For me, the most important thing that came out of the 2013 experience, aside from the happiness and love that we witnessed over those pretty intense weeks, was that we stood up for what was right, we stood up for the ACT. And, while we comprehensively lost in the High Court, we did end up with a very clear judgement which said any amendment to the Marriage Act is a matter for the federal parliament; it clarified that once and for all. And here we are today—no more obfuscation, no more avoiding—doing what we should have done years ago. Thanks to the direction of the High Court, we are here doing what only this parliament can do. I'm proud of the role the ACT Legislative Assembly, the smallest parliament, has played in getting us to where we are today. It's taken 16 years, and we never took a step back. But now, from the smallest parliament to the largest, it's time to get this done. Thank you.
I rise today to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, introduced by my friend and WA colleague Senator Smith. I congratulate Senator Smith and all those who have sought to change the law in our great democracy and in a matter of days will succeed in their undertaking. Whilst we disagree on this issue, I have never doubted the blood, sweat and tears Senator Smith has had to shed over this issue. In fact, I congratulate all those who have contributed to this debate. It is at these times that we often hear the most interesting speeches in this place. My speech will not be as interesting as some but, as a senator, it is my responsibility to put my views on the record, particularly as they are contrary to the views of a majority of Australians and a majority of my colleagues.
This bill will pass parliament—and, given the clear will of the Australian people, it should. Obviously, this private senator's bill comes to the chamber with a genesis unlike any other. Though the decisions were taken well before I came to parliament, I was uncertain about the survey. I was wary of an idea that parliamentarians should in any way outsource their decision-making capacity to a survey. However, I think these circumstances should be seen as unique. That said, the survey was obviously an extraordinarily successful undertaking with a strong participation rate in what was a voluntary process. The Australian people have spoken clearly and unequivocally to alter the definition of marriage.
Mostly, the debate was reasonable and respectful. There will always be the internet trolls who post hateful things. We should never become inured to this or shy away from topics because of it; we must be able to have respectful debates on all issues. Whilst this debate has in the main been respectful, the media continue to struggle with these issues. They seek to create two camps, when, in reality, Australians fall along a spectrum. I have been described as an arch conservative, a staunch conservative—a label I find cartoon-like. It is all too easy for the media to leap on such labels as a short-form way of pigeonholing, and thereby dismissing, different points of view. This is then exacerbated by the trolls online.
I do believe that institutions and traditions are important. They are our links to the past, and the glue that binds our society together. We have become a society that has moved away from many traditions—probably most traditions—and clearly some of these are not missed. In my experience the casual racism, sexism and homophobia that were part of the Australian culture in the recent past have now largely disappeared. However, marriage is an institution that emerged long before codified laws or doctrinal religions and has a particular meaning and character not static but remarkably durable. It is also an institution that has been under significant pressure for a number of generations but has lasted.
It is in this context that I decided to support the traditional definition of marriage. I'm not convinced that not being able to attach a particular tradition to a relationship can be described as a human rights violation. Not being able to access an institution absent discrimination in the law cannot be viewed as equivalent to an act of discrimination or somehow devaluing other types of relationships. As a society, we have gone on a journey where today all relationships between people are treated as largely equivalent under the law of Australia. There may still be some areas that need addressing, and they will now be overtaken by the passage of this bill.
I do not believe that government or laws make any relationship more valid or more important. To me, the validity of a relationship is the bond between two people; and that is what I'm lucky enough to share with Rebecca. Nothing government does or does not do will ever change that. It cannot strengthen it; it cannot weaken it. I do not view and have never viewed anyone's relationship, no matter its form, as less than my own. However, as someone who does value tradition and institutions, I see marriage in its traditional sense as being something that is worth preserving.
Now a decisive majority of Australians have spoken, and this parliament will act. Traditions, customs and institutions can and do change, and that is what will happen with the passage of this bill. However, I do counsel all to consider with open minds the amendments proposed to this bill, particularly the amendments proposed by senators Paterson and Fawcett. We do not want the outcome of this debate to be an endless round of litigation targeting certain beliefs. That would do no-one any good except a few radical ideologues. I genuinely hope that those who benefit from this change derive the positive experience from it that they seek.
As I said in my first speech just a few weeks ago, whilst farmers are conservative, they do not fear change. I am someone who profoundly believes that the people get it right. Not on every individual occasion but across the broad sweep of history in open, free democracies, people get it right. I am therefore the first to admit that I may be wrong. One thing I'm sure about is that in these contentious debates we must fight against the trend towards the anonymous keyboard trolls. I say to all: not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, not everyone who takes a position contrary to yours takes it out of fear or hatred or dislike. Take people as they come to you, with a positive mind and an open heart. That is how I live my life.
This is not my maiden speech. I rise to speak to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and make amendments contingent on the passing of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to allow for same-sex marriage. This bill also purports to provide that refusal of a priest or a minister to solemnise the union of same-sex couple will not be unlawful.
The fact that a majority of the community have voted in favour of the change proposed by this bill should be acknowledged. However, it is false to claim that simply because a majority have agreed to do something all parliamentary representatives are bound to support it. Governments rely on majorities. Senators, however, rely on only 7.7 per cent or 14.3 per cent of the vote. Otherwise there would never have been a Greens senator.
Nor a One Nation senator, for that matter.
Precisely. For decades, Greens senators have championed hard-Left agendas which, if the opportunity had presented itself, would have been firmly rejected by most fair-minded Aussies. However, that does not deny the legal right, indeed the moral obligation, of those elected as Greens senators to represent their own constituencies, even though they represent less than 10 per cent of the population. Likewise, I consider myself morally obliged to speak for those whom I consider myself to represent. I am under no illusion that I'm here for any other reason than because votes directed to Pauline Hanson passed to me, and I came here fully intending to be a Pauline Hanson's One Nation senator. The fact that I was booted out of One Nation does not change what I was voted in to do. I was elected to represent the interests of those who voted for One Nation and those who preferenced One Nation. I still intend to represent those people.
This brings me to the current bill. If you look at the highest areas of the 'no' vote against same-sex marriage, they are in the areas where the One Nation vote was strongest—rural and regional Queensland. This clear indication of the views of what I consider to be my constituency is reinforced by the many thousands of conversations I've had over the years, both campaigning with Pauline for 20 years and as a publican. They have given me a clear view of rural and regional Queenslanders' views on same-sex marriage. It is my intention to reflect those views.
I believe that the family is the cornerstone of our society and marriage is the cement that holds it together. Even three years ago, both major parties pretended to agree with this, yet today many of the same people who opposed same-sex marriage when the last Labor government was in power, such as Senator Wong, have undergone a 'road to Damascus' conversion. If same-sex marriage is such a pressing concern, why not legislate it during the Rudd and Gillard government days? The answer, of course, is that when Labor were in government they were terrified that supporting this would create a rallying cry against them. So much for high moral principles!
The fact is, of course, that same-sex marriage has become today what the republic issue was in the 1990s: a red herring, a fashionable distraction from the looming crises facing our nation. A left-leaning government and a clueless opposition have grasped on this issue of same-sex marriage as the previous government did on supposed climate change—anything to distract from the real issues like runaway government spending, ever-increasing taxes, endless erosion of our personal freedom and criminal neglect of the people of rural and regional Australia.
Instead of wasting our time in this place with this issue, the parliament should be focused on governing. Tens of billions continue to be wasted on handouts to the lazy and feckless or on grandiose ideas and idiot schemes like NBN, for which there never was and never will be a market need. The latest obscene money waster is a submarine project on which, with scarcely any reflection, this government has elected to fritter $60 billion reinventing the wheel when we could easily buy a dozen perfectly serviceable modern submarines from Japan for $10 billion and the rest of the money could be used for better things. Meanwhile, the crucial regional dams, roads, bridges, railways and coal-fired power stations remain unbuilt. Yet, instead of debating these real issues, we are here wasting a week of parliament's time on the same-sex marriage bill. What does that say about the priorities of the government and opposition? What does this augur for the future of our country?
It is not for me to judge the morality or desirability of other people's lifestyle choices, but it is for all of us in this place to consider whether we should be sprinkling legal holy water on these choices. This is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of whether our country will be better or worse if we overturn the time-honoured and religiously sanctioned definition of marriage as between a man and a woman just to satisfy a vocal and sometimes violent political lobby. What would Ben Chifley, John Curtin, Bob Menzies and Harold Holt say if they could see what the parties which they once led have come to? Instead of jobs, economic development or nation-building, what exercises the attention of the heirs of Menzies and Chifley is whether same-sex couples can call their unions marriage. Thank you.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I first want to acknowledge and respect the will of the majority 'yes' vote in the recent postal marriage survey. I acknowledge the 'yes' campaigners' long fight for this reform and pay tribute to those who've maintained a respectful and reasoned discourse over the course of the last several months and years.
I think we must acknowledge that, if this bill passes, we must consider the legitimate concerns regarding religious freedom that have been raised. It's important that these issues be investigated by the Ruddock review and that religious freedom protections in Australia be considered in greater detail. Those who know me know that I have always had a very strong view regarding marriage, its definition and its place in our society. It is the cornerstone foundation of our democracy, with religious and cultural traditions as its core.
I want you to know that I have always stood against discrimination of any kind in our society, and I have vehemently supported antidiscrimination legislation. It's important that we recognise that this reform will not simply end discrimination against same-sex-attracted people. As a parliament, we should be looking to remove any discrimination based on sexual orientation. This fight will continue regardless of this bill. We must bring a divided nation together on this issue and ensure leadership and unity. The time for division has passed. It is now time, as a parliament, to move to ensure there are adequate protections for religious freedom, freedom of speech, parental rights and the rights of charitable organisations in this country.
The result of the marriage survey must be appreciated in its entirety: 61.6 per cent of Australians, or 7,817,247 people, voted yes; however, a large number of Australians voted no, with 38.4 per cent, or 4,873,987 people, voting for the traditional view of marriage. A significant number of Australians did not participate in the survey at all, as 3,278,260 people, or 20.5 per cent, decided not to return the survey to the ABS. Seventeen electorates across Australia did not vote for a change to the Marriage Act. In the seat of Blaxland, 73.9 per cent voted against the proposition we are debating; in Watson, 69.6 per cent; in McMahon, 64.9 per cent; in Fowler, 63.7 per cent; in Werriwa, 63.7 per cent; in Parramatta, 61.6 per cent; and in Chifley, 58.7 per cent. Western Sydney has a large migrant population that holds a proudly traditional view of marriage based on religious teachings. Their views, and the views of everyone who participated and did not participate in the survey, should be respected. I note my colleague the member for Blaxland's comments after the postal survey result. The Hon. Jason Clare stated of the result in his electorate:
Good people with good hearts can have different views on this … issue.
In my home state of Tasmania, 63.6 per cent of Tasmanians, or 191,948 people, voted yes; however, 36.4 per cent, or 109,655 people, voted no. A significant number of Tasmanians also elected not to complete the survey—20.3 per cent. Nearly one-fifth of eligible voters in Tasmania, or 77,020 people, did not return their survey to the ABS. In the electorate of Braddon in my home state only 54 per cent of people voted to change the Marriage Act. This displays a significant and notable split within the community on this issue. I'm one of the 109,655 people in Tasmania who voted against changing the Marriage Act, and I stand firm in my decision to do so. Australians expect the Australian parliament to ensure a balanced way forward for all communities so that the four out of 10 Australians who voted for a traditional marriage will be allowed to practise freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These core democratic values are so important to our country, and should never be underestimated or undermined.
As a parliament, we must ensure that by implementing change to the Marriage Act, in changing the definition of a secular marriage, we display respect for the almost five million Australians who voted no, as we equally respect the seven million people who voted yes. This is the fair thing to do and upholds the spirit of the country. We live in a pluralist society, which means people hold various and competing viewpoints. There is nothing more democratic than a pluralist society. Many argue that this bill will end discrimination against a group of Australians, but we must be sure that we do not end up discriminating against another group in order not to discriminate against the first group.
