This is a debate about equality much more than it is a debate about marriage. And this is fundamentally why I am so vehemently opposed to this legislation. It demonstrates also—contrary to the view just expressed by the previous speaker, the member for Maranoa—a profound failure of leadership on the part of Australia's Prime Minister. It is a failure of politics. The member for Wentworth's, our Prime Minister's, weakness cannot and should not be allowed to bind this parliament. The question of marriage is a matter for this parliament. We should not shirk our responsibility to deal with it. So I rise in opposition to the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.
In the chamber the other day, I stood here and listened to the remarks of my friend the member for Grayndler when he said that this debate is not just a debate about laws; it is about how people conduct themselves. And one thing we, law-makers, should not be doing in this place is to open the judgement of peers to millions of Australians as to how they live their lives. We should not force our fellow citizens to justify their personal circumstances—their love. Rather, we should support its equality through the ordinary law-making process.
In this debate, the Prime Minister has generally been unconvincing, because I think all of us in this place and most of us across the Australian community well understand that he is not doing what he would want to do but rather continuing to do the bidding of his predecessor, the member for Warringah. So he is often unconvincing as Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to this question of marriage, because we should recognise in this place that he has been, generally, a strong and consistent supporter of rights for the LGBTIQ community. He is particularly unconvincing when he attempts to spruik the alleged democratic credentials of his plebiscite. And that is perhaps unsurprising because those credentials are very, very thin.
Today, as we stand here, there are 226 people in Australia who have the capacity to change the law on marriage. Should this legislation, and then the subsequent legislation, the substantive bill, pass, we would still be in a position where 226 Australians would have the capacity to change the law. This is a fudge, and it is walking away from our responsibility to stand up for representative democracy.
I say to the House that I was impressed by the contribution in Fairfax newspapers of Senator Dean Smith from Western Australia—not someone with whom I generally agree—when he set out the reasons for which he would be opposed to this legislation. They were persuasive—notwithstanding the fact that he set them out from his perspective as a constitutional conservative. I am far from a constitutional conservative, but I am a strong supporter of a representative system of government. I think it is something we should be standing up for, particularly at this time when our democracy is in need of severe refurbishment.
What we should be doing to effect that refurbishment is to stand up for these institutions, to make them work and to make them be seen to work, rather than fudging. We should not be passing on difficult decisions to the public at large. Certainly I have gone to the last two elections making it very clear to my constituents that I will support marriage equality, and I will do so in this parliament in the ordinary course.
I think one matter that needs to be drawn to the close attention of the House is the process through which the Australian Labor Party, the opposition in this place, have arrived at this position of opposing the plebiscite, which has been a matter of much public debate. Personally, I have spoken to many LGBTIQ Australians; none have asked me to support this bill or the proposition it supports—none. I know that that has been a very common experience of colleagues on this side of the House. So it is very telling that it is only the opponents of marriage equality who are advocates of this proposal, not those directly affected. While government members have been listening to the concerns of those who are determined to delay marriage equality in Australia, we have been listening, and seeking, through this process, to give voice to the concerns of those most affected—LGBTIQ Australians and their families.
This bill, very clearly, speaks to the concerns of those who are opposed to equality. One of the clues is in its name. It talks of 'same-sex marriage', which is not a term that I would use. What we are talking about here, if I can return to the start of my contribution, is not so much about marriage as about ending discrimination—about ensuring that all societal institutions governed by law are open to all.
Through this process, we have seen real leadership from the Labor team: from the Leader of the Opposition; from the deputy leader, the member for Sydney; from the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus; from the member for Griffith; from Senator Wong; from Senator Pratt and from the member for Bruce—real leadership. It has been a study in contrast to the vacillation and weakness of the Prime Minister. Their work has brought to the fore of this debate the personal experience, the harm and the prospect of joy. I have been privileged to hear from so many rainbow families: to hear people—often children—share with me very personal stories. I have often reflected on how hard it must have been for these people to tell their stories to a stranger—a strange man in a suit—and ask me and all of us to be respectful of their stories, of their experience, of their lives and not subject their lives to the cruel and uncertain scrutiny of this plebiscite process.
