The Liberals are united in our view that marriage is what it has always been – a union of one man and one woman!  Recent posturing by the Greens, with the unexpected “rush” of each and every Labor MP to join the Greens, to push the federal government to change the definition of marriage was not the “love it” that they would like you to believe.  Their attitude and actions were most disrespectful and rude to Will as he spoke – showing that respect in the Tasmaian Parliament is only a one-way street.  What baffles me is how many Labor MPs have, in the past, defended marriage.  Now, in a minority government with the Greens they have converted to be all “proud” of their newly adopted position.  It’s a shame.

Mr HODGMAN (Franklin – Leader of the Opposition) – As I have indicated publicly, the Liberals will not support this motion. Our clear and consistent position is that we support the definition of marriage as contained within the Marriage Act, a piece of Commonwealth legislation, a creature of the national Parliament itself, not the State Parliament of Tasmania. Our position has not changed. I will say from the outset that the Liberal Party also very strongly believes in the institution of marriage. We believe in what it means, as it is defined under the Commonwealth legislation as a union between a man and a woman. The Liberal Party supports marriage as so defined. We do strongly support the institution of marriage and its value in our community, and the benefits of marriage in bringing social cohesion as a foundation of the family, and indeed that which benefits children, both born and those who will be born from a marriage. Our strong support for these things and our desire to see these institutions growing and supported and strengthened in no way demeans various other forms of relationships that exist. Any attack from those in the community against those who strongly support the institution of marriage as bigoted or homophobic, is as offensive as it is wrong. Our support and indeed the support those in the community who support marriage as defined under the Commonwealth law is certainly a very strong indication and reflection of support for preserving and strengthening an institution, a marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. It is one which importantly often involves children. We do not resile from our strong support for the institution of marriage as defined by the laws of our land, the government of our nation. Our commitment to supporting and strengthening this institution is without in any way demeaning other relationships or other forms of relationships that do exist and which are also deserving of support in a community. Clearly no-one in our community should be subject to vilification or abuse on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, but to argue strongly in support of the institution of marriage as is defined in no way suggests that anyone will necessarily be tolerant of such a thing occurring.

Mr Acting Speaker, I have said also that I believe this is essentially an inconsequential motion because even if it passes it will not change the law. It is the Commonwealth of Australia’s responsibility to amend the Marriage Act if it chooses to do so. That in itself in reflected in the motion. All this motion does is have just one House of the Tasmanian Parliament deliberate on calling on the Federal Government to do something to change the law, something which they have consistently refused to do and, as I say, importantly it does exclude the other elected members of this Parliament in the Legislative Council, so it is not even an expression of principle from the full Tasmanian Parliament.

It has to be said that there is a fair degree of political grandstanding going on here around this issue. The Greens have, of course, abandoned their original approach to actually change the law in Tasmania to provide for same-sex marriage and have instead now moved a motion into our House of Assembly which only sends a message to the Commonwealth about this issue. No doubt they will be able to reflect in the glory of some media reports that this is leading the nation, is ground-breaking and so on, but -

Ms O’Connor – Don’t cheapen this debate.

Mr HODGMAN – it is a significant departure from your original position to introduce legislation to actually change the laws in Tasmania, not just express a view and, as I say, it is not even an expression of the whole Parliament. It will only be an expression of two parties combined with the majority of members in the lower House, so to inflate it as some nation-leading message to Canberra is tenuous, to say the least.

But that is the grandstanding that is going on and no doubt you are anxious after taking some fairly revolutionary positions in recent times, the most notable being your support, Mr Booth, for example, for Gunns to receive financial support and assistance from the Tasmanian taxpayers. I think this is illustrative of a dysfunctional alliance. We saw the spectacle of the Premier only just climb on board in the last day or two when her party moved a motion a month ago, but she has not acted on this any sooner because her party’s stated position is that this is inconsequential and is not going to effect the change that you would have happen. If it did you would introduce that legislation yourself, so I think it is important to note that, sadly, there is a considerable degree of grandstanding over this issue which I think is more of a reflection on an unstable and dysfunctional alliance and a desire to divert from some very significant issues this Government is facing and should be challenging.

