Division Description Changes — Business — Consideration of Legislation — 9th Aug 2017

Change	Division
senate vote 2017-08-09#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-11-24 09:19:14	Title ~~Business — Consideration of Legislation~~ Business - Consideration of Legislation - Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 Description ~~<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">That the second reading of the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 be restored to the Notice Paper and be made an order of the day for a later hour.</p>~~ <p>In moving the motion, let me make a few remarks. The government is bringing this motion forward in order to give the Senate the opportunity to reconsider its decision not to support the government's proposal to give all Australians on the electoral roll the opportunity to have a say on whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed and whether our laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Now, this is an issue on which good people right around Australia have strong and sincerely held views on both sides of the argument, and all of us are aware that this is an issue that has come before this chamber on a number of occasions. So far, on each occasion, the parliament has reconfirmed the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as being, of course, between a man and a woman. As we also know, that has not resolved the issue, because on those occasions, the losing side of the argument was not prepared to accept that this settled the issue. While some of the views in this parliament may have evolved to a point where there might be a different outcome on this occasion, we believe that if we were to proceed with a vote in the parliament before giving the Australian people the opportunity to have a say on this, the losing side of the argument, even if it were the other side on this occasion, would not accept the outcome. We believe that the best way forward for our country, the best way forward for all of the good people across Australia, who have strong and sincerely held views on both sides of the argument, is to do as we promised them we would do before the last election—that is, to give them the opportunity to have a say via a plebiscite on whether or not they believe our laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. At the end of that process there will be an outcome, and the government certainly is firmly of the view that the parliament would respect whatever the outcome would be. If there is a 'yes' vote at the end of that process in favour of changing the laws, the parliament will change the laws in order to give effect to that. If there is a 'no' vote, then the government certainly would not be facilitating the change to the law that is being proposed.</p> <p>That is the reason why the government last year put forward a bill to conduct a compulsory, personal attendance plebiscite. It was proposed for that to happen on 11 February. Obviously, that particular bill was defeated, and we are proposing for the Senate, here this morning, to reconsider this proposition by the government. We continue to be of the view that this is the best way to ensure that a decision by the parliament on this issue is a unifying moment for the country, and that the losing side of the argument, whichever side that is, can accept the outcome. And we continue to hold the view that the best way to do that is to make all of the Australian people part of the decision-making process.</p> <p>If the Senate were to agree to reconsider its position, I can advise on behalf of the government that we are in a position to make all of the necessary arrangements for the compulsory personal attendance plebiscite to take place on Saturday, 25 November 2017, which should enable the parliament in the last sitting fortnight before the end of the year in the case that the 'yes' vote is successful to consider the relevant changes to our Marriage Act to change the law such that same-sex couples would be able to marry.</p> <p>The reason there's a diversity of views in the parliament is that there is a diversity of views in the community. We are a reflection of that, of course. Some people who argue against this plebiscite make the case that, somehow, Australians are not able to conduct this debate in a way that is appropriately courteous and respectful. We happen to disagree. We trust the Australian people. We trust that the Australian people are able to handle this debate. We believe that the Australian people can handle this debate. Difficult issues are always best handled by allowing a democratic debate and, ultimately, a ballot to take place.</p> <p>In this chamber we have debated this for a long time. In recent times, we have debated this issue in our own party room. I absolutely and utterly respect those who have a different view to mine. All of us come to this issue with a set of personal beliefs that guide our decision making. I put myself forward for election to the parliament as a candidate with my views on this issue very well known. I am not a bigot or a bad person because I happen to think that the definition of marriage should be a particular way. I respect the alternative view, and I respect those who pursue an alternative view. I think it is very important for all sides to respect the right for all of us to have and to represent people across the community who have alternative views.</p> <p>If there are those who do not participate in this debate in a respectful way that is regrettable. I think that the Australian community is able to deal with this and to handle this. With this sort of process, we have a three-month period in which there will be a conversation across the Australian community which will ultimately lead to an outcome. I should advise the chamber that, in order to address some of the concerns that were raised by various stakeholders in the context of the debate last year, the government have decided, should this bill successfully be restored to the <i>Notice Paper</i> and should we go to the second reading debate and ultimately to the committee stage, that we would amend the bill to remove the public funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases in order to facilitate the best possible context for this decision by the Australian people. In the end, the Australian people know what their views are on this. It's not going to be a complicated proposition for the Australian people to make a decision, one way or the other. It's not going to be a complicated decision for the Australian people to make, one way or the other. On that basis, the government have made that decision.