Stephen Jones: "We’ve been to too many funerals", debating Religious Discrimation Bill - 2022

2 February 2022, Canberra, Australia

Thanks Deputy Speaker, well it’s normally my custom to come to this dispatch box and deliver and thunderous, passionate address. There will not be much thunder today, but with no less passion.

There are 10 sitting days remaining in the 46th parliament.

There is a crisis in our aged care system. Hundreds of Australians are dying in understaffed, underfunded homes and yet this government seems powerless or unwilling to do nothing about it.

Two years ago the government promised to introduce a federal anti-corruption commission. The attorney general told us yesterday that no such promise will be delivered.

There are skills shortages and supply shortages which are preventing businesses from opening and the economy recovering.

Interest rates will certainly rise which will make existing cost of living pressures even worse.

These are the matters we should be focusing on in the final weeks of this parliament.

Instead we’ll spend the best part of two days debating a bill which pleases no one.

I support freedom of religion. I understand many in our community who want to see the existing laws strengthened to protect their freedom of religious expression. Although we are a long way from the days when employers could lawfully place ads in newspapers that say Catholics, my faith, need not apply – I understand the desire for a greater recognition and rights for people of faith.

But regrettably, the sometimes toxic debate that has been unleashed by the prime minister has put a spotlight on the fact that no rights are unlimited. Where the exercise of one person’s rights comes crashing up against another person’s freedom, we need to find a solution. It can be done and it is the role of this parliament to do that.

The contest of ideas and the ways of life is usually dealt with by social norms, by civility and human decency – regrettably, sometimes not. Unfortunately, when parliament steps in, the law has a very blunt way of dealing with it.

If we are to do this ... Then we must do it properly, thoughtfully, consultatively, and to date we have not. If we are to believe the reports in today’s paper, the government has failed to bring forward a law which protects children.

For me, this is not an academic issue.

The courage to swim against the tide

Last week my family said farewell to my nephew Ollie. He was just 15 when he took his own life. No mother or father should ahve to endure this sight. No brother should have to clean up afterwards. He was a beautiful, creative, courageous young man. He was loved and accepted by his parents, brothers and friends. His mum and dad are in anguish. We all are. He was gay. He was uncertain about his gender and he struggled with his mental health. Now he is gone and we will no longer be able to love him and support him on his journey throughout life. Clearly the love and acceptance of his family and friends was not enough.

My own son is also a beautiful, creative, intelligent 14-year-old. He designs and makes his own clothes, he is a gifted makeup artist, he moves seamlessly between the wardrobes of men and women. He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister.

He has more courage than any other boy of his age that I have ever met. He swims against the tide.

I love and support him unconditionally and I brag about his talents to anyone who is willing to stop for two minutes and glance at his Instagram page.

But I worry myself sick every time he leaves the house. I think to myself, ‘you look beautiful, but do you have to go out looking like that?’ Because I know that the love and protection that he enjoys with his mother, with his friends and family is very different to the reception he may receive in the outside world.

Could this be the day when we receive the call = telling us that something has happened? That he has been attacked, for just being who he is?

Yet, this is about my kids, but it’s also not … this is about the families and every child who has the courage to swim against the tide just to be who they are..

What message do we want to send?

Earlier today the prime minister said we should exercise our power in this place with love. Look I know the cynic in all of us could easily giggle at that phrase and dismiss it as a political line … But I don’t. I agree. I’m asking the prime minister to reflect on those words as we consider this bill.

I’d ask the prime minister and every other member in this place to put themselves in the shoes of the parents, or the heels of their kids, as they step out in public.

What message do we want to this parliament to send to these kids. Are they as loved and cherished and respected as every other kid? Surely we aren’t saying to them – it’s OK if you are gay … Just so long as we can’t see it. Surely we can do better than that. At some stage we have to do better than that.

Because the thing that every parent of every gay or trans kid knows is that the love and protection that we provide for them inside our family and inside our homes and is not enough.

It is not enough.

At some stage they have to step out into the world and deal with it as it is.

So we as parliamentarians have the power to shape that world … by what we do and what we say. and how we vote. What message do we want to send to our kids?

Shaping the Australia we want to have

You know there’s a simple ease in which members of this place toss sausages at a charity barbecue, drink a beer, place a cap on our head and smile for a camera, put a footy jumper on and cheer for our favourite team. I do it regularly.

And when we do that we are signalling to Australia that we are just like you … or at least that Australia as we imagine it to be.

But the fact is Australia is a much more diverse place than that which we project from our pulpit in this place.

Being an Aussie is much more than punting on the Melbourne Cup or shouting ‘Go Saints’ or “Go Sharkies”.

