19 November 2017, Innisfail, Queensland, Australia
I mean, you know, people are entitled to their sexual proclivities. Let there be a thousand blossoms bloom, as far as I am concerned.
But I ain't spending any time on it because in the meantime, every three months, a person is torn to pieces by a crocodile in north Queensland.
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!
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.
16 April 2013, Parliament House, Wellington, New Zealand
I've had a reverend in my local electorate say that the 'gay onslaught will start the day this bill is passed.' So we are struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We don't know if it will come down the Pakaranga highway as a series of troops or whether it will be a gas that flows the electorate and blocks us all in.
I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life. Celibacy... I haven't done it so I don't know what it's about.
I also had a leader tell me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity and that was a bad mistake because I've got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees and I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It's hardly eternity. What do you think?
I also head some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well, I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful. I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.
However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned, who were seriously worried, about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might do to their families and so on.
Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector forever.
We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.
But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.
The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on.
So do not make this into a big deal.
This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.
Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was this bill was the cause of our drought. Well, if any one you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning, it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.
Can I finish, for all those who are concerned about this, with a quote from the bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical 'Cats,' but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29. 'Be ye not afraid.'"
9 August 2017, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia
Penny Wong is an openly gayshadow minister for the Labor opposition, opposing the government's legislation to conduct a plebiscite on same sex marraige.
This motion is not about giving Australians a say. This motion is about weakness and division on that side of the Parliament. This motion is about a government so divided that they have to handball a hard decision to the community to make it because they can't make it in their party room. That is what this is about. No amount of words can hide from the fact that this is one big massive handball, because this is a government without a leader, utterly divided on this issue. That is what this vote is about.
The reality is this is all a stunt and everybody knows that. Now, I have a lot of regard for Senator Mathias Cormann. He is generally a very decent person to deal with and he is trying valiantly to create some logic over what is an utterly ridiculous position. It is a stunt and an expensive stunt. There are a lot of things you could do with $120 million: GP visits, more teachers. I am sure we can go through a whole range of things that $122 million can be spent on far better than a vote that is not going to be binding.
We talk a lot about democracy and Australians having their say. But Eric Abetz is not going to change his vote if this is successful. Senator [Cory] Bernardi is not going to change his position. It is like one big opinion survey to get over the fact the Liberal party room can't make a decision because they are so divided on the issue and because Malcolm Turnbull, regrettably, has not had the courage of his conviction. This is a vote whose sole aim is to stop the members of this Parliament being given a chance to do their job and vote. This is a vote because some in the Coalition can never countenance equality and they are never going to change their minds. They simply cannot countenance people like me and others being equal. Simple as that. They are not going to change their minds on this issue. If you just bring on a vote, we can save the country $120 million and frankly, put us all out of our misery of having to keep talking about this issue, because, frankly, the country has moved on.
I would also make this point – we do live in a parliamentary democracy. We are elected to do a job. Sometimes we do it well, sometimes we do it less well. We are elected to come here and vote, to make decisions. This country didn't have a plebiscite or a postal ballot on the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, native title legislation, scrapping of the white Australia policy, whether women should get equal pay. I don't think Tony Abbott took to a people's vote cutting billions out of health and education. I don't think the government took to a people's vote whether corporations should get a big tax cut, but on this they want us to have our say.
I want to comment on the comment by Senator Cormann this could be a unifying moment and that people could be respectful. I hope that people watching me in this debate would not think I am a shrinking violet. I know what a hard debate is like. But I tell you, have a read of some of the things which are said about us and our families and then come back here and tell us this is a unifying moment. The Australian Christian lobby described our children as the stolen generation. We love our children. And I object, as do every person who cares about children, and as do all those couples in this country, same-sex couples who have kids, to be told our children are a stolen generation. You talk about unifying moments? It is not a unifying moment. It is exposing our children to that kind of hatred.
I wouldn't mind so much if you were prepared to speak out on it. If the Prime Minister was prepared to stand up and say "that is wrong". Maybe he can stand up for some people who don't have a voice. Because we know the sort of debate that is already there. Let me say, for many children in same-sex couple families and for many young LGBTI kids, this ain't a respectful debate already.
Labor will be opposing this motion and we do so because of our long-standing position, which has been considered by the party, and our opposition to a plebiscite. What I would say to the crossbench is you made the right decision last time. Please make the same decision on this occasion.