Topics: Same-sex marriage plebiscite
E&OE …
TIM WEBSTER:
The plebiscite and the question of same-sex marriage, it’s an issue that divides my listeners and most listeners I hear on talkback radio, and politicians too. So a public vote on same-sex marriage, if so, when? Special Minister of State Scott Ryan this week indicated we could have it by the end of this year, and I’m very happy to say that he joins me on the line now.
G’day Senator.
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
G’day Tim.
WEBSTER:
How much of a chance is it to be this year?
RYAN:
Well look, the comment I made on Sunday pointed out that I am meeting with the Electoral Commissioner this week. I wanted to give them time to finish doing, what I probably consider to be their most important jobs, which is counting the votes that they get us to cast on election day. This will be one of a range of issues – reviewing the election – that I’ll be seeking advice from him when I meet from him later this week and then over the coming weeks.
WEBSTER:
OK, there is going to be a legal challenge in the seat of Herbert, will that get in the way of all of that?
RYAN:
I haven’t seen an announcement on that at all today, that’s a matter for parties and candidates rather than myself. I don’t expect anything that happens in that, if it does or if it doesn’t, to impact on the advice that I get from the Commissioner.
WEBSTER:
OK, so let’s get to the bones of it, you are committed to a plebiscite? There is no way there is going to be a direct vote in the Parliament?
RYAN:
We took a policy, on giving the people a vote, to the election and we intend to do that and the only way that it won’t happen is if the Labor Party don’t let the legislation to facilitate that vote go through Parliament.
WEBSTER:
If it is blocked, what would you do? Drop the idea for a while or go back to it? What would you do?
RYAN:
Well look, I don’t want to get to that point. It was a very clear policy and it was something that had an incredible degree of awareness at the election campaign because it has been such a long-standing issue and a public debate. We said we were going to have a plebiscite and so, quite frankly, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals yet. If people want to ask what would happen afterwards they should really ask the Labor Party, will they block the vote for a plebiscite?
WEBSTER:
My listeners are pretty split on it, I have to say. My view is, I should tell you, I think it is too important to not let the Australian people have a direct vote and it seems, if all the polls are to be believed, it will be a yes. If that’s the case how soon will the will of the Australian people be fulfilled?
RYAN:
Well that’s what I need to seek advice on from the Commissioner. There are a whole range of issues that need to be taken into account when planning a public vote of this nature. It literally comes down to ordering supplies, as well as arranging polling booths. A key element will be the legislation going through Parliament as well, because the Commission only starts working on it after the legislation to empower a plebiscite would have passage of Parliament. I plan to seek that advice and then take it to the Prime Minister and Cabinet in coming weeks.
WEBSTER:
Questions my listeners ask, and I think I know the answer to them, but let’s get them from you, why couldn’t it have been an extra question on the Census paper?
RYAN:
When we committed to holding a plebiscite, I think, to be fair, most people would experience that as a way they would vote at a referendum or on council elections or state or federal government elections. A census, for example, doesn’t have to be filled out by every single individual, if my memory is correct; it can be filled out by a householder on behalf of husband and wife and kids.
WEBSTER:
Yeah, that’s true.
RYAN:
While it’s very important, we don’t have the measures in place for a Census that we do for elections. They’re quite different purposes. One is collecting data, which is then cut up and used by governments of all persuasion for planning of everything from schools to roads, as well as for research. The other one is more direct, integrity-focussed protection, which says ‘this question: yes or no’ and let’s count the ballot papers and get a result.
WEBSTER:
Ok. It’s not going to happen because you guys are in power, but what actually is wrong with a vote in the Parliament that’s a dead-set, absolute conscience vote? So you say to all the Parliamentarians, ‘all right, this is a conscience vote, you vote according to the way you feel, let’s have a hands up in the Parliament’. What’s wrong with that idea?
RYAN:
I think what’s wrong with it now is that we promised at the election that we would have this determined by plebiscite, that we should give the people a vote. I think one of the criticisms of politicians is not delivering on our commitments. We made a specific commitment about this and then we were returned as government, I think it is very important this is a commitment we follow through on.
WEBSTER:
The Labor Party are intimating it will, and I hope, and I’ve said this to my listeners often, that we’re adult enough to have a sensible conversation about this. Labor is suggesting it might turn nasty if we are debating it before the plebiscite, you don’t want that?
RYAN:
I don’t want that, but I’m also a believer in the good sense of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. There are always some nasty elements to any political debate and that happens at elections – it can happen at internal elections for a school council or a footy club. I don’t want to dismiss the fact that some speech can be disturbing to some people, but I don’t think we should govern our democracy by what a fringe do. I’ve always been a believer in the good sense and good judgement of the Australian people. As politicians, we should show faith in the people, not scepticism of them.
WEBSTER:
The cost of it. People say the money could be better spent in terms of a national budget. I mean $160 million, it sounds like a lot of money, but it’s not on an important issue like this. Now I read out the Marriage Act, I think it goes back to 1961 does it?
RYAN:
If memory serves – this lies more with the Attorney-General, I’m more focussed on the mechanics of the plebiscite – I think that’s about right, yes.
WEBSTER:
The wording of it is very specific, so that Act is going to have to be changed, I’m assuming.
RYAN:
This again is not my area of expertise, but there was an amendment, I believe to that Act early last decade, before I was in Parliament …
WEBSTER:
… for de-factos, yeah?
RYAN:
So the plebiscite will be a vote of the Australian people and then the will of that will be reflected in a change to the Marriage Act that would likely need to be undertaken by the Parliament.
WEBSTER:
You probably won’t answer this, but I’ve said pretty often, and in my sphere of influence, my friendships, I’ve got a lot of gay friends and a lot in this industry who are terrific people, for really, what five or six per cent of the population, my God, Senator, we spend a lot of time on this.
RYAN:
As a politician, I am not going to necessarily judge what issues the people bring to our attention, it’s a democracy, so we should be responsive to that. There are people with very strong feelings on this on both sides and it is unique in that sense because it is not an issue on which you can have a half-way house or a compromise, for example, whether we decide to direct resources to health or education, we can often compromise and seek a compromise in how we implement a policy, but this is an issue on which there is a yes or no: should we change the Marriage Act to allow for same-sex marriage or should we not? It is a little bit different in that sense.
WEBSTER:
We’ve got a while to wait but if you were a betting man, before December 31 2016?
RYAN:
I’m not a betting man generally, but honestly, I’ll take my advice forward to the Prime Minister and Cabinet and after a decision is made, an announcement will be made.
WEBSTER: Thanks for your time.
(ENDS)