It’s much more complex that that.

It’s the responsibility, the high responsibility of all of us called to this place to reflect and shape the sort of Australia that we want to have.

And it’s a bloody diverse place!

It is black. It’s white. It’s brown.. It prays in a church, it prays in a mosque, it prays in a shrine, in a synagogue, in a hall … or on a surfboard just behind the breaks

It’s men and women, it’s straight, it’s gay , it’s trans, it’s intersex … it’s the whole bloody lot.

We are the Australia of Storm Boy, of Breaker Morant, of Puberty Blues and, yes, of Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

It’s not easy crafting a national story that includes us all – but that’s our damn job! That’s our job. And the national story must have a place for all of us and all of our kids – how we imagine them, but more importantly how they are.

If a young kid has the courage to be themselves and own their identity – the least, the very least we can do is say “welcome”, we love you, and we respect you, and you’re okay, just the way you are.

My family are grieving like so many others. There have been too many funerals, too many grieving families. We have in our gift the power to do something, let’s not let the opportunity pass.

I thank my friends who have come to provide me support, I thank the leader of the opposition, my good friend, for sitting through what for me has been a difficult address. And I know there are many people who are listening, or who will read this speech afterwards, who want me to conclude with the words, ‘let’s dump this bill!’’

But I’m not saying that. What I’m saying to the leader of the opposition, and the prime minister if he;’ll listen, is ‘let’s take a step back’. Let’s imagine a national story that talks to all of us. And let’s not do something, in the name of freedom of religion, that does damage or harm to those of us who we love.

We’ve been to too many funerals.

Let’s get this done.

But let’s do it properly. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom and decency of every member in this place, to get this done properly.

I thank you for your time.

Dean Smith: 'Our country has offered a loving embrace to its own' , Third reading, Marriage Equaltiy Bill - 2017

29 November 2017, Canberra, Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

Dean Smith: 'Nothing speaks of acceptance more than marriage,' Second reading, Marriage Equality Bill - 2017

16 November 2017, Canberra,Australia

The votes of the Australian people were tallied and the Australian people have voted Yes to changing the Marriage Act.

I know many people questioned the original plebiscite. I did.

Many opposed the postal survey. I did.

And many gay and lesbian people felt uncomfortable asking for equal rights before the law, because why should you supplicate for the same rights and responsibilities as others?

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge with awe and gratitude, the willingness of our countrymen and women to stand beside us, to affirm us and to join us in voting Yes.

On behalf of the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and intersex Australians and their families, I say, with humility and gratitude, thank you.

Yesterday, we saw a glimpse of the country that we all yearn for — a country that is fair-minded, generous and accepting.

We saw a country that was willing to embrace its hopes rather than hold on to its fears.

And many of us across this chamber have seen something of the great Australian story that compelled us into public life.

For the liberals and conservatives who yearned for change, we see in this result the "shining city on a hill" — with more freedom, more acceptance and more grace.

And for those opposite, they have lived out Ben Chifley's magnificent call to "fight for the right" so that "truth and justice will prevail".

In many cases, Australians voted for someone they knew — and in just as many, they voted for someone they didn't.

The wonder of this result is that it brings together young and old, gay and straight, conservative and progressive, immigrant and Indigenous into the most unifying Australian coalition.

True, some wanted a 15-year debate to be over so that we could move on to other pressing issues, but mostly, there was an understanding by our fellow citizens that the life path for a young gay or lesbian teenager or young adult is harder than their heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Australians voted to make that path easier.

It wasn't just a vote of acceptance — it was the deep loving embrace of a big family.

Mr President, every time we stand in this chamber we do so as representatives of the people.

In amending the Marriage Act, we do so knowing that we have the full confidence of the Australian people.

The senators from Tasmania know that 63.6 per cent of Tasmanian voters said Yes.

The senators from Queensland know that 60.7 per cent of Queensland voters said Yes.

The senators from this fine Capital Territory know that 74 per cent of Canberrans voted Yes.

The senators from NSW know that 57.8 per cent of Australia's most populous state voted Yes.

The senators from Victoria know that 64.9 per cent of Victorian residents voted Yes.

The senators from the rugged Top End know that 60.6 per cent of Territorians voted Yes.

The senators from South Australia know that 62.5 per cent of electors voted Yes.

And my 11 brother and sister senators from the great state of Western Australia know that our home state delivered a resounding 63.7 per cent Yes vote.

If ever there was a vote that took us back to being the states' house, I say this is it.

We should also note that 133 electoral divisions out of 150 delivered a Yes vote — in Western Australian it was a clean-sweep where all of its 16 electorates voted Yes.