</p> <p>I should say that if this proposal of the government for a compulsory personal attendance plebiscite on 25 November is, again, unsuccessful in the Senate then the government believe that we do have a constitutional and legal way forward to keep faith with our commitment to the Australian people at the last election to give them a say and make them part of the decision-making process on whether or not our rules should be changed to change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry.</p> <p>Indeed, if this bill is not restored and if this bill does not ultimately pass the Senate, then the government will be working, through the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to survey all Australians on the electoral roll, giving them the opportunity to have their say on whether or not they believe that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, and we will get an outcome at the end of that process. It will be a voluntary postal plebiscite.</p> <p>The government is very confident that we have the constitutional and legal authority to make this happen, and I will share with the chamber why the government is of that view. Firstly, of course, all senators would be aware of section 51 of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth parliament powers to make laws in relation to censuses and statistics. Indeed, the Commonwealth parliament has chosen to make such laws—namely, the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the ABS Act 1975. Under those laws, the Australian Statistician and the ABS can request information of all Australians on the electoral roll. Indeed, there is express provision in the ABS Act for the ABS to have access to the electoral roll, so the ABS is in a position where they can, at the direction of the Treasurer, seek information from all eligible electors that are validly enrolled on the electoral roll and ask them for their views on whether or not they believe that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Now, that is not our preferred option, but it's the next-best option in order to keep faith with our deep commitment with the Australian people and our respect for the diversity of views across the Australian community—sincerely held views across the Australian community—and bring this issue to a resolution.</p> <p>Furthermore, as the finance minister, the parliament has appropriated to me in Appropriations Act (No. 1) 2017-18 what is called a Finance Minister's Advance to deal with unforeseen expenditures, amongst other things. Of course, this was an unforeseen expenditure at the time that the appropriations bill was dealt with. There is a Finance Minister's Advance, which essentially enables me to make appropriations to up to $295 million for unforeseen items of expenditure. This is an unforeseen item of expenditure, which will help us cover the cost of up to $122 million for this exercise designed to give the Australian people a say on whether or not they believe the definition of marriage should be changed.</p> <p>In summary, the ABS and the Australian Statistician have the power to ask the question. I have the power to appropriate the money. They have the power to expend the money under the section 61 of the Constitution—a combination of section 61 of the Constitution, of the executive power, and the powers out of the various pieces of legislation governing their overall operations at present. They have the power in relation to that. They have the power to get access to the electoral roll and, of course, the ABS also has the power under section 16A of the ABS Act to arrange the secondment of officers to the ABS. On this occasion, the secondment of officers that would be arranged is the secondment of officers from the Australian Electoral Commission.</p> <p>The intention would be for this process to get under way as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Namely, for the requests for information from the ABS to Australians on the electoral roll to start getting posted as of 12 September, for there to be a period until 7 November for people to return their filled-in forms and provide the information to the ABS on what their views are in relation to the definition of marriage, and for us to have a final outcome in relation to this voluntary postal plebiscite process by 15 November. Again, that puts us into a position where, if there is a positive outcome, we would be able to deal with this issue once and for all in the final sitting fortnight this calendar year.</p> <p>Some people say voluntary ballots are not as credible as compulsory ballots. Given that most democracies around the world actually operate under a voluntary voting system, I find that very hard to accept. Because, in the end, if people feel strongly about it, or if they have a view about it one way or the other, they have the opportunity to participate and they will participate.</p> <p>I certainly would encourage all Australians to participate in this process. One hundred per cent of Australians on the electoral roll will have the opportunity to participate in this process and to express their view. So nobody who is entitled to vote will miss out. Everybody who is entitled to vote is actually able to put their hand up in relation to this exercise. Furthermore, postal voting is also quite an established way of organising democratic processes in Australia and in other parts of the world.</p> <p>Again, I say to those senators and to those Australians who have concerns about the voluntary postal plebiscite that there is a better way, of course. A better way is that which we are putting before the chamber again today—that is, to go through the normal, compulsory, personal attendance exercise on Saturday, 25 November. If the Senate votes to restore this bill to the <i>Notice Paper</i>, if the Senate votes to engage in the second reading debate on this bill and if the Senate ultimately passes this bill, then all Australians, through the established democratic processes here in Australia, in a way that is very closely aligned to the way federal elections are conducted in Australia, would have the opportunity to have their say. At the other side of this debate, this actually then puts Australia into a position where those Australians who feel strongly about this but are on the losing side of the argument will be in a better position to accept the change that will then happen. That is our submission to the chamber, and I commend this motion.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-08-09.5.2): *> That the second reading of the [Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5728) be restored to the Notice Paper and be made an or*der of the day for a later hour. This means the motion was unsuccessful (as it didn't achieve a majority). It was introduced by West Australian Senator [Mathias Cormann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/mathias_cormann) (Liberal).