Nationwide, four out of 10 Australians voted against changing the traditional definition of marriage. This is a significant number of people and they should be heard, not ignored. Whether people's reasons for voting no were endowed in a religious, personal, cultural or spiritual view, they were completely entitled to vote 'no'. I note that the 2017 Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill acknowledged that evidence demonstrated that there are substantial matters of law and individual human rights to be dealt with that extend well beyond the Marriage Act itself.
I note:
… if Australia is to remain a plural and tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law, as opposed to the common perception that it involves changing just a few words in one act of parliament.
Australia has a proud history of upholding Western democratic freedoms at home and abroad. Australia assisted in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration states, 'Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others in public or private to manifest its religion or belief in teachings, practices, worship or observance.'
I'm sure many of you will recall the case of Madlin Sims in September of this year. Ms Sims took it upon herself to sack an employee after that female employee posted, 'It's okay to vote no' on Facebook. This person engaged in political debate and exercised her right to freedom of speech, but, because she exercised this fundamental, democratic principle, she lost her job. Unless we ensure appropriate protections are in place, this is the type of intolerance incident I fear could become the norm if safeguards are not put in place in the future. The challenge we face in this place is to ensure the almost five million people who voted no are not marginalised because of their traditional view of marriage they hold dear. We need to ensure that there exists adequate protections for freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country.
Only ministers of religions and civil celebrants who, within 90 days of this bill passing, register their objection will be protected. We must ensure that the religious freedom of all Australians of faith are investigated and protected. We need to protect people who espouse a religious viewpoint or hold a strong Christian faith, Jewish faith or Islamic faith. Many of you would be aware of the case of Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart. In 2015 Archbishop Porteous was taken to the antidiscrimination commission for publishing and distributing information on Catholic teachings of marriage. Religious leaders, outside a wedded context, must be protected. We must have protection to ensure that cases such as Archbishop Porteous's does not happen again. Currently another archbishop or other religious leader can be brought before the an antidiscrimination tribunal for advocating their teachings on marriage.
We must also look at this reform and the interaction with state-based antidiscrimination laws. Commonwealth laws only protect freedom of political and religious belief in the area of employment. In all other areas people depend on other state laws to protect them. State antidiscrimination laws must be considered and be consistent so people are protected from persecution, regardless of this bill. The current antidiscrimination law in Australia is significantly unbalanced as to who it protects in this debate. It protects same-sex orientated Australians and people who speak on their behalf from discrimination in every state and territory and federally, but the law in some states provides no protection at all to individual Australians who support traditional marriage from a conscientious or religious conviction, particularly New South Wales and South Australia. Similarly, federal law provides no protection to individual Australians who support traditional marriage based on a religious conviction. There are no laws in any jurisdiction that protect associations or charities from detriment because they adhere or express a belief in favour of traditional marriage. We must ensure that we balance the rights rather than the exceptions for religious freedom. Religious freedom in terms of exceptions from antidiscrimination law neglects that religious freedom is a right in and of itself. Religious freedom belongs to all people; not just institutions or professional clergy. The Senate select committee noted that 'Australian human rights commitments are protections that apply to all individuals.' Many of you will be aware that the Senate select committee report called for additional protections for religious freedom.
We must acknowledge that there may be non-religious objections to same-sex marriage. People may not have a faith based reason for not wanting to participate in same-sex weddings. A person's right of conscience on this issue should be respected even if it is not on religious grounds. If someone wishes to continue to publicly or privately object to a change in secular marriage they should not be persecuted. Civil marriage celebrants who do not want to solemnise same-sex marriages for religious reasons must make this objection public. No government should be forcing a person to declare their religious affiliations in a public way. It is a burdensome imposition not only on the freedom of religion but also on the right to privacy.
Religious bodies must be afforded protection and the protections must extend further than merely bodies established for religious purposes. In the recent case of Christian Youth Camps v Cobaw, the definition was read so narrowly by the court that a Christian youth camp with the word 'Christian' in its name was deemed not to have been established for religious purposes. A court may narrow the protections available to decide that a body is established not for religious purposes but for educational, charitable or other purposes. This is a significant flaw which will have religious bodies across the country extremely concerned for their long-term viability.
As it stands, parental rights and the rights of faith based schools have not been provided great attention in this debate. Many parents send their children to religious or faith based schools because of the reputation of the school or because of the moral world view which the school has a proud reputation for teaching. Religious or faith based schools are provided no such protection if they continue to teach a traditional or faith based view of marriage. We must look at protections for a school, principal or teacher from being brought before an antidiscrimination tribunal for teaching a faith based or traditional view of marriage.
Charities which have a religious or traditional view of marriage must be protected. Charities cannot undertake a disqualifying purpose which, according to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) includes 'the purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities that are unlawful or contrary to public policy'. Many of you will be aware that in New Zealand the Family First charity lost its charitable status for this reason. In Australia this could threaten charities such as Salvation Army, Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul, to name a few, that do so much within our communities across the country to make life better for marginalised Australians and those who are less fortunate. We must ensure that we do not make life harder for organisations which help so many people in the community that require assistance in times of hardship, family breakdown and cost-of-living crises.
The Senate select committee noted that the right of freedom of religion 'has two broad facets: the right to have or to adopt a religion or belief; and the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.' You cannot legislate to change the definition of secular marriage without protecting religious freedom in this country. If you do not, people will be persecuted. Religious organisations already receive threats and are persecuted on a regular basis by groups who do not share the same views. With the rise of social media it is so easy for people to abuse and intimidate people using these platforms. This should never be tolerated and it should never be accepted in civilised society. Such intolerance and aggression demonstrates a malicious attack on our entire community because it attacks the very fabric of a peaceful way of life. Many now argue religion no longer has a place in our society. I sincerely disagree with this view. I am of the view that religion still plays an important role within our community. Religion is one of the elements in our community that actually brings people together.
During my time in this place I've been consistently lobbied by members of my community to uphold the traditional view of marriage and to protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. Since the completion of the marriage survey, my office has been inundated with phone calls, emails and messages urging for religious freedom and freedom of speech to be protected in this country. I've also been stopped in the street by people urging me not to shift my position regarding this issue. I stand firm in representing these voices, the voices of nearly 40 per cent of Tasmanians and Australians who voted no. These members of our community deserve representation.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed under section 116 of the Australian Constitution. For hundreds of years, religion has been practiced in relative harmony. However, it can be argued that the Constitution has failed to protect religious freedom. Commonwealth laws only protect freedom of political and religious belief in the area of employment, which is why freedom of religion must be entrenched in individual acts of parliament. For so many Australians, religion provides them with a sense of who they are and how they act on a daily basis. For others, it does not. However, respect is a two-way street and fundamental to civilised society.
Although Australia may not be as religious as it once was, for many Australians we still are. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, the majority of us do respect an individual's right to practice their faith as long as it does not impinge on another person's legal rights. In reality, Australia has a diverse range of religious and spiritual beliefs. Statistics reveal that still around 60 per cent of Australians classify themselves as Christian, with 25 per cent identifying themselves as Catholic and 17 per cent identifying as Anglican.
Tolerance, compassion and understanding are all fundamental to a well-functioning and civilised society. Tolerance at this most important basic level amounts to respect—respect for others, respect for their right to share a different view from your own and respect their right to free speech and freedom of religion. We must ensure that we protect adequately religious freedom, freedom of speech, parental rights and the rights of charitable organisations.
It is now time, as I said earlier, to unite the country, to end division and to provide relevant protections so that Australians can continue in their lives in harmony and enjoy freedoms that make our country the best place in which to live and work. I look forward to the Ruddock review into the protection of religious freedom in Australia. But I want to place on record my sincere and heartfelt thanks for those members of my family and friends who are members of the LGBTIQ family. I want to thank them for respecting my right to have a view that is contrary to theirs; to know that they still love me and still consider me an important element of their family and their lives means so much to me today.
So, as others have said in this place, it is time that we move on and that we get this done. I concur with that, and I have no desire to hold up the passing of this legislation. I think it's important that we all remember we're entitled to have different views, we're entitled to be heard and we're entitled to practice our religion and to have freedom to do so in this country of ours.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, and I do so with great hope for our country.
I thank the parliament and the people of Australia for the enormous courage that has been taken at some of the most personal and intimate levels for individuals across our country and here in our parliament: to put forward their views on whether it's yes or no—importantly, in a respectful manner. It is the courage of our nation—it is the description of who we are as Australians—when we say yes: to moving forward, yes. When the people of Australia voted so much in favour of yes, our parliament now just has to get it done. Do it now! Do it now—that's what the people of Australia are saying and that is our job here as parliamentarians. I stood here during my first speech to the parliament to tell a very personal story. I called then on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to legislate in the parliament to allow same-sex marriage, because we could do it. Why did I say that? I said it from a very personal perspective, and I've heard so many of my colleagues in the chamber speak exactly like that. I will share again with the Senate what I said on entry into the parliament about my family. It was about my cousin's sister: a young lesbian Aboriginal woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria who struggled with her sexual identity and who was made to feel that, as an Aboriginal woman, it was something she should not be talking about. The attitudes not just of those around her but also of our country reflected deeply in her life and in the way that she lived her life. But it all became too much and, at the young age of 23, she took her life. Our families have missed her terribly. Each time we talk about this issue, I know how it touches my family and of the frustration, recklessness and inability to be able to just say: 'Hey, it's okay. Who you love and how you live, it's okay.' Well, this week, this parliament is hopefully going to say: 'Yes, it's okay. It's okay'. I commend Senator Smith for his courage in navigating through, no doubt, an incredibly difficult time on his side.
We want this bill passed before Christmas. Labor went to the last election with a clear and unambiguous policy: that, if elected, we would introduce legislation to make marriage equality a reality across our nation within the first 100 days of government. The plebiscite devised by those opposite, a policy devised by opponents of marriage equality and designed purely to delay the cause of marriage equality, was really not about progressing it. Certainly leading up to the survey, I reflected and voiced concerns about the ability of all people in the Northern Territory to fairly participate in this postal survey. Historically in the territory we have a low voter turnout, and this is especially relevant for areas outside of Darwin. I raised in this Senate how many people live in the bush, on stations or in town camps, and that the very nature by which the postal survey was created and conducted did not support the people who live in these regions, many of whom do not have a postal address and, in some cases, don't even have a birth certificate. The immense amount of heartache caused by the 'no' campaign was prominent in the Northern Territory. The rumours, half-truths and lies spread rapidly, but, nevertheless, in the face of adversity, the people of Northern Territory stood strong and we got it done. In Alice Springs, the central Australian community got together to paint a mural to support the 'yes' vote. Despite being vandalised, the Little Mural That Could was repainted by the 'yes' volunteer community in a rainbow reincarnation. All the hard work of the 'yes' volunteers paid off with the Lingiari electorate's 'yes' result of 54 per cent. Similarly, when anti-marriage equality graffiti appeared in Darwin, community members were quick to turn the offensive message into a statement for equality.
The NT News ran several campaigns in support of marriage equality, a view supported by the majority of Territorians, at 60.6 per cent. NT News in early August this year wrote:
The time for talking is over. The public are sick of the bickering and political point-scoring about same-sex marriage. The Northern Territory in Australia need to move forward.
This was what was being talked about in the Northern Territory.
But there are other things that occurred throughout the same-sex marriage campaign, and I want to put on the record a very big thank you to other courageous people in the Jesuit community, in the schools of Saint Ignatius' College and in Xavier Catholic College and to the principals and rectors of both. In Saint Ignatius's newsletter, Viewpoint, Principal Dr Paul Hine rejected a warning from Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart, which was revealed by Fairfax media, that staff at Catholic schools and parishes who entered same-sex marriage could be sacked. Dr Hine said it was a difficult time for same-sex-attracted people, who faced an onslaught from not only the media but also religious institutions:
I do not know if Riverview has any LBGTQI teachers or parents in the college and if they have intentions of marriage: I won't be asking with a view to removing them from the school.
