Division Description Changes — Motions — Marriage Equality — 12th Aug 2015

Change	Division
senate vote 2015-08-12#2 Edited by Henare Degan on 2015-08-13 13:49:08	Title Description ~~<p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p>~~ ~~<p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act.</p>~~ ~~<p>Leave not granted.</p>~~ Richard Di Natale moved: >_That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961._ ~~<p>Then, pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961.</p> <p>I would love to be standing up here today debating the issue of discrimination in marriage and taking a stand with the great majority of the Australian community that wants to see an end to discrimination in marriage rather than having a debate about the suspension of standing orders. I wish we had a public gallery packed to celebrate a rare moment of unity in this parliament, ending discrimination once and for all. Instead, we are here on the back of a decision by a Prime Minister who has once again failed to lead this country into the 21st century. The spectacle yesterday was shameful—a Prime Minister who, like a cornered alley cat, used every tactic in the book: he scratched, he fought, he stacked his party room with National Party MPs because he knew he was going to get rolled on this issue. He talks about it as a second-order issue, an issue that does not warrant dominating the political discourse in this parliament. And at the same time he says it is worthy of a plebiscite. Which is it, Prime Minister?</p> <p>We know this is a rare opportunity to end the issue of discrimination once and for all. Think of the signal the Prime Minister's actions send to the young people right across this country who are being told: 'You are different. The love you have for another person is not the same as the love some other people have. The way you feel is not normal.' Is it any wonder that young people right across the country who are in a same-sex relationship have a greater rate of self-harm, higher rates of depression, higher rates of suicide? It is because of the symbol, the messages, the language that this parliament has used in squashing a debate that should be held about an end to discrimination against marriage between two people, regardless of their sex, regardless of their gender.</p> <p>We saw a Prime Minister who failed to lead the nation into the 21st century. We saw a Prime Minister who was so desperate to use any tactic he could to stop this debate that he diminished his standing and the standing of this parliament. When the history of this parliament is written, yesterday will be one of its darkest days. We had everything pushing us towards a decision that would have ended the discrimination that exists towards people in this country. And there is never a place for discrimination, whether it is discrimination towards our Aboriginal brothers and sisters or discrimination towards people of different faiths or discrimination when it comes to the love two people have for each other. I say to the Prime Minister: you can stand there and obstruct this momentous change that will happen, but the tide of public opinion is overwhelming here. We will get this. This will be done. We will, at some time in the near future, be able to say to people right across the country: your love is no different to the love that many people right around the country are able to consolidate in marriage. We will offer you the respect that you deserve to be able to state clearly to each other and to the nation that your love is no different, that your love matters. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about whether we are, as a nation, prepared to say to people right across the country, 'No more will we tell you that your relationships don't matter, that they are abnormal and that there is something wrong with the feelings you have towards the people you love.' Is it any wonder that we have this epidemic of mental illness among those people who do nothing other than feel what all of us feel: love towards our fellow human beings? This Prime Minister has denied them that opportunity. It is to this parliament's great shame.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p>~~ <p>The government will not support this suspension motion. The government does not accept that there is discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961. The Liberal Party, the National Party and, indeed, the Australian parliament have a longstanding policy position in support of the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. Equally, the parliament over many years has worked very hard to remove all discrimination against couples of all make-ups, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual couples. Where there has been discrimination in the past, that discrimination has, appropriately, been removed in recent years. What is in the Marriage Act is a definition of what marriage is. It is a definition which, for time immemorial in our culture, has been understood to be a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others with the intention to last for life. That is a position which has been the longstanding policy position of the coalition. But, as I have indicated, it has also been a longstanding position of this parliament. Indeed, when that policy position was formalised in the Marriage Act in 2004 it was done with bipartisan support. The Labor opposition at the time supported the initiative of the government at the time to formalise that particular position in the Marriage Act back in 2004 or thereabouts.</p> <p>This is obviously a political exercise on the part of the Greens. I understand that. The government is not going to be a party to it this morning. We do understand that there are diverse views across the community in relation to this. We also know that in recent years this issue has come before the Senate on a number of occasions. I have been in the Senate now for just over eight years and I have already voted on this on at least two occasions that I can remember—probably more. On each occasion, the Senate has reconfirmed the position in support of the current definition of marriage as it is enshrined in the Marriage Act. I suspect that if the matter is dealt with in this parliament again, and the parliament again confirms that longstanding policy position, that will not prevent its coming back again in the next parliament. That is why, in our very good, very respectful and very constructive discussion in the party room yesterday, we came to the view that perhaps the best way to facilitate a more permanent resolution of this issue is to give the opportunity to the Australian people either in a plebiscite or in a referendum to pass judgement to resolve this question. That is a matter that the coalition will deal with in an orderly and methodical fashion between now and the next election and will determine a position on.