Lisa Singh

WHY is the Turnbull Government so set on holding an unnecessary $160 million plebiscite on marriage equality, when Australians have already made their support clear in forums, rallies, debates and opinion polls?

Not only will the plebiscite be divisive and expensive, it will also be pointless, after some Liberal MPs indicated they will vote in Parliament against marriage equality regardless of the plebiscite result.

The idea of a plebiscite was introduced by former prime minister Tony Abbott, as a tactic to put off any decision on marriage equality. The current PM, Malcolm Turnbull, is personally in favour of marriage equality, but is continuing with the divisive plebiscite anyway, in order to appease a small group of Far-Right Liberal MPs.

As a Tasmanian senator my position is clear. I do not support a process that I believe is unnecessary, and that will drive hatred and harm.

This plebiscite is a $160 million delaying tactic that brings with it the potential to cause real, lasting damage to families. It is not just LGBTI people who will be hurt by abuse that will come from the more extreme opponents of marriage equality, it is their parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents and friends.

Opponents are already preparing to mount well-funded campaigns based on hurtful, divisive arguments.

Marriage is a deeply personal and social institution. It is a commitment offered by the couple to each other, and a means by which the value and dignity of a couple’s love is formally recognised by the community.

However, the legal definition of marriage denies same-sex couples the dignity of equality. That is discriminatory, and incompatible with the expectations of a fair society.

We cannot argue that we treat all Australians equally when we keep discriminatory laws in place. While this discrimination continues, the clear message being sent to the LGBTI community is that your relationship and your sexuality are not equal in our society, that your sexuality is grounds for discrimination and vilification. This is a message with which I strongly disagree, along with the majority of Australians.

I choose equality, because equality matters. As a society, we recognise marriage as an important institution for couples, but whether a couple chooses to enter into matrimony should be their decision, and denying that choice to same-sex couples discriminates against people living in our community who identify as LGBTI.

We have already seen the types of arguments used to vilify couples in same-sex relationships. I refuse to repeat them here as the misinformation and scare tactics used have been detrimental to our LGBTI communities in Australia. These communities already have one of the highest rates of suicide and self-harm, well above the national average.

Wouldn’t it be better to spend $160 million on suicide prevention for some of our most vulnerable, rather than a plebiscite on an issue most Australians agree on?

The greatest indicator that the plebiscite debate will not be respectful has been the recent calls from Tasmanian and federal Liberal MPs to change our discrimination laws. Why would anyone need to change these laws if they did not intend to vilify and incite hatred to a group in our community? This is what our discrimination laws rightly protect against, and they have been working just fine.

Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has raised concerns about this plebiscite. He makes a strong argument that a same-sex marriage plebiscite sets a dangerous precedent in which Parliament refuses to deal with controversial issues, and sends them down the costly route of a plebiscite each time.

We have been openly discussing marriage equality in Australia for years, and the idea that Australians do not understand or need to be further educated is insulting, and a poor excuse for the lack of backbone from the Turnbull Government on this issue.

Parliament is the appropriate place to debate a change in the legislation, which is exactly what happened when John Howard used his parliamentary majority to change the Marriage Act in 2004 to exclude same-sex couples.

We trust parliamentarians to make decisions on matters of significant national security, our nation’s finances, and services. Why should we accept they are suddenly incapable of voting on marriage equality?

The role of parliamentarians as elected representatives is to make decisions on behalf of the public. We should not be shying away from that role, and doing so diminishes the capacity of parliamentarians.

I have received a massive amount of correspondence on this issue.

The letters, emails and phone calls are overwhelmingly supportive of changing the law to enable marriage equality, and opinion polls consistently back this up. Almost every opinion poll on this issue has found that two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality.

I want to see marriage equality in Australia, but it needs to happen in a respectful manner.

A plebiscite is not a pathway for marriage equality, it is a costly and divisive proposal that opens the door for damage and discrimination against a minority group that, quite frankly, deserves more respect and support after decades of abuse, fear and disadvantage.

 

This Opinion Piece was first published in The Mercury on Friday, 2 September 2016.