Page 3504 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
you have walked in the shoes of someone who has that basic right denied that you might have a bit of a sense of the hurt that that can cause. It is no sop to this to suggest that just because one, two, 100, 200, 1,000 or 2,000 gay couples do not want to get married, that right should be removed from everyone else. That is a pretty fundamental point here. I have had a gutful of hearing that excuse put forward, particularly from conservative politicians who do the hand-wringing, saying, “I really support you,” but when it comes to actually voting for something that might make a difference, might change a law, might be meaningful, go to water. We see a bit of that in this place, and we certainly have over the years.
I will acknowledge, and I am really pleased, that Mr Hanson and his team supported the births, deaths and marriages legislation earlier this year. That is fantastic, because that breaks a pattern where the Canberra Liberals voted against every single piece of LGBTI reform that occurred in the previous decade. With adoption rights, when we voted—when this parliament voted—to remove discrimination on adoption, the Speaker of this place gave one of the most abhorrent speeches I have ever heard in this place about gay and lesbian people. That stands on the public record as her view. No-one on that side of politics demurred from that; nobody got up and said something different.
All of those law changes, all 105 of them, through each iteration on civil unions or civil partnerships, were blocked and opposed. Ten years on we were told, “That’s actually not so bad. We probably quite support that.” But at the time you did not.
I am pleased you have moved on. It shows that the progressives are winning this argument. We have got to keep on putting it if we are going to win it nationally, but we will. Those who stand opposed to it will look increasingly stupid. I am absolutely certain that at some point in time we will all look back on this period—this period of inaction, this period of dissembling, this period of doing anything to not talk about this—and just shake our heads and go, “I cannot believe it.”
In a week when one of the great lions of progressive reform in this country passed away, it is worth reflecting on his approach to social reform and imagining what this country would be like if there were not people like Gough Whitlam. Where would we be without no-fault divorce? Where would we be without the range of social initiatives that he pushed through, through sheer willpower, passion, political organisation and the ability to rally behind important causes? Think of those fundamental changes that have occurred in our society as a result of that passion. That is there in this debate, and it will continue to be there in this debate so long as good people continue to fight the fight, argue for change and continue to be passionate.
I thank Ms Berry for her passion. I thank Mr Rattenbury for his passion. I thank Mr Gentleman for his passion today. I thank all of my Labor colleagues and everyone who speaks up in favour of marriage equality. Your support is greatly appreciated, and we want to continue to hear your voice as we move towards what is an inevitable change in this country, one that is long overdue. It is time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.42): I want to speak briefly to the amendment and make a couple of other comments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video