Page 444 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
equality in this country. The public opinion polling shows clear community support for a change in the law, and I think that that points to the fact that the Australian community is ahead of many parliamentarians in this country in acknowledging that to allow people in gender diverse relationships to be married takes nothing away from others; it does not undermine anybody else’s marriage. We have heard some that have said they think it does, but I just do not think that is the case. The fact that two other people can get married does not diminish someone else’s relationship, and to put that view is lacking in generosity. I think it is a very narrow view to take. Simply letting somebody else celebrate their love surely cannot diminish the love of another couple.
The federal government’s plan for a plebiscite in my view is completely unnecessary in light of the community sentiment. I think it is the role of the federal parliament to take a decision on this. We know the Australian public is ready for equality. The High Court has made it clear that the federal parliament is the one that must take responsibility for this, and so it is time for those members to do their job. I do not believe we need a plebiscite. It is on federal parliamentarians to take up their role in a representative democracy where members are elected to come into parliaments and take a view on behalf of the community. How they gauge what that view should be is a matter for individual parliamentarians, but to go to this pathway is a stalling tactic. It is an attempt to obfuscate, and I think it is a poor decision. This is a matter we should get on with as soon as possible so that we can actually draw this debate to a close and allow for true equality in our community.
I, like others who have spoken today, am concerned by the fact that the opponents of marriage equality are seeking exemptions to anti-discrimination laws during the upcoming plebiscite campaign, if it does proceed. It is a concern that they feel they cannot make their case without denigrating others. I call on them to think and reflect on how they might speak about others in the community.
The Australian Christian Lobby has put this case. Having gone to a school where religion was taught, nothing I was taught about Christian values said that it was okay to denigrate others in the way that is being suggested with this request. It is in nobody’s interests to go down this path. I do not think it does anything for our community. If this plebiscite goes ahead and there is a debate, people are entitled, of course, to put their view, but I think one can do it without needing to unpick anti-discrimination laws to be able to make your case.
I do, however, believe that the Prime Minister should show leadership and allow his party a free vote on the floor of the federal parliament. I think all federal parties should allow that. If people look within themselves we would find that most federal parliamentarians would fall in favour of allowing marriage equality in this country. It is well overdue. It is time that we did have that status in Australia—just as many neighbouring and like-minded countries do—where people are able to access the right to marry the person they love regardless of their gender. I look forward to that day arriving in Australia. I believe it is only a matter of time, but I think it should happen sooner rather than later.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Racing and Gaming and Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations) (4.13): I want to thank Ms Porter for bringing this matter of public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video