Mr President, this was not just a vote about a law, but a vote about who we are as a people.

I have listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of LGBTI Australians in past years. Many have written, emailed, Facebooked, tweeted, spoken to me in airports and at functions, or simply picked up the phone.

There is a commonality in all those conversations and in all our lives.

It is that of rejection and acceptance, isolation and inclusion, and shame and pride.

It's the silent chord that runs through all of our lives, but acutely through the lives of LGBTI Australians.

All too often, the biggest hurdle for so many is that of self-acceptance — and finding that path where we can honestly reconcile who we are with the hopes and dreams we have for our lives and what we think are the expectations of others.

I have been fortunate: I have an accepting, embracing and loving family. The heartbeat of their love for me didn't skip a beat. Not everyone is that fortunate.

My own journey of acceptance has been greatly influenced by a book I read as a younger man.

The book was Coming Out Conservative by Martin Liebman. It helped answer that question we all face: What must I do to live an honest and authentic life?

It's a book that has sustained me through good times and bad.

Liebman writes:

"If I have learned anything about life, it is to be yourself. Be what you are, no matter who you are or how you were born. Don't try to be what others want you to be. Accept the difference of others. Include them in your lives. By shutting others out merely because they are different, you diminish your own life and that of your children."

The decision of the Australian people to allow same-sex couples to marry is an offered hand to those deep chords within gay and lesbian Australians.

Nothing speaks of acceptance more than marriage.

Marriage is also the way that we admit adult members to our families.

As Paul Ritchie wrote in Faith, Love and Australia: The conservative case for same-sex marriage:

"Marriage can be a powerful affirmation of our lives. A wedding is the day we see our parents' joyful tears and receive their blessing; it is when we hear our best friend's speech with love hidden in the humour; and it is when the love of our life is admitted to our family, and we to theirs."

It is the day we are blessed by our families. Because of this bill, that blessing will no longer be denied to our LGBTI children.

One of the reasons this bill is so vital is that it reflects the deepest of liberal and conservative ideals.

Liberal because it advances the sum of freedoms, and conservative because it nurtures our families, affirms a vital institution, and strengthens the social fabric which is but the sum of all of our human relationships.

Today I think of John Gorton, the only prime minister to come from the Senate, who 44 years ago moved a motion calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

In him, we saw a liberalism that was empathetic — and a man, who even after achieving the highest office, was still willing to walk a mile in another man's shoes.

Gorton's mantle was taken up by hundreds of Liberal and National Party members who leant their name to the Libs and Nats for Yes campaign. To all, I say thank you.

Jack Kennedy once said, with more than a touch of irony, that "victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan".

When I look at this victory and the thousands who made it possible, I keep thinking of one man: the one who carried the torch before there were any openly LGBTI members of the Coalition in the Parliament.

That man is the Member for Leichardt, Warren Entsch.

Like John Gorton, he has a wonderful mix of gruffness and empathy that made him the most unexpected but compelling warrior.

This bill is more Warren's than anyone's — we simply walk in the tracks that he has laid.

Mr President, the Australian people have voted to change the Marriage Act. Now we must move decisively on their behalf.

The postal survey was a vote on amending the Marriage Act. Full stop.

Yes, there are other worthy debates about freedom of expression and living out our shared values — and yes, I will be a willing and enthusiastic participant in those debates. But those matters cannot be part of the Marriage Act — they can live for another day.

This bill, in keeping with the express will of the Australian people, is solely about amending the Marriage Act.

I believe this is a comprehensive bill and I am willing to engage in the substantive issues the bill addresses.

This bill seeks to remove existing discrimination from the Marriage Act, protect religious institutions and does not re-introduce commercial discrimination.

Let me be clear: amendments that seek to address other issues, or which seek to deny gay and lesbian Australians with the full rights, responsibilities and privileges that they already have, will be strenuously opposed.

Australians did not vote for equality before the law so that equality before the law that has already been gained is stripped away.

This is a fair bill.

This bill recognises the special place of marriage that transcends our civic and religious life.

In many ways, the undercurrent debate over recent years has been the question: is marriage a holy secular institution or a wholly secular institution?

My message is that it can still be both — without curtailing our civic or religious freedoms.

This bill advances the civic right of all Australians and provides protection for religious institutions to continue to be guided by the tenets of their faith.

Nothing in this bill takes away an existing right, nor does any of it diminish an existing civil freedom.

The change proposed in this bill is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary.

Yesterday's decisive outcome after a 15-year debate is a reflection of Edmund Burke's admonition that: "Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will produce more than our force."

Mr President, whether we admit it or not, we all bring our full selves to this place.