</p> <p>In the meantime, the coalition went to the last election—and, indeed, to every election since the definition of marriage was enshrined in the Marriage Act in 2004—promising to support that current definition. Yesterday we decided to keep faith with the commitment that we made to the Australian people. That is why for this term of parliament we will maintain the position as a policy. The effect of that means that, under the Westminster system, every member of the executive will have to support the formal position of the government. But we also understand that there might have to be an opportunity after the next election to resolve this on a more permanent basis by giving the opportunity to the Australian people to pass judgement on this question.</p> <p>Today we obviously have some important business to conduct. We have the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 to be dealt with. This is a very important initiative designed to boost important public investment in potentially life-changing medical research on a fiscally sustainable basis into the future. We ask the Senate respectfully that we get on with the business of the day and that the Senate not support the suspension motion initiated by Senator Di Natale.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p>~~ <p>Labor are not supporting this Greens motion this morning. We think it is a stunt in terms of getting some kind of political focus on an issue which we all agree is so important. There has never been any debate about the importance of this issue. As Senator Cormann has said, it has come before the Senate, and the Greens know that there is very strong support—and that there are different views—on this issue. We have a process in the parliament which allows due process to occur so that issues of importance can fit into the parliamentary schedule.</p> <p>We have many ways of bringing forward these kinds of issues. The MPI process is one that is immediately available to anyone, any party in the Senate, to come forward and say they think that an issue is important and should be brought to the Senate. In fact this morning there was an opportunity for that, when both Labor and the Greens requested an MPI, which is standard practice. The Greens brought forward their request, which was around the emissions trading process and the environment. That is good. We came forward with an MPI on this issue of marriage equality, which we could have debated in this place as we always do, with opportunities for people to put their views and then a chance for the Senate to make a decision on what was put. However, by the nature of this morning's ballot, we lost. That happens. The Greens will have the opportunity this afternoon in the MPI debate to talk about this important issue. They have chosen to do otherwise. There are always other opportunities in this place. Private senators' business, where there are bills in front of the Senate on this particular issue, is another opportunity to bring forward this very important issue. But, no, the process that has been used this morning is without discussion, without awareness or sensitivity about how other people in this chamber feel about such an important issue.</p> <p>We know there has been community pressure. We know there has been interest. But this has been done with no discussion, with none of the consultation that normally happens in this place when people are trying to put forward an issue that they feel is important. The way to do that is to seek the support of other senators to see what would be the best way to do it. That is how we operate. We negotiate, we consult, we share opinions and we come up with what would be the most effective way to have a debate, a discussion. Then there is the other method: to find out what is the most important way to bring people from the gallery into the chamber so that they can see what is happening down in the Senate, so people can have their photographs taken and be able to say, 'This is the way we feel and we are the only people who feel this strongly.' That is just not appropriate on such an important issue. The Greens can do that, and in fact they have, but the Labor Party will not support this methodology to bring forward a debate that could be had in another way—that must be had in another way, because this is an incredibly important issue for the Senate, for the parliament and for the community.</p> <p>I do not want to see this portrayed as the Labor Party opposing any debate on discrimination in marriage—because that is what the Greens will be trying to do. They will try to say that we do not want to debate this issue. We have a clear record of debating this issue. We have strong views on the issue. We have come up with a policy position for the party. What we want to see, though, is for us, together in the Senate, to work through and engage in a process that allows the debate to occur in the appropriate way and to ensure that people are treated with respect. We want to ensure that this issue is not just turned into a sideshow to promote individual views about who is more powerful or who has a stronger position than anybody else in the debate. That is not how the Senate operates.</p> <p>We will not support this. We want to have this discussion. Certainly we oppose any discrimination—we put that on record—but this is taking up more time of the Senate today, when we have a range of legislation in front of us which needs to be concluded. We are moving to make decisions on that. We have allocated time in the Senate to do our business. Let's not divert so you can get a cheap headline.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Richard Di Natale~~
~~I seek leave to move a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act.~~
~~Leave not granted.~~
Richard Di Natale moved:
>_That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961._
~~Then, pursuant to contingent notice, I move:~~
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961.