It is worth noting that the Greens introduced legislation into this House in 2005, 2008 and 2010. At that time the Leader of the Greens said he would bring on his bills for debate in early 2011. Well, that did not happen. He also said at the time that he had legal advice from Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales that there was no constitutional barrier to the State legislating to create a same-sex marriage system. Then not even two weeks later, on 16 November the Greens tabled a new motion referring their own bills to the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute for examination, so it appeared that the Greens were uncertain about the advice they had received or the true position of whether or not this could be done. He said it would be up to for the Law Reform Institute to examine the bill to determine whether States could not or should not legislate themselves for same-sex marriage. Why he did not do that before he introduced his bill I am not sure. However, the motion to refer the matter to the Law Reform Institute has been sitting on the Notice Paper since 16 November last year and that has not been brought on for debate. As I say, now we have another approach and that is to introduce this motion, a watered-down position that refers the issue to the Commonwealth as the jurisdiction responsible for the Marriage Act asking the Commonwealth to amend that act, presumably now because Mr McKim accepts that it is a Federal issue.

What I am highlighting here is a very confused approach to trying to advance an agenda, one which has seen the Labor Party in furious agreement but jumping on and off when it suits, and perhaps not showing the same degree of urgency, I concede, but one which has not been advanced in all this time to any significant degree by the member, who we now know has the support of his Labor colleagues. It has not been a consistent approach; it has simply been a grab-bag.

Ms O’Connor – Did Eric Abetz write your speech?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – Then he says he might come back -

Mr McKim – This is straight out of the Eric Abetz playbook.

Mr HODGMAN – I am just putting on record what has occurred here. Then he says he might come back in a few months’ time and introduce the bill anyway.

Mr McKIM – Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I have sat here and listened to inaccuracy after inaccuracy, but the member should knows the bills are currently on the Table in this Parliament so I will not be able to introduce them; they are already introduced. What I have said is that if the Federal Marriage Act is not amended in a timely way we will bring them on and if it does not happen by early next year we will be debating those bills in this place.

Mr HODGMAN – You will still bring the bills on anyway, so it begs the question as to why you did not do so in the first place. Because of all this, the months and months of an inconsistent grab-bag approach to this issue, people are saying, ‘Well, where are your priorities?’ The other day, for example, you were not even across the detail of changes you had made to your Adult Education system. You could not explain that.

Ms Giddings – You’ve called how many no-confidence motions and wasted our time?

Mr HODGMAN – There is your prison system where five months ago you had an expensive report undertaken which said as one of its keys recommendations that you should appoint a change member -

Mr McKIM – Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr Hidding – Stop taking frivolous points of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – What is the point of order?

Mr McKIM – It is that this contribution demeans the issue, it demeans same-sex couples and attempts to remove discrimination from our community.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr HODGMAN – I sat in silence and listened to Mr McKim and his provocative statements and I am simply making the case because we have been attacked for suggesting that people in the community expect you to be focusing on other things as well as this issue. We were told that the change agent should be appointed to our prison system five months ago, yet we hear the other day you are just advertising for that person and it may not happen until the end of this year. So it has taken you a whole year to do that, yet you have taken this confused approach -

Mr McKim – This says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – to dealing with an issue of priority. You made a point the other day, Minister, that you can chew gum and walk at the same time. Yes, you can, but it just looks like all you are doing is chewing the gum; people are expecting you to also apply -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Mr Hodgman, if you could address your remarks through the Chair you would not get so many interjections.

