Page 438 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
marriages until the High Court has had a chance to rule, so that if the High Court does rule that the legislation is invalid, we don’t have what could be quite a distressing situation where people have married under legislation that is invalid, and those marriages would be declared invalid.” That would have been disappointing for those people, understandably.
That was ignored. The legislation went to the High Court, and there was a unanimous verdict that the legislation was invalid. That exercise cost a million dollars. Ms Porter’s concern with the plebiscite is that it will cost money. If her concern is about spending money when it could be spent in other ways, this Assembly—I do not know whether you could compare federal budgets to local budgets in terms of scale—also spent a lot of money on something that I would argue, and five High Court judges would argue, was invalid legislation.
I am disappointed that I have had to start my speech like this, because I was hoping that in her final days in this place there would not have been the sort of point scoring that we have seen. I remind Ms Porter, as she attacks the federal government, that the Labor Party in office had six years and did nothing. Indeed the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said she did not support same-sex marriage. So I find it somewhat hypocritical for those opposite to criticise the federal government for a position of the Prime Minister, who openly supports same-sex marriage, when their own Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who did not act, said she did not support same-sex marriage.
Clearly, the Prime Minister is endeavouring to bring the community together on this. If it is going to get through the parliament, it is clear that on both the Labor and Liberal sides there are different views, and it is important to let the community have their say.
Now that this is in the federal domain—it clearly is, as it always was, as the legal opinion said it was and as five High Court judges unanimously ruled—this now is really a matter for individuals in this place. This matter will go to a plebiscite. The federal Labor Party did not act. The federal Liberal Party at least has acted. At least they have made a decision that they are progressing on this. One way or another, there will be a plebiscite.
This never came out of the Labor Party federally. They just said no. Julia Gillard said, “No, I don’t support same-sex marriage; end of story.” At least those in the Liberal Party, if they do support same-sex marriage, as many of us do, have supported this.
Let me be very clear that when this legislation came before the Assembly, there were mixed views in the Liberal Party locally. Madam Assistant Speaker, I note that you are a strong advocate for same-sex marriage, and that is well known. There are members of my party who are not, and who support traditional marriages. I absolutely respect both views. But it is clearly not a matter for this Assembly. We can have our individual opinions, and that is great, and it is interesting, because we will all get to vote yes or no in a plebiscite. I have been very open about saying that I will vote yes in a plebiscite to support same-sex marriage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video