All of us are a product of our families, our histories, our connections and the parties and communities from which we come. It is the strength and wonder of being a representative body.

I have spoken very much today as a gay Australian.

Let me say a few words as someone who is also a Christian Australian. It is as much a part of who I am as my nationality or indeed my sexuality — and it is, in part, why I wrestled with this issue for so long.

Being true to self is often as much about being true to the people who have loved us and nurtured us. And that equally applies to me.

My faith is not a platform, it's a refuge. It's why on my office desk there stands a crucifix — it gives me strength when there appear to be difficulties ahead.

So I want to acknowledge the very genuine concerns of some Christians and religious people around Australia have expressed during this postal survey and give voice to them.

People voted No, not because they had a particular problem with gay and lesbian Australians, but because they felt it was the easiest expression of their fear about the change in Australian culture towards people of religious faith.

The No advocates spoke much about religious freedom but couldn't point to what freedom was exactly being lost.

That's because what religious people fear has very little to do with laws — but everything to do with culture.

Let me express the fears that many people of faith have in our modern world.

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 other reason than the faith they profess or the place in which they worship. I understand.

I understand these fears — because they are reflections of the fears that LGBTI citizens have felt through our country's history. Fears about acceptance, fears about jobs, fears about hiding part of you, and yes, fears about violence.

This vote is not about — and must not be about — replacing one persecuted minority with another.

Or giving one group hope, while inflicting another with fear.

It must be about advancing the hopes and dreams of all citizens no matter their sexuality, ethnicity or religion.

As Australians we have a shared inheritance.

Sir Robert Menzies, using the beautiful words of St Paul, said that we are, as Australians, "members of one another". And indeed we are.

The error of our times, Mr President, is that all too often in this chamber we seek to advance the base that elected us rather than the nation that needs us. Where we play to one group rather than advance all.

Yes, this is a great day for our democracy and our country, but it is also a day when we reaffirm our commitment to affirm the different identities of all our citizens — and pledge ourselves to protect them all.

Mr President.

As a young man, I never believed I could serve as a senior adviser to a prime minister or a premier, because I was a gay man. John Howard and Richard Court both proved me wrong.

I never believed that I could be pre-selected to be a Liberal Party candidate and senator. The Liberal Party proved me wrong.

I didn't believe my name would ever be accepted by the people at an election. The people of Western Australia proved me wrong.

And I never believed the day would come when my relationship would be judged by my country to be as meaningful and valued as any other. The Australian people have proven me wrong.

To those who want and believe in change — and to those who seek to seek to frustrate it — I simply say:

Don't underestimate Australia.

Don't underestimate the Australian people.

Don't underestimate our country's sense of fairness, its sense of decency and its willingness to be a country "for all of us".

Not only does our country live these values, it votes for them as well.

Tony Burke: 'Penny just uttered the words, 'Say black instead of gay and hear how it sounds.'', Marriage Amendment Bill speech - 2017

5 December 2017, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia

There would be no greater contrast than me speaking immediately after the member for Melbourne. While his electorate had the highest 'yes' vote in the country, mine had the second highest 'no' vote in the country.

A few things have astonished me since then—first of all, the number of people who were surprised that that was the case. I have always had the understanding that, in my electorate, the opinion polls are roughly the reverse of what they are nationally. Secondly, I was astonished by the number of people who have said, as a democratic principle, I was obliged to break an election commitment as a result of the postal ballot. It's the first time I've ever heard the breaking of an election commitment being described as a democratic principle, but that's how a number of people have sought to put it.

Last time this issue was raised in the Parliament, I did vote no. Last time this issue was raised in the Parliament, I did not speak. In fact, in the many hours of debate we've had on marriage equality, this is the first time I've come to the dispatch box. When we first dealt with a marriage equality bill, there had been a resolution that the member for Melbourne just referred to in his speech, where we were told, and it was resolved, that we should consult with our electorates and, having consulted, we should vote accordingly. That meant a very different thing in my part of Sydney to what it meant in many parts of Australia. But, after that vote had taken place, we had a discussion within the cabinet room about marriage equality, and different people were putting their views as to why they'd voted particular ways.

I've checked with Senator Penny Wong that she's okay with me saying this. I would never give up something that was said in the cabinet room, but, only yesterday, she let me know that she is okay with it being repeated. At the end of that discussion in the cabinet room, where different people had put different views, we were about to move to the next item on the agenda and, in a very soft, gentle but clearly audible voice, Penny just uttered the words, 'Say black instead of gay and hear how it sounds.'

I can't think of a single sentence that has had a deeper effect on me than the words that Penny Wong said in the cabinet room—'Say black instead of gay and hear how it sounds'—not only because of the emotion of hearing those words but also because, when you think about my electorate, my part of Sydney does know discrimination.