I would love to be standing up here today debating the issue of discrimination in marriage and taking a stand with the great majority of the Australian community that wants to see an end to discrimination in marriage rather than having a debate about the suspension of standing orders. I wish we had a public gallery packed to celebrate a rare moment of unity in this parliament, ending discrimination once and for all. Instead, we are here on the back of a decision by a Prime Minister who has once again failed to lead this country into the 21st century. The spectacle yesterday was shameful—a Prime Minister who, like a cornered alley cat, used every tactic in the book: he scratched, he fought, he stacked his party room with National Party MPs because he knew he was going to get rolled on this issue. He talks about it as a second-order issue, an issue that does not warrant dominating the political discourse in this parliament. And at the same time he says it is worthy of a plebiscite. Which is it, Prime Minister?
We know this is a rare opportunity to end the issue of discrimination once and for all. Think of the signal the Prime Minister's actions send to the young people right across this country who are being told: 'You are different. The love you have for another person is not the same as the love some other people have. The way you feel is not normal.' Is it any wonder that young people right across the country who are in a same-sex relationship have a greater rate of self-harm, higher rates of depression, higher rates of suicide? It is because of the symbol, the messages, the language that this parliament has used in squashing a debate that should be held about an end to discrimination against marriage between two people, regardless of their sex, regardless of their gender.
We saw a Prime Minister who failed to lead the nation into the 21st century. We saw a Prime Minister who was so desperate to use any tactic he could to stop this debate that he diminished his standing and the standing of this parliament. When the history of this parliament is written, yesterday will be one of its darkest days. We had everything pushing us towards a decision that would have ended the discrimination that exists towards people in this country. And there is never a place for discrimination, whether it is discrimination towards our Aboriginal brothers and sisters or discrimination towards people of different faiths or discrimination when it comes to the love two people have for each other. I say to the Prime Minister: you can stand there and obstruct this momentous change that will happen, but the tide of public opinion is overwhelming here. We will get this. This will be done. We will, at some time in the near future, be able to say to people right across the country: your love is no different to the love that many people right around the country are able to consolidate in marriage. We will offer you the respect that you deserve to be able to state clearly to each other and to the nation that your love is no different, that your love matters. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about whether we are, as a nation, prepared to say to people right across the country, 'No more will we tell you that your relationships don't matter, that they are abnormal and that there is something wrong with the feelings you have towards the people you love.' Is it any wonder that we have this epidemic of mental illness among those people who do nothing other than feel what all of us feel: love towards our fellow human beings? This Prime Minister has denied them that opportunity. It is to this parliament's great shame.
~~Mathias Cormann~~
The government will not support this suspension motion. The government does not accept that there is discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961. The Liberal Party, the National Party and, indeed, the Australian parliament have a longstanding policy position in support of the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. Equally, the parliament over many years has worked very hard to remove all discrimination against couples of all make-ups, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual couples. Where there has been discrimination in the past, that discrimination has, appropriately, been removed in recent years. What is in the Marriage Act is a definition of what marriage is. It is a definition which, for time immemorial in our culture, has been understood to be a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others with the intention to last for life. That is a position which has been the longstanding policy position of the coalition. But, as I have indicated, it has also been a longstanding position of this parliament. Indeed, when that policy position was formalised in the Marriage Act in 2004 it was done with bipartisan support. The Labor opposition at the time supported the initiative of the government at the time to formalise that particular position in the Marriage Act back in 2004 or thereabouts.
This is obviously a political exercise on the part of the Greens. I understand that. The government is not going to be a party to it this morning. We do understand that there are diverse views across the community in relation to this. We also know that in recent years this issue has come before the Senate on a number of occasions. I have been in the Senate now for just over eight years and I have already voted on this on at least two occasions that I can remember—probably more. On each occasion, the Senate has reconfirmed the position in support of the current definition of marriage as it is enshrined in the Marriage Act. I suspect that if the matter is dealt with in this parliament again, and the parliament again confirms that longstanding policy position, that will not prevent its coming back again in the next parliament. That is why, in our very good, very respectful and very constructive discussion in the party room yesterday, we came to the view that perhaps the best way to facilitate a more permanent resolution of this issue is to give the opportunity to the Australian people either in a plebiscite or in a referendum to pass judgement to resolve this question. That is a matter that the coalition will deal with in an orderly and methodical fashion between now and the next election and will determine a position on.