Those of same-sex orientation who are part of our community are welcomed and valued as part of the greater mission of the church, and that is to bring God's love to the world and those in need of it.
The rector, Father Ross Jones, also wrote specifically about the need for compassion, love and understanding. And it was an outstanding moment in the campaign for same-sex marriage. Outstanding why? Because those in religious institutions who believed and wanted to say yes were heartened and encouraged by the leadership of these leaders in the Jesuit schools. And I say thank you. As a former employee of Saint Ignatius' College I say thank you.
Before concluding my speech, I'd also like to share a story from a constituent about the needless anxiety and trauma caused by the postal survey:
On the 15th of November after a long wait and sleepless night I sat in my car to find out how Australia had voted - was my relationship worthy of voting yes?
I was in my car because I couldn't bear to be around others, what if it was a No vote what would I do? and what could I say?
And I knew I could not console others and that the pain would run too deeply. Normally, I can find something in myself to support others but this one was personal it was my life and that was something very different.
When I heard that Australia had voted yes I expected a huge sense of elation and that did happen, but mostly I felt relief.
Relief the plebiscite was over, relief that maybe it would not take up all the dinner conversations with my friends and family, relief that I could drop the guard and just be a little bit angry with the No Campaign and the Coalition for marriage and every other person that had minimised the relationships of the LGBTI community.
No one but the LGBTI community will know what it was like to have family members would probably vote NO and be terrified to discuss this out of fear of what that might mean to our relationship.
Afterwards my blood boiled when I heard politicians pat themselves on the back and say the plebiscite was a good thing and positive thing and isn't it great that Australia said yes.
That was insulting and no it was not a good thing it was never a good thing and as someone said the Government "outsourced" the decision to Australian citizens and thankfully they said yes, but there was a cost and that cost was a collective anxiety that never should have occurred. So I sat in my car and reflected and then my children rang, they were crying, laughing and of course asking when my partner and I were getting married. I was truly shocked at what the Yes vote meant to them.
My partner and I have been together for 12 years and in that time we have gone through good times and bad, we have raised children and built a life together as a family and my children wanted our relationship to be solidified.
They wanted it to happen, not because of economics, or legalities or because now we could but they wanted to be part of celebrating our relationship and because as my daughter said she didn't have to explain anymore.
So now we wait again, our anxiety is not over it goes on. We just want to get this whole thing over with, we want our politicians to listen to the people and stop debating the validity of our relationships which is being mixed up in a "dog whistle" debate about where we can buy cake for our weddings which is insulting and discriminatory.
The right to get married is so much deeper than where we buy our wedding cakes or which venue we go to. It is actually much simpler. This debate is about love, commitment and the right to our relationships. They are to be respected and valued like everyone else's.
Even in the face of an extremely unnecessary, expensive and divisive survey.
Love is love.
Love always wins.
That's the message from my constituents in the Northern Territory, that's the message to the Senate and that's the message to the Australian parliament: love is love. Let's just get this act together, hey? Thank you.
I'm delighted to have this chance to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I begin by congratulating all of those who campaigned well and in the spirit of fair public discourse. I congratulate the 'yes' campaign and send congratulations and good wishes to people I know who want to be able to marry. I'm thinking of friends of mine, one couple who have been engaged for years, who now are able to celebrate the serious step of committing to each other, putting the other before anyone else, including themselves, and becoming, to some intents and purposes, indivisible. I'm thinking of Shelley Argent, the national spokesperson of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who gave evidence at the Senate select committee hearing in Sydney earlier this year. She said:
As parents, we stand with our sons and daughters to support them on the issue of marriage equality and what we see as fair.
But I reiterate that Labor opposed the principle of the survey. We took the view that if the Marriage Act were to be amended it was the job of the elected parliament to legislate on the matter. But, as we all know, the deep divisions within the Liberal Party and the weakness of the Prime Minister in his own cabinet and his own party made it impossible for the government to allow the parliament to debate and vote on this question, even on a private member's bill. There was too great a risk that the deep split in the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's lack of support in his own cabinet and his own party would be exposed. This survey proves that, indeed, the Prime Minister cannot lead.
There has been an explosion of cynicism and questioning not just of elected representatives but even of representative democracy. At its heart is inauthenticity from some of our leaders. The Prime Minister always said he was in favour of marriage equality, but his way of delivering it involved a completely unnecessary plebiscite that cost, as Senator Cormann's press release at the time stated, around $120 million—and I must pause at this moment to thank Senator Cormann for ensuring that all Labor parliamentarians are now getting full and constant access to his media portal.
This is the same Prime Minister who wants cuts to Medicare, education and so much else because, he says, the government can't afford it. It's the same Prime Minister who will forgive every single member of this parliament every last dollar of their salary and entitlements, yet will chase to the ends of the earth those overpaid by Centrelink, even when the recipients have acted entirely appropriately and tried to do the right thing. The public are not stupid. There is an inauthenticity at the heart of this prime ministership. 'An empty leather jacket', I saw some wit on Twitter say today, recalling the leather-jacket-wearing, rich, urbane, inner-urban sophisticate whose pontifications on Q&A on the ABC once so enthralled Australia's chattering class. Where was that Prime Minister today, when two Liberal women senators were left to protest the lack of Liberal women MPs? That Prime Minister wouldn't have pretended that a vote for Labor in Bennelong was somehow, in a way he has not yet explained, a vote for people smugglers. That Liberal would not have said:
Now believe me, right now, the people smugglers are using Kristina Keneally's articles, her statements on this as a marketing tool to get people onto their boats to take them to sea…When the boats start again, if Labor were ever to get back into government, how many of those asylum seekers is she going to bring to Bennelong?
My friend the member for Gellibrand pointed out today that Robert Menzies, in campaigning for the conservatives in a 1940 Corio by-election, declared, equally implausibly, 'Hitler's eyes are on Corio.' History tells us that Labor went on to win that by-election in Corio.
We want and need leaders who are true to themselves, comfortable in their own skin, honest about what they believe and strong enough to have the courage to implement it. We did not get that in the debate on marriage equality. We had Malcolm Turnbull send out a few brave Liberals to fly the flag for the cause he says he believes in. Like a cowardly armchair general, he sent out the member for Goldstein, Senator Smith and others to fight the fight he ought to have fought.
Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand, made me think back to that troubled time of war and back further to Winston Churchill's description of a weak Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. It was said that MacDonald was a Prime Minister in name only. It was said a more formidable force, Baldwin, was allowed to call the shots and make the big decisions in his government. Sound familiar? Well, so might these words. Churchill described him thus:
I spoke the other day, after he had been defeated in an important Division, about his wonderful skill in falling without hurting himself. He falls, but up he comes again, smiling, a little dishevelled, but still smiling …
Then, staring at Ramsay MacDonald across the chamber, Churchill said:
I remember, when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the programme which I most desired to see was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder".
Winston Churchill went on:
My parents judged that that spectacle would be too revolting and demoralising for my youthful eyes, and I have waited 50 years to see the boneless wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.
And so it is, all these decades on, that we too have a 'boneless wonder' pretending to run our government—a hopeless hack whose achievements in business have made him rich but whose ineptitude in government is making more and more Australians, other than his friends, poorer and poorer. This 'boneless wonder' has been so cowardly in leadership that he has been willing to sacrifice the careers of up-and-coming backbenchers to fight a fight he was not courageous enough to fight himself. There are many reasons for the rising tide of cynicism in public life, but central to it are the boneless wonders in this place who won't stand up when it matters. When I came here, I vowed to myself I wouldn't be one of those. I wouldn't die wondering what might have been or what I could have done; I'd go for it. I suspect most, if not all, of us arrive here with that fervent hope. With some, and clearly it is the case with our Prime Minister, cynicism and pragmatism get the better of them. Sic transit gloria Malcolm.
The solution the government came up with was a non-binding kind of plebiscite in which the votes of the Australian people would be used to override the Prime Minister's opponents within his own cabinet and his own party. Labor and other members of the Senate strongly opposed this expensive, unnecessary and wasteful exercise and it was defeated in the Senate. The government then turned to the expedient of a postal survey, which could be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and would not require legislation. Labor opposed this exercise also, but we could not defeat it, neither in the parliament nor in the High Court. Once it was clear that the survey was to go ahead, Labor decided it was necessary to secure the biggest vote possible in support of the proposal to amend the Marriage Act. Led by Bill Shorten and our leader in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, we threw ourselves wholeheartedly into the campaign for a 'yes' vote. Why? Because we on this side of the chamber are not people who take our bat and ball and go home. We fight for what is principled.
I acknowledge, of course, that other members of the Senate—some Liberal senators, the Greens political party, the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Hinch—also campaigned strongly. I acknowledge also that voters for the Liberal Party, the Greens political party and other parties were part of the successful 'yes' majority. But I think all senators will agree it was the support of the great majority of Labor voters for the 'yes' campaign that made possible the great victory we saw. Of course, there are now many more progressive voters enrolled than ever before, because those voters, predominantly young people, wanted to ensure that they had a say. This was the upside of a cynical political exercise by the Prime Minister: people feeling there was an issue they wanted to ensure they could have a say on.
Having said that, I want to comment on some specific aspects of the vote. Six coalition seats voted no, three in rural Queensland and three in suburban Sydney. These results are not especially surprising given that the National Party advocated a 'no' vote and that a substantial section of the New South Wales Liberal Party also campaigned for a 'no' vote. In fact, I was surprised that support for the 'yes' case was as strong in country seats as it was. Outside Queensland, every rural and regional seat voted yes, and that is perhaps something the National Party should take note of.
The fact that 11 Labor seats voted no, some of them by wide margins, should also be taken note of. Of these, nine are in the suburbs of Sydney and two are in the suburbs of Melbourne. What these 11 seats have in common is their multicultural character. What we saw in this survey was not the usual class-based divide we see at most Australian elections; we saw a cultural, religious and ethnic divide over a specific issue. If the 'yes' vote in most country seats has a lesson for the Nationals, we need to accept, and I do accept, that the 'no' vote in these 11 seats has a lesson for Labor. People in these seats vote overwhelmingly Labor at federal and state elections. They are in some ways the bedrock of our support. Yet in this survey they did not accept the position that Labor asked them to support.
I respect the fact that many of these voters hold sincere religious and cultural beliefs that led them to vote the way they did. I think the lesson here is that we as a party need to work harder to listen to the views of our voters in these seats and to communicate the values and policies of our party more effectively to them. This vote is a reminder that Labor represents a wide spectrum of voters who hold widely varying views, and sometimes conflicting views, on many issues. It's the role of a political party to represent the views and interests of its voters but also to lead its voters—to persuade them that the party's policies and values are to be taken into account. Ultimately, of course, we must hold to the values and policies of our party, but we also need to work harder to persuade our voters to support those values and policies.
Some politicians are voting against the results in their seat, on both sides, and I think that those parliamentarians should be given that freedom, both for consistency of approach and because it is respectful. This debate, like any debate, is not made better by attacking people for acting on their conscience, on their beliefs or on their faith. I think, disappointingly, we saw some sectarianism in the education bill, the Gonski 2.0 bill. It is not fitting for anyone to use arguments that belittle someone's beliefs; it is simply wrong. Indeed, some of this debate on same-sex marriage has reminded me very much of Arthur Miller's play The Crucible. A lack of tolerance in any way, the non-extension of a hand held out to help and a lack of willingness to understand another person will never help any community.
Now that the survey results are known, the responsibility to decide the issue of marriage equality has come back to this parliament, where perhaps it should have been all along. The government decided to submit this question to the Australian people, and now they have their answer. The Australian people have shown that they support changing the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act so that any two adults who wish to, regardless of gender, can enter into a civil marriage on the same basis as any other two people. Now it is our responsibility to take that mandate from the people and turn it into legislation.