Deputy Speaker, like me and my great friend the member for Shortland, you have had the great privilege of hearing many speeches at Australian Labor Party conferences—and the minister at the table cannot share that. The speech I heard at a Labor Party conference that affected me the most was one made many years ago by a very brave young woman, Sarah Cole. She stood up to argue the case for the Australian Labor Party in Victoria to support marriage equality. She began her speech by saying how hard and strange it felt to be talking about love at a Labor Party conference! Often Labor Party conferences are places of great love, but I was struck by what she said. Really, for most of us, there is nothing more important to our lives than our family relationships, the decision that those of us who are married, as I am, make to share our life with someone else.
That there has so long been a legislative impediment to that status, something that I value very dearly, struck me then as being particularly cruel and particularly wrong. It struck me also that it was particularly unfair that this brave young woman had to share such a personal story in such an impersonal arena, when really we should have just gotten on with the job. In particular, we should not have changed the Marriage Act in 2004. That decision, like the other 21 occasions on which the marriage act has been amended, was made in this place, as any amendment to a law within the constitutional competence of the Commonwealth should be made, not through a process at large in the community designed not to advance the stated object.
I have been in the chamber for many contributions by government members in this debate, and I will reflect briefly upon them. The member for Maranoa, at the end of his contribution, touched briefly on the experience in Ireland and asserted that there was no evidence of harm there. Of course, the expert evidence is to the contrary and the view of the affected community is to the contrary—that lives were harmed, that people suffered because of having their lives, their love, their sense of being equal participants in civil society placed under the microscope. He also talked about leadership. Well, real leadership is about doing your job. It is also about doing what you believe in and being prepared to lead. And that is not what we have seen from the Prime Minister of Australia through this debate. We have seen deflection, disingenuousness and hiding behind the reactionary rump of the coalition.
When it comes to harm, that is one thing that the Labor Party have taken very seriously. The Leader of the Opposition has convened a series of roundtables to explore these issues with directly affected families and leading mental health experts. We have been guided by the views of people like Patrick McGorry in taking the decision not to subject Australians, including some vulnerable young Australians, to this cruel, unnecessary, unequal and hurtful process. There has been a lot of talk about a respectful process. Well, even in this chamber we have seen some pointers to a lack of respect. We have not seen respect given to the concerns that have been consistently expressed by the LGBTIQ community on this issue—again, those most affected. And in my meetings with them I made it very clear that I would stand up for two things that I hold very dear: firstly, the guiding principle that we are all equal and we should strive to put in place a legal framework that gives effect to that without singling out vulnerable members of the community or indeed any members of the community; and, secondly, that we should stand up for the great institutions of our representative democracy. Where would Edmund Burke be watching today's Liberal Party! He would be profoundly disappointed. And I wonder whether a couple of government members may be looking back on their first speeches regretting looking to that conservative icon as a touchstone in this place.
It is important to touch briefly on the provisions of the bill itself. The bill, as I mentioned earlier, refers to same-sex marriage; it should of course be a bill to introduce equality when it comes to the laws of marriage. It is also important that mention is made of the timing of the circulation of the substantive bill that would accompany this. Really, at one minute to midnight before this bill came through, it appears that there are many provisions within that substantive piece of legislation that would be problematic. I refer in particular to a range of provisions that seem to have the very clear effect of seeking to entrench discrimination rather than eliminate it—which one would imagine is the purpose of achieving this end. Again, it is certainly the purpose that I am intending to achieve through my advocacy for marriage equality.
There are some novel provisions in the bill before us that require some careful consideration. I refer to matters going to authorisation of certain campaigning materials, which in my view deserve proper consideration such as the process the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is about to undertake on those very significant issues. And, of course, the bill makes it clear that this is not a cost-free exercise. More than $200 million will be spent to change nothing at best. As I said earlier, I do not think anyone can look to the 'at best' scenario. We have clear evidence of harm to vulnerable Australians and I think a more generalised harm of diminishing our sense of being an equal community which is respectful of the interests of all.
In this parliament we have made great process towards equality for LGBTIQ Australians. In this House we have made great progress through the ordinary process. We have removed discrimination across the statute books. We can do that when it comes to marriage; we will do that when it comes to marriage. The fight for marriage equality will not end when this bill is defeated in the other place as it should be. We will go on to give respect to all Australians by making the institution of marriage available to all Australians through this parliament. I am proud to put on the record my opposition to this unnecessary, hurtful and divisive bill.