Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (09:49): I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, for a number of reasons, which I will outline in my speech this morning. But first of all I will say that last night in this place we heard two very passionate first speeches from Senators Hanson and McCarthy, two very different women sharing their lives and their personal beliefs with those of us in this chamber and with the Australian people.

I was deeply angered and greatly saddened by the difference in the responses that both of these colleagues of ours received last night. While one was heard in respectful silence from both sides of the chamber, the other was not. I have to say, despite my affection for some of my colleagues in the Greens and my enjoyment of working with them, I think that what I believe was an unprecedented and staged walk-out conducted by them last night put great shame upon all of us in this chamber. To me, it highlighted more than anything else what is wrong with the state of public debate and with our ability to deal with the big issues of the day in this chamber. So delicate were their ears that they could not even stay and show respect to Senator Hanson, who was elected by the people of Queensland to represent them and their voice in this chamber.

If they were really so offended and did not want to listen to a different point of view they could have just exited out the back entrance here without making a performance of walking past Senator Hanson in the ultimate show of disrespect. I personally did not agree with everything each senator said last night, but I absolutely respected their right to say what they did on their own behalf and on behalf of those who elected them. I was given pause to reflect last night on what hope freedom of expression has in our nation if those on the Left will only ever listen to and tolerate their own truths and those who espouse their own version of the truth, when they cannot even listen to a colleague who challenges their own beliefs in this very parliament and this very chamber, which is charged with preserving and protecting our freedoms. And nothing is more important than freedom of expression.

In my experience here in Australia and also working in many new democracies and many struggling democracies I have been left with one very clear impression and belief: intolerance never, ever defeats intolerance; it only breeds further intolerance and resentment and further social division. I think that is very clear. Again, I was reminded of that last night by some in this chamber not being willing to even respect the right of others in this chamber to express their opinions, to freedom of expression.

In relation to this bill, I reaffirm the commitment made to the Australian people prior to the election on 2 July that they will be able to have their say on same-sex marriage, through a national plebiscite. As a senator for Western Australia and a Liberal senator I firmly believe in equality of opportunity for all Australians, and that means full legal equality. However people see and define themselves, all Australians should have the same basic legal rights in this country. As the published polls show, I think that people in Western Australia, given the opportunity, will vote yes. Of course, I will respect all views, and most if not all of my colleagues here have indicated they will do the same thing.

The Australian people have given us a mandate to have the plebiscite, and it is very clear out in the community that people want to be able to have their say. That is not something to be afraid of but something to embrace—a sensible, passionate debate on an issue of great social concern and relevance. The Turnbull government yesterday honoured its mandate when the Prime Minister introduced the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. We are keeping faith with the people of Australia and doing what we said we would do. I believe that this commitment is one that all members of this parliament should support and respect. Unlike those opposite, we are not playing games this issue. We are not taking part in parliamentary stunts and theatre that disrespects others in this place. We are simply doing what we promised to do.

I remind all colleagues in this place that, just over 12 months ago, my party and the National Party—the coalition—had a seven-hour meeting to discuss this very issue. It was a very robust debate because, like in the Australian community, there is a great difference of opinion in our joint party room on this issue. We had seven hours of debate and, at the end of that debate, in what I think was a watershed moment for the coalition parties, we agreed that this was an issue that should go to the Australian people. The great encouragement I took from that debate was the fact that, for the first time, the coalition parties had opened the door, offered an olive branch to those opposite and said, ‘This is a way that we can get this policy through.’

If we in our party can have such a robust but respectful debate, I am absolutely gobsmacked that those opposite—and we have just heard it again from Senator Rice—think that the Australian people are incapable of engaging in a debate on this issue. I do not think a debate with the Australian people is something to be scared of. It is something that we should be embracing and that we do with great courage, passion and commitment, because, even if the bill before us were to pass in this place and the other place, we can only benefit from having this discussion with the Australian people now, to remove a lot of the bigotry that Senator Rice says exists out there currently. We can only benefit from this discussion and debate.