The best way to do that is to pass the bill which Senator Smith has introduced, without unnecessary delay. We have only two sitting weeks left this year, and we can and should bring this matter to a conclusion before we leave. Some members may complain that this does not leave sufficient time for debate. My answer to that is the parliament could have debated this question at any time this year and could have debated a bill such as this at its leisure. That this did not happen is because of the delaying and obstructionist tactics of that faction of the government parties which is opposed to the principle of marriage equality and because of the weakness of the Prime Minister in not overruling them and allowing a bill to be brought to the parliament much earlier.
I thank Senator Smith for his courage in grasping this issue and for his patience and diplomacy in crafting a bill which accommodates the views of a wide spectrum of members and senators. It is after all no easy thing to draft a bill which both Senator Rhiannon and Senator Leyonhjelm will support. But Senator Smith has done that and he deserves our thanks.
I was speaking about this bill and the survey on Melbourne radio station JOY FM about a month ago. I mentioned an article by Matthew Knott from Fairfax about Senator Smith, who some time ago did not support same-sex marriage but has since become, in Matthew Knott's words, 'a passionate supporter'. I think this speaks to the complexity of this debate, that one could start with one position and move through to the opposite. But, having been on the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, I know that Senator Smith is a very thoughtful person. He understands human nature, both at its best and at its worst, and retains compassion and patience and has respect for human beings. The Senate select committee had a membership that really did encompass the full spectrum of views on this issue, and yet everyone on that committee, even if they vehemently disagreed with something another committee member was saying in our private meetings, was respectful of the other person's view. The committee was chaired with utter professionalism and even-handedness by Senator Fawcett. The point is that Senator Smith's bill is a compromise bill, a bill which none of us is perhaps entirely happy with but which represents what most of us are prepared to accept.
It is difficult to discuss the amendments without seeing their wording. I support, and Labor supports, religious freedom. What that means is the right of all Australians to practise their religion and to express their religious beliefs in a way that is consistent with the law. The Smith bill provides that no religious marriage celebrant can be required to perform a marriage ceremony which is contrary to their religious principles. No priest, minister, rabbi or imam will be required to perform a same-sex marriage if they do not wish to do so. The bill contains certain other protections for religious organisations and the expression of religious opinions.
But religious freedom does not mean the right to act in a discriminatory way in matters which have no connection to religion. One potential that has been discussed is an amendment regarding the provision of commercial goods and services. I do not believe that Australian society is served by allowing providers of commercial goods and services to not serve or to not provide goods and services to gay and lesbian Australians. A comparison would be to allow a provider of commercial goods and services to not serve or to not provide goods or services to an interracial couple who come in to seek goods or services for their upcoming nuptials, because the provider does not believe in interracial marriage. Equally, a provider cannot refuse to provide goods and services to women, Jews, Catholics, Indigenous people, Muslims, Chinese people, people with a disability, gay men or lesbians or transgender people. They cannot do so even if they genuinely hold a religious belief which holds one or other of these categories to be in some way inferior or objectionable, and thank God for that.
The Australian people have told us, and by a wide margin, that they want all Australians to be treated equally, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. I want to quote Noel Pearson, because I think that he is a very thoughtful individual. He said after the survey:
I think the same-sex marriage debate has shown us very clearly that the silent majority of Australia is actually … generous, very fair-minded and actually want to bequeath our children something better than we have …
The government sought the views of the Australian people and that is what the Australian people have told us. Our fellow citizens have been kept waiting for far too long for us to take action on this matter. They should not be kept waiting any longer.
I want to go back to Shelley Argent, who spoke quite emotionally when she gave evidence at the Senate select committee hearing. She said at that hearing:
When I first began lobbying MPs, I would say most of you were not even in politics. I was being told that our sons and daughters would want to marry the dog, the TV or the dead.
… … …
As parents, we want our sons and daughters to have the right to marry in a respectful manner, just the same as their peers and siblings.
… … …
As parents, all we ask is that our sons and daughters have the right to the same opportunities and to be seen as equal by the government, regardless of gender or orientation. They work; they pay taxes, and they contribute equally to society. We, their parents, want them, when they can finally marry the person they love, to have the same opportunities and privileges that marriage provides.
So let us legislate and let the bills ring. Thank you.
Like many before me, I rise to make a contribution to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, Senator Smith's bill.
I've been watching the debate as it has proceeded today and towards the end of the last sitting, and I just want to address this question around the government having reached out to the Australian people to engage in this process to allow the parliament to have a clear indication of where they ought to go with this. It's well known that the government—the coalition—took this opportunity as an election promise. We took it to an election and we were elected into government. I find it increasingly difficult to hear advocates indicate that for some reason or another any side of parliament that takes a promise to the people, and is endorsed with being given the government benches, should then abandon that promise. That's the first thing. We'd have been criticised for that equally, had we not proceeded.
I was one of the people who pursued a plebiscite—not a postal plebiscite, I must admit. I was successful in getting a unanimous motion before some 700 or 800 delegates of the Liberal National Party conference in Queensland. Notwithstanding the fact that there were speakers strongly against the proposition, including the Attorney-General, the conference overwhelmingly supported the question of a plebiscite. I'd been watching this closely with colleagues and, mind you, I have been long on the record, as a private person, that I would vote no if the opportunity presented itself in a plebiscite, but my argument was I had engaged with so many colleagues, both here in the Senate and in the other place, who I think had abandoned their fundamental role in representative democracy. There were colleagues who indicated to me that, had they followed what they believed was the appropriate position on behalf of their electorates, they would have voted differently to what they were intending to vote.
In a representative democracy each of us goes to our communities and we present ourselves, we present our policies and we present our promises. We have an obligation as we vote in this place to take their wishes into account when we make decisions. There are occasions, of course, when information not available to us at that time comes along which might cause us to change our position. At that point, we have to try and anticipate what our electorate, if you like, might want us to do in those circumstances. I personally believe that we then have something of an obligation to pursue what we consider are their interests.
Remember that there have been 24 attempts to change the Marriage Act from when the legislation was introduced under the Howard government, including four bills that made their way into full debate and failed: 24 occasions. Suddenly, we wake up with some collective wisdom that after those 24 attempts somehow society had moved on—measured in months—and that now we should ignore the history of evolution on this question, we should all suddenly simply vote yes and immediately come into these places and produce legislation to support that position.
If you want to look at things in my home state, people living in about 80 per cent of the land mass voted no—very decidedly no. In those circumstances you might think that someone like me, particularly as a senator, ought to take that into consideration and support a 'no' vote against—
Senator McKim interjecting—
Ignore the interjection.
Particularly in this debate, there have been respectful attitudes to those speaking, but it comes as no surprise that the Greens might want to take a different approach.
Very sensitive!
Senator O'Sullivan, resume your seat, please. I will inform the Senate that it has been a respectful debate. I ask those on my left, especially on the cross bench down there, to please let people speak and show them some respect even if they have a different point of view. Could you please abide by that? Senator O'Sullivan, you have the call.
Thank you.
They're not on your left!
My apologies, those in front of me.
I said in this place the other day that, given this question has been before society now for decades, this place and the other place should not rush with undue haste simply because there are two weeks left. I, too, want to see this matter resolved by the end of the year. I have made the statement, and since reaffirmed it, that if the Australian people indicated that they wanted a change to the Marriage Act I would support that, subject to the details around these basic protections that so many of us want.
So many Australians—five million of them, of course—didn't support the 'yes' case on this occasion. I have spoken to a lot of people in my circle and in my capacity as a senator. I think it's fair to say that some people who voted no were not so concerned about the fact that gay people would be allowed to marry at the other end of the process; they were concerned about an absence of any detail around the protections that may be afforded them. So many said, 'I really don't care what two people want to do; it's their private business.' They indicated that—this is a position I support entirely—government has no place in the sexuality or the sexual lives of consenting adults. I've held that view for a very long period of time.
This is no longer a question about a debate allowing two people to marry. Even those of us who are proceeding cautiously and have a view around these protection issues and some amendments have effectively conceded that the Australian people have spoken and that the effort of both this chamber and the House of Representatives ought to be to give effect now to what the Australian people have said. But this isn't about that. I have listened carefully to all of the speeches, and so much of it has been about the support of the question on the Marriage Act, but it's no longer about that; it's about a series of very sensible, I think, amendments that are being proposed and will be presented during the course of our debate on this bill.
The first, I think, is a very simple amendment and I don't understand why it would be resisted. We have a situation where we want to change the Marriage Act and there is no reason why it could not identify marriage between a man and a woman, as has been traditional and held dear for so many people, as well as exercising the power for two people of the same sex to marry. In fact, the Supreme Court decision that gave effect to gay marriage in the United States talked about marriage in part of the ruling. It said:
Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.
That's the consideration of the Supreme Court's majority decision in 2015. So one of the first amendments on which many in this place will be seeking to have the support of the chamber will be to recognise and make changes to the Marriage Act to allow for same-gender marriage but at the same time include equally a preservation of the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone in this place would resist freedoms to express traditional beliefs without fear of vilification laws provided that the expression does not threaten or harass a person or group of persons. That's a fairly simple proposition. We can't say that we have religious freedoms in this country that allow us to express all of our religious beliefs, except one, now changed by the potential changes to the Marriage Act. You can't do that. If we are to give freedom of expression of traditional beliefs, it must be unconditional—and nobody wanting these amendments supports any expression that threatens or harasses a person or group of persons.
One of the amendments is freedom from being required to express, associate with or endorse a statement or opinion about marriage that is inconsistent with a person's or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage. Now, I'm not about to start citing all the examples that have been provided, many of them in the contributions prior to mine by other senators. But where could resistance come? Where could resistance come, in a fair and reasonable argument, that we deny people the freedom from being able to express, associate with or endorse a statement or an opinion about marriage that is inconsistent with a person's or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage? Just as the government has no place in the bedroom, it has no place in starting to create a regulatory environment—or an absence of protections, in this case—that prevents people from having that freedom.
One of the other propositions is an anti-detriment provision protecting individuals and organisations with a traditional marriage belief from unfavourable treatment by public authorities. Many examples have been cited in this place. And remember that at the last census, in 2016, about 70 per cent of Australians identified as religious—mostly Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist. It's clear that many of those people voted yes for marriage equality. But they did not do so on the basis that it might open up an environment where their freedoms to express their religious beliefs would be impaired. As I understand it, the North Melbourne council in Victoria is giving particular benefits to people of the LGBTIQ community and not to those who are engaged in traditional marriage. There were instances where another council had indicated that applicants for public funding within their community would need to demonstrate that they previously had a body of work around supporting the LGBTIQ community before they'd be considered for funding.
The Australian Medical Association, much divided over this issue, used their resources to lobby members of parliament to support a 'yes' case. I wrote back to the AMA and I inquired. I said, 'I've been a senator for four years, and I haven't heard from you on other important issues such as domestic violence and inadequate health services in rural Australia.' I listed about six or seven issues where, if they had positive policies to solve those issues, none of them had been shared with me. I had not been lobbied before. Again, we've seen this with corporate Australia using its power in many instances to influence, in a way, against the 'no' vote in this country. Corporations have been using their funding in many instances against what may well have been the majority will of their shareholders and their customer base.
Another protection sought, of course, is for religious bodies in schools to act in accordance with traditional marriage belief. How can that be resisted? In no instance do I advocate, nor does anyone advocating these amendments advocate, that any of those protections should open up the possibility for any person, group or organisation to behave in a manner that would threaten or harass a person or persons.
