Same-sex Marriage: Opposition and Cross-bench Private Members Bills
Tuesday 13 September 2016 @ 12.07 p.m. | Judiciary, Legal Profession & Procedure | Legal Research
Yesterday (12 September 2016), there were two attempts in the Federal parliament to obtain a parliamentary vote on the question of same sex marriage and avoid the need to go to a "Plebiscite" or public vote on the matter - the Federal government's preferred option. The two attempts were in the form of two private members Bills introduced into the House of Representatives, one by the cross-bench members (Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie) and one by the leader of the opposition (Mr Bill Shorten).
The Bill introduced by the cross-bench members is the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2] (the cross-bench Bill) while the Bill sponsored by the opposition is a reintroduction of a previously lapsed Bill, initially introduced Liberal MP Mr Warren Entsch on 17 August 2015, the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (the opposition Bill).
The Cross-Bench Bill - Key Points
The cross-bench Bill proposes to amend the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to allow couples to marry, and have their marriages recognised, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. The cross-bench Bill proposes to allow any two people to marry and having done so it recognises their right and the right of all people to equality before the law.
Further, the cross-bench Bill proposes to allow certain marriages conducted overseas, or by certain foreign diplomatic or consular officers, to be recognised under Australian law and does not compel a minister of religion or a chaplain to solemnise a marriage.
In the second reading speech on the Bill, delivered by Greens MP Mr Adam Bandt - Mr Bandt pointed to the need for marriage equality saying the cross-bench Bill would:
". . . remove discrimination from our marriage laws and finally achieve marriage equality . . . It is time that our laws recognise this equality. It is time that our parliament finally says to every Australian, to every LGBTIQ Australian, that they and their love are equal. It is time that we end discrimination and promote acceptance, love and equality for all."
Speaking on the matter of the "Plebiscite" in his speech, Mr Bandt said that enough support for marriage equality exists in the parliament for the passage of the legislation:
". . .without the need for taxpayer-funded hate speech, which will be an inevitable consequence of the plebiscite. Funding a referendum that is not binding on this place is the equivalent of funding the schoolyard bully to go and insult other students. It is not only unnecessary, but it is hateful and hurtful."
The Opposition Bill - Key Points
Much like the cross-bench Bill the opposition Bill also proposes to amend the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to allow couples to marry, and have their marriages recognised, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status so as to recognise the right of all people to equality before the law. Further, like the cross-bench Bill the opposition Bill also allows certain marriages conducted overseas, or by certain foreign diplomatic or consular officers, to be recognised under Australian laws and does not compel a minister of religion or a chaplain to solemnise a marriage.
In his second reading speech, the opposition leader Mr Shorten also tackled the question of why a "Plebiscite" was, in non-government circles, not favoured as the way of resolving the issue of marriage equality saying:
"A plebiscite would represent a fundamental failure of this parliament to do its job."
He went on to point out that Australian Government's have on many fronts made important decisions without the need for popular reaffirmation or public votes, saying:
"In 115 years of our democracy 44 parliaments before us have declared war, negotiated peace, signed trade deals, broken down the White Australia policy, opened our economy, floated our dollar, built universal superannuation, passed world-leading gun control and legislated several changes to the Marriage Act without recourse to plebiscite. And, of course, they have done all of this with no recourse to a non-binding public vote."
Then, as did Mr Bandt, he pointed out that a majority of the parliament actually supports the measure, saying:
"How can we look Australians in the eye and say that a piece of legislation three pages long - a straightforward change, which a majority of members in both houses support - is too much for us to handle?"
Coming Soon - The Government's Bill for a Plebiscite
SBS News reports that Coalition MPs and senators are set to discuss the details of the Plebiscite on Same-sex Marriage today (13 September 2016) in a meeting of the joint party room where the Attorney-General Mr George Brandis is expected to brief them, ahead of Parliament debating the Bill which will enable the Government national vote on the issue.
While the Labor, the Greens and some of the non-government members of parliament are of the view the Plebiscite (likely to happen in February 2017) is a waste of money and will ". . . unnecessarily subject the community to hate and bigotry" - the federal government through the Prime Minister is reported to insist that ". . . a national vote will give all Australians a say in a historic law change and the parliament will honour the final result."
Same-sex marriage has now seen several Bills introduced and the issue has become difficult for legislators on all sides. The difficulty for some appears to be more with finding a way to recognise same-sex marriage which offends no-one and holds no-one to account for it, than actually doing it. The trouble with that is that such outcomes are rare. It can only be hoped that whether it is by the public making a decision for politicians - or - by politicians doing what they were elected to do, the matter is finally decided as it has been in most other comparable countries.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2] [CTH] and Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [CTH] and supporting speeches and explanatory material as reproduced in TimeBase LawOne
