Topics: Plebiscite on same-sex marriage
EO&E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ATTORNEY-GENERAL SENATOR GEORGE BRANDIS:
The purpose of the meeting was to try and find common ground in relation to the plebiscite bill. As you know, the Government took to the last election, a commitment to deal with the issue of marriage equality by submitting it to the judgement of the Australian people at a plebiscite. In the time since the election, there have been very extensive consultation with spokespeople from all points of view in this debate – those who favour amending the definition of marriage to admit same -ex couples into the institution of marriage; and those who favour retaining the traditional definition of marriage. On the basis of those consultations, the Government prepared a plebiscite bill which has been widely acknowledged to be very fair and very even-handed. This morning at my invitation, Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler met with Senator Ryan and me. We know that in a Senate in which the Government has only 30 of the 76 votes, we need to compromise. So we offered to compromise with the Opposition. I made it clear to Mr Dreyfus and to Ms Butler that the purpose of the meeting was to seek common ground and to discover from them what the Labor Party’s position was in relation to the plebiscite bill, what it would take to get the Labor Party to agree to support the plebiscite bill. I asked Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler what their position was on numerous occasions. By my count, on some nine occasions, I said to them, what do you want? I assured them that any proposal they made would be considered seriously by the Government, would be considered in good faith, and that I would take to the Cabinet for consideration. I’m disappointed that on every occasion when I asked Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler to state what the Labor Party’s position was, they refused to do so. I note that Mr Dreyfus, in a press conference he held a short while ago, said that the Government had shown no willingness to compromise. Far from it. I told Mr Dreyfus many times the Government accepted that if compromise was needed, then the Government was willing to compromise and until he, on behalf of the Labor Party, told us what the Labor Party’s misgivings or objections to the plebiscite bill were, it wasn’t possible for me to deal with or to take anything to either the Cabinet or to the Government Party Room for discussion. As I’ve said, I’m sorry to say, Mr Dreyfus refused to tell us what the Labor Party’s position was. Can I repeat again, what I’ve said many times, there is now a very, very clear path to marriage equality in Australia. And I say that as someone who supports marriage equality, who would vote ‘Yes’ in a plebiscite, and is looking forward to the opportunity to introduce the bill that brings marriage equality to Australia next February. The only person who is now standing in the way of that outcome, that very clear path, that opinion poll evidence shows is overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian people, is Bill Shorten. And I ask Mr Shorten again to stop playing politics with this issue, to stop playing politics with gay people’s lives. If he has problems with the plebiscite bill in its current form, to tell us what they are so we can consider his misgivings, consider his objections, seriously and in good faith, with a view to finding common ground. I will ask my colleague Senator Ryan, who also participated in the meeting this morning to say a few words.
SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
Thank you George. Just briefly, after a substantial period of consultation in the last sitting week of Parliament, we brought forward a detailed proposal and bill to implement our election commitment on the plebiscite as soon as is practicable, and following advice from the Electoral Commissioner, that was to be the 11th of February next year. Since the release of that bill, I have received no complaint at all and only compliment to its fairness and to its comprehensiveness in actually ensuring that the people do get a direct say on this issue and it is done in a familiar and a fair way. And today, at Senator Brandis’s invitation, we met with the Labor Party in seeking in good faith to seek how we could gain their support for this particular bill and a plebiscite that the Leader of the Opposition himself said he had no problem with only a few years ago.
SENATOR BRANDIS:
Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Is it fair to say today’s meeting was a complete waste of time?
SENATOR BRANDIS:
I don’t think it’s a waste of time when legislators speak to those on the other side of the aisle, try to reach across the aisle to seek common ground. That is what we sought in good faith this morning. That is what I sought when I looked Mr Dreyfus in the eye and I said to him – what is your position, what will it take to get the Labor Party to agree to this plebiscite bill? I can’t hide my disappointment that every time there was refusal by Mr Dreyfus to state the Labor Party’s position. Now you can’t have a negotiation unless one side acquaints the other side of what its conditions are. When we asked Mr Dreyfus what his conditions were for supporting the plebiscite bill, he refused to tell us. It’s known that the Labor Party, although they are yet formalise this position, it’s known Mr Shorten and Mr Dreyfus have been critical of the plebiscite idea. Nevertheless it’s an idea that has been endorsed by the Australian people. It’s a promise we made at the election, it’s a promise we mean to keep. I did invite Mr Dreyfus to consider the possibility of a further meeting between now and when Parliament goes back on the 10th of October. The Government is willing to listen to the Labor Party. The Government is seeking common ground. We are willing to consider a reasonable compromise that the ball is now in Bill Shorten’s court and in Mark Dreyfus’s court.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] said the plebiscite is dreamed up by people who don’t support marriage equality. What do you say to that?SENATOR BRANDIS:
The plebiscite proposal is a proposal that was endorsed by the Australian people at an election. It is the way the Government has decided to go forward with this issue, to include the entire Australian people in this act of choice. The definition of marriage is a unique issue. It’s an issue about which the political class and members of Parliament have no greater wisdom than any other member of the community. So it is uniquely the kind of issue on which one would have an act of choice involving the entire Australian people. We don’t run away from seeking to resolve this situation by the most democratic possible means and that is a plebiscite.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]SENATOR BRANDIS:
I think, as we know, issues have their time in the sun in public life. I think the Australian people are ready for this. I think they want it. I think as the opinion poll evidence suggests to us, by a majority of some two-to-one, the Australian people would like to have marriage equality. But they want to make that decision for themselves, as they ought to, as they are entitled to. My fear is that if the Labor Party blocks what is now the only feasible course for progressing this issue in this Parliament, the issue will go off the boil and we won’t know for how many years it will be that marriage equality is denied to same sex couples. Remember the Republic, that was in 1999, 17 years later we are no closer. In fact, if anything, we are further away than we were in 1999. Think of the Emissions Trading Scheme – that was an issue that came to a head in 2009 and public opinion moved on from that issue as well. I believe that this issue, that the time is right for this issue. We have a credible democratically endorsed feasible path forward that would see us achieve this objective very soon. The only person standing in the way of that is Mr Shorten who continues – I’m sorry to say – to play politics with the issue. And I say once again, as I’ve said before, I appeal to the better angels of Mr Shorten’s nature, if he really believes in this, to support the Government in pursuing the issue in the way he himself only three years ago said was the appropriate way for it to be pursued.
JOURNALIST:
Exactly what kind of compromises was the Government prepared to make with Mr Shorten?
SENATOR BRANDIS:
We were prepared to listen to anything that Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler put forward but unfortunately they put forward nothing.
JOURNALIST:
Would you be prepared to set up the plebiscite as a double dissolution….?
SENATOR BRANDIS:
We are not giving thought to that. What we are giving thought to is trying to pursue, to keep the promise we made to the Australian people that this issue would be dealt with by plebiscite. That’s the position we took to the election, it’s the position the people endorsed, it’s the position that even recent opinion poll evidence shows is the favoured position of the Australian people. It is the only feasible way forward and for those who, like me and if I may say so Senator Ryan, believe in marriage equality, it is a course that will produce that outcome very soon, in a matter of a few months. If Mr Shorten blocks the plebiscite bill, he will be blocking marriage equality for the foreseeable future, perhaps for many years to come. JOURNALIST:
I’ve got some questions for Senator Ryan. Are you going to speak to Steve Irons or have you spoken to him about why he thought it was appropriate to claim money to attend his own wedding?
SENATOR RYAN:
I understand there has been media comment today. Mr Irons has dealt with that, both in terms of the media claim and in terms of the substance of the claim and that it relates to something several years ago.
[Ends]