Then we come down to the issue of protection of rights of parents, until their children reach the age of majority, with respect to teachings within the schools. This has to be one of the most fundamental rights of parents who are charged with the guardianship of their children: to make a determination of what their children would be exposed to in education, not just around some of these issues of social contest but in a very general sense. We're seeing manoeuvres now where there is resistance to the prospect that we would give parents the right to, for example, withdraw their children from classes where material to be taught conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs. How can that be resisted? I don't understand how than can be resisted.
We recently, of course, over the last couple of years, had a battle over the Safe Schools Program. I'm not one of these senators who say, 'I've talked to hundreds and hundreds of people and had thousands of emails,' but, to the extent that I've had conversations with dozens upon dozens of parents about the Safe Schools Program, they indicated to me, quite properly, that as a school community they ought to have the right to veto the introduction of education modules, if you want to even call them that, into their schools, and then, notwithstanding that, that they would have the right to make decisions about their children not being exposed to educational material that did not fit with their value system, their moral system or their religious conscientious beliefs.
Civil celebrants are the subject of another amendment. They are not ministers of religion, but many people who are attracted to the professional role of a civil celebrant themselves, by nature, come from a Christian background. But they afford a service to people to get married on the basis that it is not a religious service. It doesn't mean that they don't conscientiously object to the marriage of two same-gender people. They ought to be afforded a protection to be able to do that.
I suspect that in the fullness of time, as generations pass, this will be a bit like when we crossed over into decimal currency. There was that lovely letter to the editor where some old lady said, 'Why couldn't they have held off on making this transition until all of us old people have died?' I think, in the fullness of time, the need for protections will lessen. But right now we've had five million Australians—and I'm not going to start playing with the figures and add back, subtract and multiply; five million is enough—who have indicated 'no' on the question of same-gender marriage. It could well be argued that most of them, if not all of them, would have a stronger view about the need for some of these protections to allow them and our society to transition with the adoption of this inevitable legislation, of this inevitable change to the Marriage Act, in a manner that doesn't cause disruption.
I said here on the day the bill was introduced that it is our duty now to go cautiously and steadily—and I don't mean measured in weeks; it could only necessarily be in days as we properly consider some adjustments to this bill—so that the end product unites Australians and doesn't have the potential to divide them.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017.
It now looks inevitable that a change to the definition of what marriage means under Commonwealth law will happen in the next few weeks. This change follows the results of what is referred to as the 'marriage survey', under which all Australians on the electoral roll were provided the opportunity to have their say on the change. The result of that survey was emphatically clear: the majority of Australians in all states voted for a change in the definition of marriage.
One might speculate on the reasons why Australians who voted yes did so, and I suspect there was a range of reasons. Speaking to many of my constituents in my home state of Tasmania suggests that at least one of the reasons was because people were sick of the debate and they just wanted to move on, which I guess is as valid a reason as any. Of course, many voted yes because they fervently believed that not allowing people of the same sex to marry represented discrimination that needed to be removed. But I suspect others did so out of some desire to undermine what they see as regressive aspects of how we live, or have lived—those based around the family unit and a strong morals based approach to society and how we live. These are aspects which I consider have helped to support a strong, vibrant and healthy community.
I also note that many Australians voted against changing the definition in their survey response—almost 40 per cent of those who participated, in fact. Additionally, in the survey millions of others chose not to participate, presumably indicating that they held no strong view on the issue. The perspective of each of the Australians who voted no, and even those with no strong view, are in my mind just as important as those who voted yes. But in a democracy, rightly, the majority view should prevail, a fact I acknowledge and accept.
At this point I would like to strongly endorse the benefit of having conducted the marriage survey. The issue of whether the definition of marriage should be changed by legislation to specifically include couples of the same sex is one that divides the community. For many years there have clearly existed strong views in favour of changing the definition and corresponding strong views against. In recent times, those in favour have generally argued for a parliamentary vote to resolve the issue, ignoring the fact that there have been numerous such votes, all of which have failed—although I do note that until fairly recently the Labor Party supported the concept of a plebiscite to gauge the position of the broader Australian population on the issue.
However, the coalition took the view that before a change occurred which would deliver such a fundamental alteration to an institution so important to our society and its history, it was vital that Australians were given the opportunity to have their say first. In my view, the primary reason for doing so was, to use a favourite term of those on the left, to foster inclusiveness following such a change. Given the very strong views held by many Australians that the traditional view of marriage, held by almost all societies on the planet for millennia—that marriage is an institution whereby a man marries a woman—should continue to prevail.
There was always a high likelihood that ramming a change to the definition through parliament without a public vote of some sort would only lead to more division, more resentment and maybe even more ill feeling directed at people in same-sex relationships. I concluded that in the event that a majority of Australians were of that view, then the best way of achieving the maximum level of acceptance of such a change would be if it were first put to the Australian people. If that were done and the outcome turned out to be support for the change, at least those who opposed the change would feel that they had been given an opportunity to have their say, to have their voice heard and to have some ownership over the result. To again use a term favoured by the Left: in my view, a public vote on the change was necessary to obtain a social licence for the change. That is, the fact that the marriage survey was held and its result will maximise the prospect that the change will be accepted by as many Australians as possible.
Incidentally, I note here the irony that many of those pushing the need to change the definition, who argue that parliament should get on with it and do its job, are the very same people who argue against parliament doing just that on issues they oppose—for example, new coalmines, high-rise developments, pulp mills, dams and so on. None represent such fundamental change so important at a personal level to so many Australians across our nation on both sides of this issue.
Although my clear preference would have been for a compulsory plebiscite, as it would have ensured the maximum benefit in terms of satisfying as many Australians as possible that the result was one they could accept, the marriage survey itself enjoyed very high returns and on the whole has achieved as strong a benefit in this regard as was open to the government.
One thing I had to personally decide when agreeing to support a process to formally obtain the views of Australians was how I would respond to their views. I made it clear early on that I would respect the views of the outcome of that process even if the majority view did not accord with my own. As the majority of participants in both Tasmania and Australia clearly expressed a view in favour of change, I have already publicly announced that I will support this bill and a change to the definition of marriage. I reaffirm that position tonight. However, I remain concerned to ensure that this change and others do not lead to laws which undermine other rights of Australians, some of which I consider to be the rights that underpin the defence of all rights we enjoy as Australians. As such, I will be looking to support amendments to this bill which seek to provide protections to the almost 40 per cent of Australians who expressed a view that marriage should stay as it has been for thousands of years and who may continue to hold that view and maybe from time to time express that view.
It is vital that in any democracy citizens are free to form and hold views, on whatever basis, counter to those held by the government of the day or as reflected in the laws in force from time to time. It is equally as important that they are able to express those views and participate in debate, public and otherwise, about the need for change to laws that are in place or are being proposed. Indeed, people's existing freedom to form, hold and debate views around the need to change the definition of marriage is what has led to this bill now being before this place. The right for them to have done so must be protected, as must the right for others to argue for change on this or on any other issue. The absolute need for citizens to have the right of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech on any issue, whether one currently in vogue or not, is what provides ultimate protection for citizens from tyranny, from creeping autocracy and ultimately from abuse of power by governments and the powerful.
As noted, from freedom of speech flow all the other freedoms. The ability to speak one's mind, to challenge the political orthodoxies of the times, to criticise the policies of the government without fear of recrimination by the state is the difference between life in a free country and life in a dictatorship. One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that, since democracy is self-government by the people, an informed electorate is a necessary prerequisite. In order to be appropriately informed, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. Meiklejohn says democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. He acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from altruistic motives but argues that, even then, choosing manipulation negates, through its means, the democratic ideal. Worse—and in the true spirit of the anecdote—power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the cumulative effect of altruistically motivated restrictions and manipulations of opinion can severely negate that ideal, leading to a lack of opposing voices and a consequential unintentional failure to understand the will of the people or even to a deliberate corruption of purpose, protected by rendering opposition illegal or silent. Similarly, US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote of free speech:
… that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.
From time to time—you certainly notice this from time to time—the pursuit of a particular right can come into conflict with the delivery of other—for example, the right of privacy may be infringed by government seeking to deliver on obligations to ensure people are safe from crime and terrorism. In such cases, balance and proportionality need to be forefront in dealing with those conflicts. But because freedom of conscience and speech are so fundamental to the protection and delivery of all other rights, the point of balance where competing rights may infringe on them must be weighted heavily in their favour. For this reason, I will be supporting amendments that seek to achieve these aims. This will include any amendments that seek: to protect beliefs held for religious and other reasons; freedom of expression and beliefs more generally; freedom from having to express, associate with or endorse certain statements or opinions on marriage inconsistent with a person's view; an anti-detriment shield, protecting individuals and organisations who hold tradition marriage views from being subjected to unfavourable treatment by public authorities because they hold or otherwise lawfully express or act upon that conviction; protections for charities; nondiscrimination in government funding; protection of religious bodies and schools; and the right of parents to determine the beliefs and convictions that their children are taught, including the right to withdraw them from government curricula they do not endorse.
Previously, I have publicly indicated that I voted no in the marriage survey. This vote reflected my long-held view that it would be preferable were there to be no change to the definition of marriage. I hold that view, a view I still hold, for a range of reasons. At its heart is a conclusion that, no matter how you spin it, marriage in a relationship context is what it is and what it always has been: an institution in which a man and a woman commit to each other with the intention of that commitment being for life, and which institution maximises the prospect of delivering a safe and secure environment in which to raise children. There is no doubt that same-sex relationships, like any other relationship, can be enduring and have the potential for those in them to deliver and receive the life-long companionship, support, love and personal nurturing that any long-term or romantically based relationship can and should deliver. But to me, put simply, such a relationship does not contain all the necessary elements to label it a marriage.
In regard to equality of rights, almost 10 years ago a series of bills were passed that ensured that under Commonwealth laws same-sex couples would attract the same rights as opposite-sex couples. The changes were broad and comprehensive. All aspects of Commonwealth law were changed to deliver equality for all committed couples regardless of whether they were opposite or same-sex in nature. I do acknowledge that not all laws at a state level deliver the same level of equality—for example, the treatment of a non-married partner of a dying person in a de facto relationship. I suspect some state laws may still need to be considered even after the passage of this bill. I would encourage those laws to be considered and addressed as soon as possible. The bottom line is that the only so-called right that same-sex attracted couples do not currently have under Commonwealth law is to receive a piece of paper on Commonwealth letterhead. As such, there is nothing in the law now that stops them declaring their love for each other, holding a wedding, calling themselves married and living as a married couple. They just won't have a piece of paper saying so.
Proponents of changing the definition have argued, misleadingly, that what we are talking about today is changing the law back to what it was prior to the change to the Marriage Act in 2004 under Prime Minister Howard. This argument is misleading and even disingenuous, as there has never been a national law in Australia under which same-sex couples could marry. Under the legal system we inherited from the British, the understanding since time immemorial was that marriage was a matter between a man and a women. This was defined under the common law in Hyde v Hyde in 1866 when Lord Penzance opined:
I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
The change made under the Howard government was to codify what was the clearly understood position as it stood in common law and in recognition of the thousands of years of practice. It changed no aspect of the law; rather, it sought to clarify it.
Regardless, I acknowledge that it is highly likely that this bill will pass with or without amendments and will deliver change to the definition of marriage so as to incorporate same-sex couples. As noted, ultimately I will support that change out of respect for the views of the majority of Australians, but, before we get there and as foreshadowed, I intend to support amendments that provide protections for other rights and freedoms. In my first speech, 10 years ago, I mentioned the fact that fewer than 10 nations remained free and democratic for the entirety of the last century. This was no historical accident but rather a direct result of the application of the rule of law and adherence to democratic principles, and protection of the rights and freedoms that underpin the success of democracies. We need to ensure that we protect these building blocks that help to guarantee we continue to enjoy life in a free and democratic nation—the rights and freedoms that allow to us freely challenge, test, object to and debate ideas and laws that impact on Australians. For this reason we must not allow Australia to go down the path of eroding more of our freedoms, particularly freedom of speech and expression, the freedom so important to the protection of all other freedoms.