In the meantime, the coalition went to the last election—and, indeed, to every election since the definition of marriage was enshrined in the Marriage Act in 2004—promising to support that current definition. Yesterday we decided to keep faith with the commitment that we made to the Australian people. That is why for this term of parliament we will maintain the position as a policy. The effect of that means that, under the Westminster system, every member of the executive will have to support the formal position of the government. But we also understand that there might have to be an opportunity after the next election to resolve this on a more permanent basis by giving the opportunity to the Australian people to pass judgement on this question.
Today we obviously have some important business to conduct. We have the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 to be dealt with. This is a very important initiative designed to boost important public investment in potentially life-changing medical research on a fiscally sustainable basis into the future. We ask the Senate respectfully that we get on with the business of the day and that the Senate not support the suspension motion initiated by Senator Di Natale.
~~Claire Moore~~
Labor are not supporting this Greens motion this morning. We think it is a stunt in terms of getting some kind of political focus on an issue which we all agree is so important. There has never been any debate about the importance of this issue. As Senator Cormann has said, it has come before the Senate, and the Greens know that there is very strong support—and that there are different views—on this issue. We have a process in the parliament which allows due process to occur so that issues of importance can fit into the parliamentary schedule.
We have many ways of bringing forward these kinds of issues. The MPI process is one that is immediately available to anyone, any party in the Senate, to come forward and say they think that an issue is important and should be brought to the Senate. In fact this morning there was an opportunity for that, when both Labor and the Greens requested an MPI, which is standard practice. The Greens brought forward their request, which was around the emissions trading process and the environment. That is good. We came forward with an MPI on this issue of marriage equality, which we could have debated in this place as we always do, with opportunities for people to put their views and then a chance for the Senate to make a decision on what was put. However, by the nature of this morning's ballot, we lost. That happens. The Greens will have the opportunity this afternoon in the MPI debate to talk about this important issue. They have chosen to do otherwise. There are always other opportunities in this place. Private senators' business, where there are bills in front of the Senate on this particular issue, is another opportunity to bring forward this very important issue. But, no, the process that has been used this morning is without discussion, without awareness or sensitivity about how other people in this chamber feel about such an important issue.
We know there has been community pressure. We know there has been interest. But this has been done with no discussion, with none of the consultation that normally happens in this place when people are trying to put forward an issue that they feel is important. The way to do that is to seek the support of other senators to see what would be the best way to do it. That is how we operate. We negotiate, we consult, we share opinions and we come up with what would be the most effective way to have a debate, a discussion. Then there is the other method: to find out what is the most important way to bring people from the gallery into the chamber so that they can see what is happening down in the Senate, so people can have their photographs taken and be able to say, 'This is the way we feel and we are the only people who feel this strongly.' That is just not appropriate on such an important issue. The Greens can do that, and in fact they have, but the Labor Party will not support this methodology to bring forward a debate that could be had in another way—that must be had in another way, because this is an incredibly important issue for the Senate, for the parliament and for the community.
I do not want to see this portrayed as the Labor Party opposing any debate on discrimination in marriage—because that is what the Greens will be trying to do. They will try to say that we do not want to debate this issue. We have a clear record of debating this issue. We have strong views on the issue. We have come up with a policy position for the party. What we want to see, though, is for us, together in the Senate, to work through and engage in a process that allows the debate to occur in the appropriate way and to ensure that people are treated with respect. We want to ensure that this issue is not just turned into a sideshow to promote individual views about who is more powerful or who has a stronger position than anybody else in the debate. That is not how the Senate operates.
We will not support this. We want to have this discussion. Certainly we oppose any discrimination—we put that on record—but this is taking up more time of the Senate today, when we have a range of legislation in front of us which needs to be concluded. We are moving to make decisions on that. We have allocated time in the Senate to do our business. Let's not divert so you can get a cheap headline.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~