Not only did the coalition have those seven hours of debate 12 months ago; on Monday in the party room we again discussed this issue. I was so proud of my colleagues, because there was unanimous support, I think, that this should go to the Australian people, and we agreed that whatever the Australian people said on this issue—and the published opinion polls say that they will support it—whatever our own personal opinions are on it, we would support the will of the Australian people. I was so proud that we had done that. It makes me very sad to think that, now we have the opportunity to get full legal equality on this issue, those opposite might put that in jeopardy.

I believe this private member’s bill denies Australians the chance to have their say. Again, it will cause such division that those couples who want to have full legal equality will now not get it. It is so close, but they might not get it.

Senator Rice said that the plebiscite is a licence to hate. But it is only a licence to hate if those opposite and those on this side who agree with the ‘yes’ case do not get out there and combat it. You never combat intolerance and hate with further intolerance, as I said at the beginning of my speech, or by not engaging in the debate at all, which is exactly what those opposite are going to do—just walk away from a public debate on something that they are so passionate about. Unlike those opposite, I trust the Australian people to make a decision on this in a reasoned, logical and very compassionate way.

Members and senators who are committed to same-sex couples being able to have their relationship regarded as marriage should support the government’s plebiscite bill. This private member’s bill before us says to Australians that the Greens are indifferent to the deeply held views of ordinary Australians and to the importance Australians attach to expressing those views and having them heard by their elected representatives. Again, on this side we do not fear having that discussion with the Australian community; we are embracing it. Where we hear hate, we will also counter hate, but we will do it openly and fearlessly to actually root it out of our society.

Those opposite say they are serious about the issue, and I have heard many impassioned speeches in this place in my two years here—certainly, no more impassioned than Senator McKim’s first speech. And I have to say that we on this side sat and listened to Senator McKim. We were certainly insulted and offended by some of what he had to say and we did not agree with everything he said, but we sat here, we accorded him respect for his point of view and we congratulated him. We did not turn our backs on him just because we did not agree with him. In Senator McKim’s first speech, 12 months ago, he said:

Every Greens MP has voted for marriage equality every single time, and we will continue to work to support people in our community to champion this reform until every Australian, regardless of their sexuality, will know that they are equal before the law in all respects.

Well, with great respect to Senator McKim, a colleague in this place, I could not disagree with him more. Those on this side have provided an unprecedented opportunity and a way that we can move forward on this issue, and those opposite are playing politics with it. If you do not support the plebiscite, the sad fact is that any two individuals, however they identify, will not have the opportunity for legal equality, and that makes me very sad.

I think the Prime Minister was right yesterday when he made reference to his belief that many people oppose the plebiscite because they believe that, if there were a free vote in the parliament, same-sex marriage would be supported. So they do not want to run the risk of the Australian people giving the answer they do not want to hear. My own impression is that there is no doubt that there has been a significant shift in public opinion and in society as a whole on this issue. The most recent Essential poll on 30 August this year showed that 59 per cent of people support a plebiscite and that if there were one it would get up and the majority of Australians would say yes to full equality. I would say to those opposite: do not be afraid of the Australian people. Engage with them. Discuss with them. Where you find people who may hold hate in their hearts, who may be bigoted or prejudiced, speak to them; address them. Do not run away from them and be afraid of even engaging in the debate because you do not want to hear what they have to say and you have no ability to counter them face to face.

As the Attorney-General said yesterday, same-sex marriage is now so close we can almost touch it. This side of the chamber has come a long way on this issue. We may not have come the full way in the way that those opposite wanted, but we have moved so much on this issue that it would be a tragedy if the plebiscite did not occur. There is no doubt that the fastest and surest way to guarantee a vote on same-sex marriage in this parliament is to support the plebiscite. I think that anybody listening to those opposite would often think that those opposite have a mortgage on compassion, that they have a mortgage on an ability to deal with social issues and that they are the single moral compass for this nation. That is highly insulting not only to me but also to all of my colleagues on this side of the chamber.