The people in my part of Sydney don't know terribly well the discrimination that this legislation seeks to fix, but they know discrimination. When discrimination on the basis of race is happening, including from some prominent people at the other end of this building, my electorate gets targeted full-on. When there's discrimination against people on the basis of their faith, my electorate gets targeted absolutely.

They need someone who will fight discrimination and will win. They don't need someone who will run some sort of argument that some forms of discrimination are okay and others aren't. If I'm going to be true to the needs of my electorate, of my part of Sydney, of my neighbours and of that little three-kilometre circle that I've lived inside all my life, where most of the rest of the people have travelled around the world to be there, they need someone who will fight discrimination fearlessly because, on national polls, in my part of Sydney, the people who get discriminated against are never in the majority. So, if I'm willing to defend them as minorities, I can't pick and choose.

Within my part of Sydney, there are census figures which can't be true. In my suburb of Punchbowl, there are something like 4,000 coupled households and yet only eight identify as same-sex. You look at the statistics around the rest of the country and you think, 'What could that mean?' It means a whole lot of people move out, it means a whole lot of people just don't identify and it also means a lot of people, no doubt, find themselves in terribly unhappy heterosexual relationships.

It would manifest itself in a number of ways. But, ultimately, it also means that there are young people in my part of Sydney who, on top of the religious discrimination and on top of the discrimination on the basis of their race and ethnic origin, cop this one too. For heaven's sake, I'm not going to leave them on their own. We can't have a situation where there is a credible argument that says, 'Because you represent a multicultural community, there is a form of discrimination that you must endorse.' I can't be party to that.

On the amendments that have been put forward and that have been flagged: I indicated before any amendments were proposed in any way that I would be opposing them. That includes amendments that the member for Melbourne will put, which will come from one direction, and the amendments that the member for Warringah will put, which come from another. I indicated that I would oppose them for a very simple principle: if this House approves marriage equality in a different form to the Senate we run a very real likelihood that we will get a dispute between the houses, and where we are dealing with conscience votes we have no way of resolving that.

If we go through the entire process that the postal ballot was about and we get to the end of this year—after the public have been forced through what they've been forced through and after the affected community have gone through what they've gone through—and we still don't get it done, the Australian people will have every right to be deeply frustrated and sick to death of this place. There will be some amendments that will have a level of merit, I have no doubt, from one side or the other, but to contemplate this not getting done I think is truly unthinkable.

It's also the case that some of the amendments that have been put to me by some people locally, who I deeply respect, are amendments that defend principles which I agree with. They are principles which I do not believe are in the slightest way put at risk by this legislation. This legislation is not the first time that the Marriage Act has presented different definitions to those of the Christian faith, or the Buddhist faith or the Muslim faith.

In fact, for the entire history of this act, it has never been an exact match to any form of religious marriage. Therefore, I don't for the life of me see how people will suddenly be able to stop observing their religious beliefs. I don't see how charities will suddenly have a problem when they already have a view of marriage that doesn't match the Marriage Act. I can't for the life of me see how these problems will arise and, therefore, I can only form the view that there are some people, whether they are inside the Parliament or without it and have been part of the 'no' lobby, are simply trying to play a game of messaging. I don't see why the Parliament should be part of that.

So, if we ended up with a clear question and I thought there were a threat to people being able to preach their religion in their temples, in their synagogues, in their prayer rooms or in their mosques—if I thought that was going to be at threat—then I would support legislation that dealt with that. If there is ever legislation that puts that at threat, I'll be speaking pretty loudly against it. This legislation doesn't; it absolutely doesn't. It is disingenuous for people in this House, who deal with legislation as the core business of what we do, to pretend for a minute that those issues are at threat.

I have always been conscious of the fact that the forms of discrimination and hate speech that I have dedicated most of my political career to opposing are forms of discrimination I will never experience. I'll never know what it's like to travel on the train and be abused by a stranger for what I wear. I'll never know what it's like to be in the playground and to be pushed around by other kids because of the colour of my skin. Nor will I know in my life what it's like to be considered different from other people, and less than other people, because of who I love.

But how can I defend the person who gets abused on the train and defend the child in the school playground, and not also defend the person who is discriminated against on the basis of who they love?

My electorate, my part of Sydney, needs someone who can. My part of Sydney needs someone who can fight discrimination fearlessly and win.

I'll be voting yes. There will be plenty of people in my electorate who are disappointed by that, but no-one will be surprised and no-one will see it as anything other than me being completely consistent with the person who presented to them and who they chose to elect.