I'm very happy today to rise to support the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, which will strengthen the institution of marriage by making it more relevant and more accessible to more of the people we represent in this place. It has been a long and winding road that has taken us to where we are today. The most recent twist in that road has been the postal survey, something that never should have happened and has caused significant harm to so many in Tasmania's LBGTIQ community. What should have happened is that we parliamentarians should have simply done our job by making the laws of this land and voting to deliver marriage equality to Australia without putting such a fundamental human rights question to a popular vote. After all, there was no popular vote before the coalition and Labor got together in 2004 to insert the hateful and discriminatory amendments into the Marriage Act that survive to this very day—that marriage in Australia can only be between a man and a woman.
But there is a silver lining to all the harm and the hurt that was caused by the survey—that is, there can be no argument now about the position of the Australian people on marriage equality. It turns out that the silent majority in this country believe in fairness and equality. Who would've thought it? Marriage equality is supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians. It's supported by a clear majority of people in every single state and territory in our country. I want to give a shout-out to my home state of Tasmania, which voted in support of marriage equality at a higher rate than the rest of the country taken as a whole. Who says Tasmanians aren't progressive? We've been catalytic in this debate, and I want to spend a bit of time putting some of that Tasmanian history on the record.
Tasmania had the first openly gay MP in Australia's history, when Bob Brown entered the parliament in Tasmania in 1983. At that time it was a crime in Tasmania for adult men to have consenting sex with each other, punishable by up to 21 years in prison. Bob moved quickly to reform the law by moving to decriminalise consenting sex between adult men. When he put that up, his was the only vote in support as Labor and Liberal MPs locked in behind discrimination. That has been a recurring theme in this country and will be a recurring theme in my speech tonight.
In 1988 the Gay Law Reform Group formed in Tasmania. Later that year, we had the infamous Salamanca arrests, where members and supporters of the Gay Law Reform Group were at their stall at Salamanca Market, asking people to sign a petition in support of decriminalisation. They were asked to desist, they refused, and the arrest of 130 people followed shortly afterwards. Those people included Rodney Croome. Many have given a lot to the campaign for marriage equality in Australia, but Rodney, in my view, is the person who has done more by some margin than any other Australian to campaign for marriage equality, not just in Tasmania but nationally, and get us to where we are today. It's worth pointing out, in the context of the Salamanca arrests, that, to its credit, the Hobart City Council, which runs the Salamanca Market, apologised in 2008 for its role in those arrests. And later, in 2013, the Hobart City Council had embedded across the pavement on each side of Salamanca Place, at the market boundary that people were arrested for crossing to campaign to remove discrimination, two phrases of apology. They are beautifully lit from below at night and they read, 'Forgive me for not holding you in my arms,' and, 'In the wake of your courage I swim.' Beautiful words and beautiful sentiments.
It was around the time of the Salamanca arrests that the then Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, said, 'Everyone's welcome in Tasmania—even Greenies are welcome in Tasmania—just not homosexuals.' What a time that was. It was also around then that I personally witnessed something that has stayed starkly with me to this very day. I saw a rally opposing the decriminalisation of sex between consenting adult men. I was at Salamanca Market, saw the rally from a distance and wandered over to have a look. I saw a sign at that rally that I remember verbatim to this very day. It said this: 'Kill all the poofters before they kills us all with AIDS.' What a time that was in Tasmania.
In 1989, shortly after a state election, the Labor-Green Accord was signed between the then Labor leader, Michael Field, and the Green independent MPs, led by Bob Brown. That accord included a commitment to gay law reform, a commitment to end the criminalisation of consenting sex between adult men. Legislation was tabled and passed through the lower house, but was twice rejected by Tasmania's upper house in 1990 and 1991. In 1991, Rodney Croome and his then partner, Nick Toonen, took Tasmania's discriminatory laws to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and in 1994 they memorably achieved victory in their case. That paved the way for Paul Keating to move the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Bill, which then passed through the Commonwealth parliament—again, events in Tasmania catalysing national reform to reduce discrimination faced by LGBTIQ people.
It was that act, the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act, that allowed Rodney and Nick to take their famous High Court case against the Tasmanian government in 1995. When the High Court accepted that case for hearing, the then Liberal Premier, Tony Rundle, agreed to grant his MPs a conscience vote on the issue of decriminalisation. So the then Greens leader, Christine Milne, put up a bill, which passed through the lower house. On 1 May 1997 it passed by a single vote in Tasmania's upper house, and became law shortly afterwards. What a time! In 2003, Tasmania passed Australia's first civil partnerships legislation—and to this day that remains Australia's most comprehensive and inclusive relationships legislation. A year later, of course, John Howard, with the support of the Labor Party, took Australia in the opposite direction by amending the Marriage Act to explicitly ban same-sex marriage.
In 2005, I had a sushi lunch with Rodney Croome at which we decided to work together to draft and table bills to provide for same-sex marriage in Tasmania. We did so because both of us believed that if we could achieve marriage equality we would erase all other forms of discrimination faced by LGBTIQ people along the way. As Greens justice spokesperson, I became the first member of any parliament in Australia to introduce explicit marriage equality laws when I tabled the cognate package of same-sex marriage bills.
It was during our campaign in support of that legislation that Rodney Croome and I decided to head up to the north island and promote marriage equality. As part of that, we had an event at the Newtown Hotel in Sydney. It was in the big upstairs room and, let me tell you, they were hanging from the rafters that night. There were plenty of Greens at that event in support of marriage equality, but, to my surprise, there were also plenty of Labor people there—but not to support my bills. Rainbow Labor stacked that event, they stacked it good and proper, and boy did they let us have it! To say the place went off would be a gross understatement. It was hostile. There was plenty of shouting. The then co-convener of Australian Marriage Equality, Luke Gahan, was spat on. I was heckled as a homophobe by Rainbow Labor for daring to try to deliver marriage equality in Tasmania. What a time that was!
So I tabled my bills and couldn't get a single vote from a non-Greens MP to even have them referred off to a House of Assembly committee—not a single vote. Again, Labor and Liberal uniting to entrench discrimination in this country. What a time!
I tabled those bills again in July 2008 and in 2010. In 2012, having finally got the support of the Labor Party for marriage equality in Tasmania, I moved that the House of Assembly express in-principle support for marriage equality. That was passed, therefore leading the Tasmanian House of Assembly to become the first chamber of any parliament in Australia to express in-principle support for marriage equality. Later that year, I co-sponsored with Premier Lara Giddings the same-sex marriage bill. It went through the House of Assembly, which then became the first chamber in any parliament in Australia to pass marriage equality legislation. We thought we had the numbers. We thought we were going to get it up in Tasmania. We had done the numbers and we thought we were a chance until, a couple of days before the vote, we lost a vote we thought we had; and then on the floor, during the debate, we lost another crucial vote. That second vote was cast by someone who was a devout Catholic. I'm not going to name them here, but I later found out that that person had been called by Cardinal George Pell the night before. Thankfully, Cardinal Pell's got a bit too much on his plate at the moment to be making those sorts of calls today. I tell this story to reveal one of the ways that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has operated behind the scenes to entrench discrimination in Australia.
In 2015, Tasmanian Greens Leader Cassie O'Connor again moved that the House of Assembly express in-principle support for marriage equality. When a similar motion inspired by Cassie's was passed by the Legislative Council soon after, Tasmania achieved another equality first: it became the first parliament in Australia to give bicameral support for marriage equality. It has been a most amazing journey. It's been a journey that has seen Tasmania come from a long, long way back on this issue—from a situation where consenting sex between adult males in the privacy of their own home was a crime to leading the way on this issue in so many different ways. And the story on marriage equality in Tasmania has been part of the story of the Tasmanian Greens. We have led the way there, as we have led the way politically on the national stage—every MP, every single time, every single vote.
The bill that we're currently debating is not a perfect bill. But I do congratulate Senator Smith and everyone who's worked with him to bring this bill to us today to allow us to have this debate. I believe the bill has a strong chance of passing not only this chamber but the other place. It's not perfect and, to be frank, it has more exemptions in it than I would like to see. However, given the mood of the times, it's incumbent on us to do everything we can to pass marriage equality this year. On that basis, I am prepared to support the bill as it currently stands. But the Senate needs to understand this: if this bill is amended to include further exemptions that entrench discrimination, I will not be supporting it on the third reading.
In its current form, this bill removes the last major bastion of legal discrimination against LGBTIQ people. And it's so important that we do so—not just in the context of marriage but because we cannot hope to remove discrimination from our streets, from our schools, from our footy clubs and from our homes until we have removed discrimination from our laws. There's no such thing as 'mostly equal'. Laws that discriminate 'just a bit' are still discriminatory laws. And that's what we're debating here today. We need to show leadership to the people we represent in this place by removing discrimination from our law so we can show leadership in removing discrimination from our community.
The other thing that we are here to do today is give one of the most powerful gifts that any person or group of people can give, and that is the gift of hope—the gift of hope that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people can soon look forward to a wedding day, whether their own wedding day or that of their brother, their sister, their son, their daughter, their mother, their father or their friends. I absolutely hope that they will soon be able to come together with full access to one of the most fundamental civil institutions in our society, the institution of marriage, to celebrate their love for each other with their friends and families in a way that currently only couples of opposite sex can do in Australia. What a time that will be.
I'm entering this debate simply to put my position on record. I don't intend to try to convince anyone one way or the other in relation to the debate. Before I do that, I do want to apologise to the Senate. I'm one of those who does believe that there is a certain dress sense in the Senate. Unfortunately, I'm not abiding by that today—I've just flown in from North Queensland. I also had to attend an important Senate committee hearing and I've come into the chamber more or less straight after that without being able to get a coat. So I do apologise to the Senate and seek forgiveness because I do think we should have certain standards in the Senate, and wearing a suit and a tie is something that I've always adhered to in the 27 years I have been here.
Forgiveness is granted!
Thank you. It's very kind of you, Madam Acting Deputy President! I would not normally speak in this state of undress, but I do today. My position on this whole issue has been pretty clear from day one. I don't think this is a high-order issue. I know some of my gay friends would argue with me on this, and some have indeed done so. But I don't think this is the sort of issue that deserves the wall-to-wall treatment it's had in the media in recent times. I've always worked on the basis that there is no discrimination in Australia on anything—on race, religion, colour, creed, sex or gender. Over the years, some of which I've been in this parliament, laws have been passed to make it illegal to discriminate on any basis. Certainly for same-sex people, those laws, as I understand it, were passed some years ago. There is no discrimination in Australia, in my view, of any sort. I think we are a wonderful country that respects everyone's views.
I have recently been to a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in St Petersburg, where, during the course of debate, a delegate—a female parliamentarian from, I think, Italy—accused the Russians of having detention camps for gay people. I certainly don't say whether that is true or not true, but it was interesting to see in this forum of parliamentarians from right around the world the debate and the emotions that were raised on this particular issue. The Russians were accused of this and, as is the way in these multinational forums, they sought a right of reply, which they eventually got. Their response was not to comment on that subject, but to ask the Italian lady who had accused them why she was picking on Russia when, as the Russians said, 'There are many parliamentarians in this chamber from countries whose parliaments have the death penalty for those who are gay.' So, when people say there is discrimination in Australia, I just ask them to look around and see what happens in other countries in a so-called civilised world.
But I've always worked on the basis that there is no discrimination. As a previous speaker said today, I've said to some of my gay friends: 'If you want to get married—if you want to say you're getting married—send me an invite. I'll come along, I'll bring a present, I'll drink your grog and we'll have a great party. We'll all celebrate and you can sign whatever you like, and away we'll go.' I just understand that there are many people in Australia who have a deep religious conviction on what marriage is. I class myself as a Christian. Regrettably, I'm not as regular an attender as perhaps I should be, but I do know many Christian people who are deeply offended by what they see as an abuse of the Christian rite of marriage. Recently, I've been to a couple of weddings in churches and, when you hear the ceremony, when you hear the words, when you hear the traditions and when you hear the passages that are read from the Bible and elsewhere—which were the same when my wife and I were married, I have to say—you start to think that this does seem to be a very Christian tradition, a Christian part of the Bible and what Christianity says. I'm one of those who can take everyone's view, one way or the other, but I do know that there are very many deeply religious people who are offended by this proposal, and, of course, their vote in the recent plebiscite was fairly significant.