~~Mathias Cormann~~
~~I move:~~
~~That the second reading of the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 be restored to the Notice Paper and be made an order of the day for a later hour.~~
In moving the motion, let me make a few remarks. The government is bringing this motion forward in order to give the Senate the opportunity to reconsider its decision not to support the government's proposal to give all Australians on the electoral roll the opportunity to have a say on whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed and whether our laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Now, this is an issue on which good people right around Australia have strong and sincerely held views on both sides of the argument, and all of us are aware that this is an issue that has come before this chamber on a number of occasions. So far, on each occasion, the parliament has reconfirmed the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as being, of course, between a man and a woman. As we also know, that has not resolved the issue, because on those occasions, the losing side of the argument was not prepared to accept that this settled the issue. While some of the views in this parliament may have evolved to a point where there might be a different outcome on this occasion, we believe that if we were to proceed with a vote in the parliament before giving the Australian people the opportunity to have a say on this, the losing side of the argument, even if it were the other side on this occasion, would not accept the outcome. We believe that the best way forward for our country, the best way forward for all of the good people across Australia, who have strong and sincerely held views on both sides of the argument, is to do as we promised them we would do before the last election—that is, to give them the opportunity to have a say via a plebiscite on whether or not they believe our laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. At the end of that process there will be an outcome, and the government certainly is firmly of the view that the parliament would respect whatever the outcome would be. If there is a 'yes' vote at the end of that process in favour of changing the laws, the parliament will change the laws in order to give effect to that. If there is a 'no' vote, then the government certainly would not be facilitating the change to the law that is being proposed.
That is the reason why the government last year put forward a bill to conduct a compulsory, personal attendance plebiscite. It was proposed for that to happen on 11 February. Obviously, that particular bill was defeated, and we are proposing for the Senate, here this morning, to reconsider this proposition by the government. We continue to be of the view that this is the best way to ensure that a decision by the parliament on this issue is a unifying moment for the country, and that the losing side of the argument, whichever side that is, can accept the outcome. And we continue to hold the view that the best way to do that is to make all of the Australian people part of the decision-making process.
If the Senate were to agree to reconsider its position, I can advise on behalf of the government that we are in a position to make all of the necessary arrangements for the compulsory personal attendance plebiscite to take place on Saturday, 25 November 2017, which should enable the parliament in the last sitting fortnight before the end of the year in the case that the 'yes' vote is successful to consider the relevant changes to our Marriage Act to change the law such that same-sex couples would be able to marry.
The reason there's a diversity of views in the parliament is that there is a diversity of views in the community. We are a reflection of that, of course. Some people who argue against this plebiscite make the case that, somehow, Australians are not able to conduct this debate in a way that is appropriately courteous and respectful. We happen to disagree. We trust the Australian people. We trust that the Australian people are able to handle this debate. We believe that the Australian people can handle this debate. Difficult issues are always best handled by allowing a democratic debate and, ultimately, a ballot to take place.
In this chamber we have debated this for a long time. In recent times, we have debated this issue in our own party room. I absolutely and utterly respect those who have a different view to mine. All of us come to this issue with a set of personal beliefs that guide our decision making. I put myself forward for election to the parliament as a candidate with my views on this issue very well known. I am not a bigot or a bad person because I happen to think that the definition of marriage should be a particular way. I respect the alternative view, and I respect those who pursue an alternative view. I think it is very important for all sides to respect the right for all of us to have and to represent people across the community who have alternative views.
If there are those who do not participate in this debate in a respectful way that is regrettable. I think that the Australian community is able to deal with this and to handle this. With this sort of process, we have a three-month period in which there will be a conversation across the Australian community which will ultimately lead to an outcome. I should advise the chamber that, in order to address some of the concerns that were raised by various stakeholders in the context of the debate last year, the government have decided, should this bill successfully be restored to the Notice Paper and should we go to the second reading debate and ultimately to the committee stage, that we would amend the bill to remove the public funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases in order to facilitate the best possible context for this decision by the Australian people. In the end, the Australian people know what their views are on this. It's not going to be a complicated proposition for the Australian people to make a decision, one way or the other. It's not going to be a complicated decision for the Australian people to make, one way or the other. On that basis, the government have made that decision.