Of course we all want the best outcomes for Australia, but we come from very philosophical points of view on policy and on what is compassion and on what is the right way forward. But just because we have a different way of achieving the same outcome, it does not make it any lesser. It is profoundly undemocratic and a very poor reason to oppose consulting and relying on the good judgement and the sense of the Australian people simply because you do not want to put the argument out there in the public and you might not get the answer you want. It would be a sad irony indeed if this opportunity were not grasped because advocates for same-sex marriage have discarded the fastest and surest way of recognising same-sex marriage in this country simply because it was not their own bill.

For me, and I think for all of us in this chamber, one of the most important responsibilities in this place is to preserve the institutions and principles that underpin our democracy. As I observed the other day in this chamber, our own unique liberal democratic culture recognises that societies improve by individuals thinking for themselves and by those of us in this place listening to what our constituents and Australian voters are saying. We might not always like what they say and it might make us very uncomfortable, but we do have a responsibility to listen to all arguments and all ideas, to allow all Australians to impart their own views, and then to have those views contested in open and robust debate, so that the really great ideas gain traction and stick and the bad ideas and, as Senator Rice said, the hateful ideas wither away and die.

That is what this exact debate is about. Let’s have this debate once and for all in this nation. Let’s engage the public. Let’s make sure that the good ideas—the ideas of legal equality and legal opportunity—flourish in this country and that those in the community who might be hateful or have different points of view are absolutely shot down. In Australia, freedom of speech is never, ever completely free, but I do not believe that freedoms are successfully preserved through legislative or practical censorship of deeply held opinions and beliefs. The walkout we saw last night was a classic example of not respecting other people’s points of view, even if you do not agree with them. Freedom of speech is essential to preserving and protecting the rights of minorities. As I said before, intolerance never, ever defeats intolerance; it only breeds more intolerance and social disharmony.

The very reason we are debating this issue today in this place is to make sure that our laws reflect societal norms of today. That is exactly why we do not have a bill of rights. Our founding fathers did not create a bill of rights very deliberately. That was because, even back then at the turn of the century, they realised that to codify rights would actually codify rights of societal norms back in 1901. Thank heavens they did not, because otherwise we would have a bill of rights that reflected the social values and social norms from back in the 1900s. They did that also to make sure that, in this place in particular, we had the ability to robustly debate what the societal values and societal norms were and to make sure that laws reflect current societal values. From opinion poll after opinion poll it is very clear that most Australians now support equality under the law in relation to marriage. The only issue for us is: how do we get to that point?

Those on this side have offered the olive branch. We have said, ‘We will walk with you on this, but let’s make sure that we have this debate out in the Australian community and that the Australian community is ready if and when this legislation comes in.’ All of us who exercise freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in this place, be it in public life or in the media, have to accept that others are likely to be in vehement disagreement with what we have to say and, conversely, others will be in vehement opposition and disagreement with what the other person says. Again, this is a healthy thing in any democracy. It is critically important to make sure that our standards are acceptable to the Australian community.

I really believe that our founding fathers, if they were looking at us today and assessing this place’s ability to keep engaging with the community and reflecting community norms, would be very proud that not only can we simultaneously debate issues that are fundamental to the health of our democracy and make sure that changes to legislation reflect societal values and norms of the day, but also the government of the day can get on with governing to do the things that it was elected to do. This is something that we should value and celebrate. It should not be the cause of derision and hatespeak.

Unlike those opposite, I believe that the Australian people are mature enough to have a sensible debate on this issue. I respect their intelligence, their civility and their ability to make a decision. Above all, I respect the fact that each and every one of them has a right to have say on this issue. The Irish vote in 2015 demonstrated clearly that the public and individuals are more than capable of having this very mature debate. I think it is grossly insulting to suggest that the Australian public are not equally capable of having this debate and coming to a decision that they do want equality under the law. Thank you.