But my position hasn't changed. I've always made it clear that I, through my upbringing, my understanding and my association with people who are deeply religious, would be voting no in the plebiscite, and I did. But I also made it clear that, in the end result, I would follow whatever my fellow Australians decided to do on this particular subject. My main concern was that we as a political party, the Liberal and National parties, had in two elections, following each other, promised to the people of Australia that we would give them a say on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. I'm proud to say that I belong to a political party that does actually honour the commitments that it makes at election time. I know there are other political parties in this room that made the same sorts of commitments in the past, but, like other promises they've made, they choose, once they're in power, just to ignore those promises. Of course, that's one of the reasons why politicians and politics are held in such low regard around Australia at the present time. But I was proud that my party stuck by its guns and honoured the commitment it had made in the last two elections that, if there were to be any change to the Marriage Act and to the issue of same-sex marriage, then the people of Australia would be consulted by way of plebiscite. Unfortunately, others in this chamber didn't agree with us. We had to end up with a Bureau of Statistics survey, which, although it wasn't ideal, did, I think, get the same result, and that showed that the majority of Australians in all states actually support the concept of same-sex marriage. So I, as I committed before, will be voting to support a change to allow for that.
I confess that I have not gone into the proposed amendments in any great depth. My general feel is that the protections should be greater rather than lesser, but I say that without having directed my mind to any possible amendments to the bill that we're debating. If there are amendments brought forward I will assess them as we go along. I do think that in a society such as Australia people should have the right to act in accordance with their own beliefs, providing they're not hurting others. There have been in the bit of this debate that I have heard a lot of very fine arguments and very fine propositions put forward which I think require and warrant very serious consideration, consideration I intend to give to the wording of the bill as we come to vote on it.
For the moment, I indicate that I will be voting in accordance with what the Australian people asked us to do, as I have for many years past. We were very keen to honour our promises to have a plebiscite of all Australians. Having done that, we are of course duty-bound to follow the dictate of the majority of Australians and support a change to allow for same-sex marriage. I will be looking carefully to make sure that there are adequate protections for those who, perhaps inadvertently, might otherwise be discriminated against when certain bills become law through this parliament. But I indicate that for the time being I will be supporting the change, as I indicated before that I would, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Australian public.
This debate on same-sex marriage has torn a lot of Australians apart. We have had a plebiscite in which 61 per cent of Australians voted for it, approximately 39 per cent voted against it and about 21 per cent didn't vote at all. I have had conflicting views from people: they never received their papers and didn't have a chance to vote. Regardless of that, 61 per cent of Australians voted for it.
Same-sex marriage is a very contentious issue, and I'm continually getting emails from people who are very, very upset. They don't agree with marriage between people of the same sex. The whole debate was centred around the idea that what you've got is called love: 'This is all about equality; it's all about love.' I did not agree with the plebiscite. I thought the question should have gone to a referendum so it would be enshrined in our Constitution, in section 51 where it states the word 'marriage'. We need to define in our Constitution that marriage is to be accepted by the Australian people as being between a man and a woman or people of the same sex. My concern about this is that, if we pass it in this parliament of 226 people, who's to say that further on down the track a parliament could not expand it to mean multiple marriages or who knows what? I believe that what should be enshrined in the Constitution is what it has been determined the people want, whether it is marriage between people of the same sex or of the opposite sex. It could then only be changed by being taken back to the people. Anyway, the plebiscite has been taken.
I would also like to say that I am of mixed opinion on this and I voted no. My personal vote was no. I have grown up of the opinion that marriage was between a man and a woman, but I do not take away the right of people to be in a relationship and to find happiness within themselves.
Debate interrupted.
Earlier this month, I hosted an annual fundraiser which I've been organising for four years now. The fourth annual Walk4BrainCancer Tasmania was held at Dru Point Bicentennial Park in Margate. While donations are still being received after the event, we have so far raised more than $36,000, and this brings the total funds raised from Walk4BrainCancer Tasmania over the four years to just over $120,000. This year, Walk4BrainCancer nationally has raised close to $2 million. All money raised goes to Cure Brain Cancer Foundation, the largest dedicated brain cancer charity in Australia.
People who've been following my speeches in this place would be aware that I've spoken on brain cancer more than on any other subject, and you may be wondering why I focus so much not just on cancer but on a particular type of cancer that is relatively rare. I primarily focus on brain cancer because of the impact it's having on young Australians and their families. You see, brain cancer has a very low survival rate, around 22 per cent, and this rate has barely improved over the past few decades. This gives me an appreciation of how lucky I am as a brain tumour survivor. It remains the case now, as it was in the 1980s, that close to four out of five Australians who are diagnosed with brain cancer will not survive for five years after their diagnosis. Despite representing just over one per cent of all cancers, brain cancer has the highest mortality rate for young Australians aged 18 to 40. If this isn't tragic enough, brain cancer kills more Australian children than any other disease. I'll say it again, and I've said it many other times: brain cancer kills more Australian children than any other disease. Every year in Australia, the equivalent of a classroom full of children, about 35, die of brain cancer. To illustrate the impact this awful disease has on children, just picture a class photo and then imagine every child in that photo gone, the seats empty. That's what brain cancer's doing to children across Australia every year.
Sadly, this fact is not well known to the Australian public. Awareness is gradually starting to spread, but there's a long way to go until it becomes common knowledge. You've heard me say it before. I will keep saying it, and I won't ever apologise for repeating myself, because the further this message gets out to the public at large the more we as a nation will be motivated to do something about it. I would implore senators in this place, when you go back to your states and territories and the local communities where your electorate offices are located, to repeat this fact: brain cancer is the biggest disease killer of Australian children. Tell it to the public forums, say it in media interviews and put it in your newsletters, because Australians need to know.
Being an advocate for brain cancer research has put me in touch with many patients and their families, and I've heard many heartbreaking stories. The impact of this cancer on children has been the strongest motivator for me to organise the walk each year and to raise funds for brain cancer research. This year, over 300 people registered for the walk, and we were lucky that the weather was just perfect. As well as the registration fees and the sponsorship given to walk participants, we raised funds through a raffle, the obvious sausage sizzle and the sale of Cure Brain Cancer merchandise. The Cure Brain Cancer branded merchandise is always a hit, especially the T-shirts and the bucket hats. One of my favourite items is a children's T-shirt bearing the words, 'Trust me, I'm a brain surgeon.' I'd like to acknowledge Katrina Roocke of Films for Fundraising, who held two movie nights in support of the cause. The funds raised from these were also added to our total. This year, again, a memorial service was held in memory of brain cancer patients who have succumbed to the disease, and walk participants were encouraged to fold paper cranes resembling the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation logo, write messages on them in memory of loved ones, and hang them on a nearby tree.
I'd also like to say it was really nice to see the former Liberal state Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin participating in this year's walk. Dr Goodwin was diagnosed with several glioblastomas last year, leading to her resignation from the ministry and later from parliament. Although we're from different sides of politics, I've always recognised Vanessa as an incredibly decent person and have always had a decent relationship with her. She has shown incredible strength and bravery in her fight with cancer, and I wish her all the best.
As usual, there are a lot of people and organisations to thank for helping make this year's event a success, and I will take the opportunity to do so now. We had a number of sponsors who supplied raffle prizes: CMW Photography, Rockwall Bar and Grill, Your Habitat, Betta Home Living and my ever-wonderful, beautiful friend Edna Pennicott, who supplied a great hamper of make-up and accessories for women. Sausages for the sausage sizzle were provided by Woolworths in Kingston Town, and Top of the Town Bakery in New Norfolk supplied the bread. Thanks, Sandy, for all the work you do in this area. Thank you to TasWater for supplying a trailer with drinking water, and to Saunders Signs for donating some of the selfie frames that appeared in a number of photos from the event.
Kingborough Council were again very helpful in providing the venue free of charge and in facilitating the approvals. I thank Mayor Steve Wass for participating, which he has done every year for the four years I've been running this event.
Local musician Fiona Hutchison sang and played guitar before and after the walk. She's a very talented entertainer and, as with last year, it gave the event a really nice atmosphere.
Thank you to the beautiful Sophie Briggs. Sophie gave the memorial address this year. Her dad, Rick, died earlier in the year from brain cancer. I know Sophie's family—Rick and Teresa—really well. The address was very heartfelt, very moving, and I thank Sophie, who is only 21, for doing that.
Thanks to Laura Kennedy for her fundraising efforts. Laura has a social enterprise called Adorn For A Cure. She sells handmade jewellery, with the profits going to Cure Brain Cancer Foundation. She sold some of her jewellery on the day in support of the cause.
I'd also like to thank Snug Tavern Social Club, who invited me, just after the walk, to receive a cheque for $1,000, which was added to the walk's fundraising total. The club entered a team in the walk and supported the cause in memory of their member Peter Williams, who died in February this year.
Finally, I would like to thank my amazing staff for their work leading up to the event and on the day. I had major surgery six weeks ago. They took over a lot of the organising for me this year and they did a really great job. I also had an army of volunteers who supported them: Else Phillips; Margaret Grieve; Ray and Helen Dac; Edna Pennicott; my mum, Margeurite; another cancer survivor, Eliza Nolan; Julian and Charlotte Toigo; and my very beautiful, gorgeous daughter, Alissa Bilyk. It takes a lot of people to put these events together. I hope I haven't missed anyone out.
The amount of support Walk4BrainCancer has received over the years demonstrates not only the growing awareness of the impact of brain cancer—albeit that that awareness is still too low—and the determination to do something about it but the high regard in which the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation is held. It's thanks to the efforts of the thousands of people participating in Walk4BrainCancer events, not just in Tasmania but across Australia, that the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation was able to commit $20 million to the recently announced $100 million Australian Brain Cancer Mission. I'm often criticising the government in this place, but when it comes to the Australian Brain Cancer Mission they, and the other contributors to the fund, deserve credit for this great decision. The government will be contributing $50 million to this fund, which aims to double brain cancer survival in Australia within 10 years. But it's not just throwing money at the problem: the mission is also underpinned by a coordinated approach to brain cancer research, including better access to clinical trials for patients and an expansion of research platforms and technologies. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank Andrew Forrest for his $10 million contribution to the fund through the Minderoo Foundation.
I take some pride in knowing that my efforts to support and fundraise for Cure Brain Cancer Foundation and my advocacy for brain cancer over nine years have contributed to this initiative coming about. For many, many years I have felt like a lone voice in this parliament with regard to brain cancer. Mind you, that has never deterred me from speaking about it! I have long argued that brain cancer deserves special attention due to its high mortality and in particular its impact on young people and children. Now it's starting to get the attention it truly deserves.
I will of course continue to advocate for more action on brain cancer and to raise more funds for the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation. Another $20 million in private contributions needs to be raised to complete the funding for the Australian Brain Cancer Mission, and there is much work to be done to ensure that it is fully funded. As I've said before, my fundraising work and my advocacy will continue for as long as I am able to. Thank you.
I'd like to reflect tonight on the very significant electoral results in my home state of Queensland over the weekend, to note particularly the historically large number of votes for the Greens across the state as well as in a number of key seats.
As counting stands tonight, the Greens are ahead in the seat of Maiwar, the former LNP seat of a senior frontbencher, and we have a very good chance of breaking through and being elected for the first time directly into the Queensland state parliament. Queensland has been the odd one out, electorally, for the Greens over the years for a number of reasons—most significantly because of a combination of having no upper house, unlike the other states, and also by having very large local government areas, making it much harder to build up representation at a local level first.