I should say that if this proposal of the government for a compulsory personal attendance plebiscite on 25 November is, again, unsuccessful in the Senate then the government believe that we do have a constitutional and legal way forward to keep faith with our commitment to the Australian people at the last election to give them a say and make them part of the decision-making process on whether or not our rules should be changed to change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Indeed, if this bill is not restored and if this bill does not ultimately pass the Senate, then the government will be working, through the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to survey all Australians on the electoral roll, giving them the opportunity to have their say on whether or not they believe that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, and we will get an outcome at the end of that process. It will be a voluntary postal plebiscite.
The government is very confident that we have the constitutional and legal authority to make this happen, and I will share with the chamber why the government is of that view. Firstly, of course, all senators would be aware of section 51 of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth parliament powers to make laws in relation to censuses and statistics. Indeed, the Commonwealth parliament has chosen to make such laws—namely, the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the ABS Act 1975. Under those laws, the Australian Statistician and the ABS can request information of all Australians on the electoral roll. Indeed, there is express provision in the ABS Act for the ABS to have access to the electoral roll, so the ABS is in a position where they can, at the direction of the Treasurer, seek information from all eligible electors that are validly enrolled on the electoral roll and ask them for their views on whether or not they believe that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Now, that is not our preferred option, but it's the next-best option in order to keep faith with our deep commitment with the Australian people and our respect for the diversity of views across the Australian community—sincerely held views across the Australian community—and bring this issue to a resolution.
Furthermore, as the finance minister, the parliament has appropriated to me in Appropriations Act (No. 1) 2017-18 what is called a Finance Minister's Advance to deal with unforeseen expenditures, amongst other things. Of course, this was an unforeseen expenditure at the time that the appropriations bill was dealt with. There is a Finance Minister's Advance, which essentially enables me to make appropriations to up to $295 million for unforeseen items of expenditure. This is an unforeseen item of expenditure, which will help us cover the cost of up to $122 million for this exercise designed to give the Australian people a say on whether or not they believe the definition of marriage should be changed.
In summary, the ABS and the Australian Statistician have the power to ask the question. I have the power to appropriate the money. They have the power to expend the money under the section 61 of the Constitution—a combination of section 61 of the Constitution, of the executive power, and the powers out of the various pieces of legislation governing their overall operations at present. They have the power in relation to that. They have the power to get access to the electoral roll and, of course, the ABS also has the power under section 16A of the ABS Act to arrange the secondment of officers to the ABS. On this occasion, the secondment of officers that would be arranged is the secondment of officers from the Australian Electoral Commission.
The intention would be for this process to get under way as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Namely, for the requests for information from the ABS to Australians on the electoral roll to start getting posted as of 12 September, for there to be a period until 7 November for people to return their filled-in forms and provide the information to the ABS on what their views are in relation to the definition of marriage, and for us to have a final outcome in relation to this voluntary postal plebiscite process by 15 November. Again, that puts us into a position where, if there is a positive outcome, we would be able to deal with this issue once and for all in the final sitting fortnight this calendar year.
Some people say voluntary ballots are not as credible as compulsory ballots. Given that most democracies around the world actually operate under a voluntary voting system, I find that very hard to accept. Because, in the end, if people feel strongly about it, or if they have a view about it one way or the other, they have the opportunity to participate and they will participate.
I certainly would encourage all Australians to participate in this process. One hundred per cent of Australians on the electoral roll will have the opportunity to participate in this process and to express their view. So nobody who is entitled to vote will miss out. Everybody who is entitled to vote is actually able to put their hand up in relation to this exercise. Furthermore, postal voting is also quite an established way of organising democratic processes in Australia and in other parts of the world.
Again, I say to those senators and to those Australians who have concerns about the voluntary postal plebiscite that there is a better way, of course. A better way is that which we are putting before the chamber again today—that is, to go through the normal, compulsory, personal attendance exercise on Saturday, 25 November. If the Senate votes to restore this bill to the Notice Paper, if the Senate votes to engage in the second reading debate on this bill and if the Senate ultimately passes this bill, then all Australians, through the established democratic processes here in Australia, in a way that is very closely aligned to the way federal elections are conducted in Australia, would have the opportunity to have their say. At the other side of this debate, this actually then puts Australia into a position where those Australians who feel strongly about this but are on the losing side of the argument will be in a better position to accept the change that will then happen. That is our submission to the chamber, and I commend this motion.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-08-09.5.2):
> *That the second reading of the [Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5728) be restored to the Notice Paper and be made an order of the day for a later hour.*
This means the motion was unsuccessful (as it didn't achieve a majority). It was introduced by West Australian Senator [Mathias Cormann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/mathias_cormann) (Liberal).