But the Greens' campaign and the campaigners across the state were something that I was not just immensely proud of but blown away by. I've been through quite a lot of elections over nearly 30 years now, and it certainly is a very difficult challenge when you're a party trying to take on the parties of the establishment—parties that have been entrenched in our political system and basically controlled it for over 100 years. So, to be able to do that and to do it in the face of being massively outspent by parties that take the large corporate donations—and also to do it when being virtually ignored except for the occasional ridiculous overblown attack in a lot of the mainstream media, with wall-to-wall coverage for the other three main parties in the state election—creates a significant challenge. But the key thing that was an essential factor in the Greens' ability to make massive inroads was the huge number of volunteers: literally thousands of people volunteering on the ground at the community level, having those conversations and listening to people.
I want to pay tribute to those thousands of volunteers—to the candidates themselves and also to the many campaign workers and campaign staff, many of whom have been working for over a year and many of them completely voluntarily because of the cause they believe in. It is a huge breakthrough for the Greens to be on the verge of winning a seat in the state parliament in their own right.
I'd particularly like to mention the candidate for the seat of South Brisbane, Amy McMahon, and her hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers. There is a swing of over 12 per cent already, with over 35 per cent of the primary vote counted. It is still quite possibly a situation where she will win the primary vote count and the Labor incumbent will have to rely on LNP preferences to retain that seat. Similarly, there is Kirsten Lovejoy, the candidate for McConnel—the old Brisbane Central—which had a swing of over eight per cent. It was a vote in the high 20s, with some votes still to be counted, and within a few per cent of toppling the incumbent there. And, of course, Michael Berkman is poised to win the seat of Maiwar—an LNP seat—in a very tight tussle with the Labor candidate at the moment.
This is worth emphasising because of the criticism that I do see from time to time—no doubt just from occasionally overenthusiastic partisans, complaining about the Greens focusing on Labor seats; it's not surprising that the Greens focus on seats where there are progressive votes to be won—the seat that the Greens are most likely to pick up is an LNP seat. Of course, it also has to be said that there are many Labor-held seats that would not be held by Labor—they would not have enough seats to form government—were it not for the very strong preference flow from Greens voters. The same applied, of course, for Labor's ability to win government in the first place at the previous state election. Certainly, that is something that they would not have got close to without the preference choices of a very high majority of Greens party voters. But those are the choices of those voters, and if they cease to see any significant reason to give their preferences in that way, then that may change down the track.
It has been said—it was said here today in question time on a number of occasions—that the Adani Carmichael coalmine is the largest coalmine in the Southern Hemisphere. Let's not forget that is just one coalmine in the massive Galilee Basin coal deposit, and that both Labor and the LNP still support not just starting that new coalmine, the Adani mine, but trying to open up the much larger other coal deposits in the Galilee Basin. The Greens, along with the massive movement in the community across the state, will continue to fight not just the Adani Carmichael coalmine but all new coalmines in Queensland, as is needed around the rest of Australia as well to ensure that we do not continue to poison the planet and risk our future by opening up new deposits of fossil fuels.
But the election was about a lot more than just Adani. I've travelled around the state, and there are many people across the state that recognise that the Adani coalmine is a con, that it does not stack up economically, that it is diverting resources away from many other projects that would deliver far more jobs, far more sustainable infrastructure of value to the entire community in regions throughout Queensland. The Greens will continue, on day 1 or day 2 after the state election, to support the movements throughout Queensland to ensure that the Carmichael coalmine does not go ahead. It is a perfect example of the influence of corporate donations distorting and poisoning public policy and putting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of the community, putting people before profits.
One of the issues that resonated very strongly in the electorates where the Greens campaigned hard—and I was part of those door-knocking teams myself over many months—was a disgust in the community at the impact of corporate donations, the cash-for-access dinners for ministers and shadow ministers, that was perverting public policy and leading to outcomes that were against the interests of the community that the parliament is meant to serve and represent. Another was the massive overdevelopment in many areas without the corresponding investment in infrastructure for the community, whether it's schools or adequate public transport. The Greens put forward a radical vision of deliberately promoting an economically redistributive approach, making property developers, coal corporations and foreign mining companies pay their fair share and then reinvesting that money in infrastructure for the community—a massive reinvestment in rebuilding our public and community housing stock and providing affordable housing for everybody—reforming our tenancy laws so that people can not only afford a home but have security in homes that they rent. Another was ensuring a cheaper public transport, ensuring cheaper power. Independent modelling showed the Greens' policies would deliver cheaper cleaner electricity and more job-generating electricity than the policies of the other parties. That is a policy framework that the Greens will continue to promote, and it's one that I believe the public want.
It is worth noting that the joint vote of the two parties of the establishment at this state election was the lowest in over 100 years. Fewer than 70 per cent of the Queensland population, despite all of the money, despite all of the entrenched power, despite all of the corporate media backing, voted for the establishment parties. Whilst 10 per cent of those voted for the Greens, I acknowledge that over 10 per cent also voted for One Nation and that the Katter Australia Party also picked up two, probably three seats as well. There is that recognition that our political system is broken. The free market fundamentalism that has been the model of the two establishment parties for so long has clearly been shown to be a failure for so many in the community. The Greens will work hard—and certainly I'll be working hard as a senator for Queensland—to make those many people in regional Queensland aware that the Greens provide a policy framework that will deliver employment, economic security and a fairer society for them as well. Those parts of the One Nation vote that are driven and motivated by discrimination or by religious and racial bigotry are not votes that I'm interested in chasing. But those who want a fairer society and a system that's not broken are ones that I do support.
Finally, I would like to thank my predecessor, Larissa Waters, for her contribution to the campaign, and also Councillor Jonathan Sri for the inspiration he provided by winning and breaking through in Brisbane City Council last year. (Time expired)
I'm very pleased to be following my colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett, and I congratulate the Queensland Greens on their amazing and fantastic outcome due to all the hard work and strategic planning that's gone on for well over a year. I had the pleasure of joining them for a short time on the campaign trial and I warmly congratulate them.
Tonight I want to pick up on another election that's coming up—a by-election in New England. It's clear that New England very much needs a fair deal on TAFE. This is absolutely urgent. We've seen TAFE seriously undermined. It's been going on for years. Tragically, it largely started going downhill in 2012, when former education minister Julia Gillard renegotiated the national agreement on vocational education and training, which opened the door very wide to for-profit private providers, and the problems have flowed since then. In regional Australia it's particularly tough. We're seeing many TAFEs disappear. I was recently on the South Coast of New South Wales visiting other TAFEs in the region, right down to the Bega area. It's quite shocking what the government is planning to do in New South Wales to close down that TAFE and many other TAFEs as viable institutes.
When it comes to New England the Greens are the only party offering a guaranteed 100 per cent of the public vocational education budget to be devoted to TAFE. This was set out very clearly by Pete Wills, the Greens candidate for New England. He raised this very clearly at a number of forums on public education held last week across the New England electorate. The Liberal-National and Labor governments have put TAFE qualifications beyond the reach of most New Englanders, and that's because course fees now total many thousands of dollars and student loans are offered on less favourable financial terms than those for university students. I mean, how extraordinary is this? Our TAFE system was once world class, world leading, and now it's just been run down by successive federal and many state governments.
For people in rural towns, who depend on TAFE to get a start in the workforce, it's very unfair. We see this particularly clearly with the state of the apprenticeship system in this country. You could say that the apprenticeship system is in crisis. Since 2012 the number of apprentices in Australia has almost halved. This is very much a crisis for young people who are seeking a trades career, seeking to develop their skills for their future. I recommend a recent research paper by the CFMEU and the Australian Education Union, which shows that while the number of apprentices has declined almost one in three young people either can't find a job—about 13 per cent unemployment for them—or can't find enough work, which is 20 per cent underemployment. More and more qualified tradespeople are saying they find it increasingly difficult to engage in apprenticeships when they are faced with insecure and sham contracts. The privatisation of vocational education and training was identified in this study as something that's devastated the apprenticeship system. Again, it goes to the for-profit private providers. They're rorting the system. We've heard the stories. We've heard the government saying that they've stemmed the free giveaways of laptops et cetera. But the problems still exists, and that national agreement has to be changed.
Cuts to TAFE funding have made vocational training much less accessible. Again, to emphasise: in rural areas they are doing it even tougher, largely because of the run-down in the TAFE colleges themselves but also because of the fees. And these were issues that Mr Wills, the Greens candidate in New England, well and truly put on the map last week at these forums. And these are some of the comments he made:
Instead of replacing TAFE with an internet cafe like the Nationals, or keeping TAFE on life support with a 70 per cent funding threshold like Labor, the Greens will restore quality public TAFE colleges throughout New England with a 100 per cent funding guarantee.
He went on to say:
Greens respect rural communities with our recognition of the prime role of TAFE for practical vocational education to people of all ages, and especially for young people, Aboriginal students, students with disabilities, and students for whom traditional schooling did not meet their needs TAFE also enables older Australians to re-enter the workforce or transition to new careers.
I very much congratulate Mr Wills for giving such leadership on this critical issue.
TAFE in rural areas is much more than vocational education and training. It's like the glue that holds communities together. It provides opportunities that bring people back into society, bring people back into considering education and opportunities. It broadens their horizons. It gives second chances. People for whom school didn't work get a second chance to get back into the education workforce. These TAFEs in country town after country town have added to the richness of those areas, and now, under the Nationals, the party that makes out it cares about the bush, we're seeing these TAFEs just wound back.
In some areas like what was described to me on the South Coast, they just end up with a centre with some computers and somebody who doesn't have teacher qualifications there to help you with how to look at a computer and try to get some lessons off a computer. This is so deeply unsatisfactory. At the speech I noticed the shocking decision of Labor in 2012, but I think it's very relevant that, at a recent national TAFE summit in Sydney on 20 October, Labor's education spokesperson, Tanya Plibersek, admitted that Labor had got it wrong by opening up the TAFE budget to dodgy private colleges that did not provide quality training.
As we know, many of these private providers are now bankrupt. They've taken millions of dollars out of the public purse because of the appalling way the system was organised once that national agreement was changed. And, again, by changing that, we've got to get rid of the for-profit private providers in the system so we can ensure the viability of TAFE, restoring it to its national and international standing that it had, because TAFE is such a proven system in terms of the education standards that it can deliver.
I do acknowledge that—and this may be the case more in regional areas—if TAFE doesn't have the ability to run courses, there can be a role for private providers, though not ones that make a profit out of the system. But first off we have to go to the public TAFE system because 'TAFE is the proven way to develop the human capacity'. Again, this is something that Mr Wills, our candidate for New England, has identified as a way to develop the human capacity of New England's rural towns and communities.
Here is another comment that he made at these forums that he addressed last week:
Every dollar we invest in TAFE comes back to each community many times over a lifetime of dignity, respect and social cohesion that springs from meaningful and fulfilling skilled employment.
Mr Wills comes from Quirindi and also spoke of how in his own hometown of Quirindi as well as Glen Innes, Tenterfield and Armidale TAFE colleges are being replaced by so-called 'connected learning centres' that won't deliver practical skills that are the hallmarks of a quality TAFE training. So that's what we are in the midst of at the moment: this shocking shift away from TAFE colleges on campuses that have wonderful facilities. They're being run down. Often the land is being sold off, and we're losing those centres. And Mr Wills asked:
How can anyone safely replace the brakes in a car or repair farm machinery from a YouTube video?
TAFE is the brakes in your family car. It's the wiring in the house where your loved ones sleep. You can't replace that with an internet cafe, as the Nationals would have you believe.
We need a strong public TAFE system. I congratulate Mr Wills for his work on TAFE.
Senate adjourned at 22:19