Mr HODGMAN – the same degree of urgency and attention to some of those other issues. We will argue for a government to be focused on jobs, the economy and keeping the cost of living down. They are the priorities for the Liberal Party and they are important priorities for Tasmanians. Yes, you can chew gum and walk at the same time but the minister is just chewing gum and people are expecting him to at least show a consistent approach to progressing this matter if he is serious about it and not just about political grandstanding. If he were, we would not have had this situation where he is on again, off again, one minute it is a motion, one minute it is a Federal issue, then it is a State issue; one minute we cannot do anything about it, next minute we can. That is why I have said this is an inconsequential motion. It remains to be seen whether or not the Gillard Federal Government will do anything about it because the Prime Minister’s statements are that she does not believe in same-sex marriage.

Ms O’Byrne – What do you believe?

Mr HODGMAN – I am telling you now; I am on my feet telling you. We will see whether or not the Prime Minister takes any more notice of you on this issue than she does on some of the others. They have not advanced this issue at all in a coherent or consistent way and one can only draw the conclusion that this is about political grandstanding and political posturing.

Government members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – That is why we want to see this issue resolved and many in the community would expect to see the minister do so in a more consistent fashion and one which does not constantly involve this Parliament in a debate which we will have, apparently before the end of the year, 16 sitting days left and we will be having the same debate again.

Mr McKim – What?

Mr HODGMAN – If you bring your bill on for debate -

Mr McKim – I said, next year.

Mr HODGMAN – Okay, sometime next year then. So we will be having a debate again and why you could not introduce your bill now, I am not sure.

As I have said, the Commonwealth Government has always had the ability to change the Marriage Act if they so choose, a government currently lead by Prime Minister Gillard and it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the State legislature. Apparently we are all agreed on that. When this matter was raised by Mr McKim last year, or when he introduced his last bill, he pointed to legal advice he apparently had and we sought our own from respected constitutional lawyer Michael Stokes who said in his four pages of response, and I quote:

‘In my opinion, the proposed same sex marriage act is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and would therefore be invalid under section 109 of the Constitution.’

I am happy to table that if members would like to see it.

Ms Giddings – It is not the debate today, however. The debate is about marriage equality, standing up for that.

Leave granted.

Ms Giddings – It is irrelevant to the debate.

Mr McKim – It is completely irrelevant, but go on.

Mr HODGMAN – As the Premier said the other day, when justifying with the Greens their decision to pay money to Gunns, that often there is no right or wrong in legal debate. There are often differing legal views and clearly that is the case in this instance as well. I gather from what the minister is now saying that he accepts that this is a Commonwealth matter that should be determined by the Federal Government.

Mr McKim – No, that is incorrect.

Mr HODGMAN – Okay. You can state your latest position.

Mr McKim – My position has always been consistent.

Mr HODGMAN – I believe it is a Commonwealth matter, Minister and I would imagine that the Attorney General would probably share that view. The Attorney can have his say in a minute on whether or not he thinks this is a matter that the State can legislate on and if it is, and if he fees so strongly about his convictions, why isn’t he changing the law?

Ms GIDDINGS – Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Obviously the Opposition Leader did not listen to my contribution and the fact that the Labor Government does not believe that it can be through State legislation, it has to be through Commonwealth legislation. The member has refused to put on the record whether he supports marriage equality and if he wanted to, he could amend the motion to be just supporting marriage equality. But he does not have the guts to state his position.

Mr HODGMAN – Thank you, Premier, for clarifying that issue for me and also your Attorney who is sitting there suggesting that it might be something where you can change the law. I said in my opening remarks what my position and the position of the State Liberal Party is. That is exactly what our position is.

Members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – It is crystal clear, it is consistent.

Members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – I do want to mention the issue of opinion polls, which is often used as a reason to change the law, and their role in this debate. Obviously regard will be given to them but I would urge against policy by opinion poll and they do not always represent a consistent picture of community sentiment. We know, at a national level, a number of Federal MPs recently sought feedback from their constituents and they reported back to parliament – and these are Tasmanian MPs – and presented a very different picture to Mr McKim’s and his opinion poll. For example, the member for Denison Andrew Wilkie said the electorate of Denison was split on the issue and Braddon, Labor MHR, Sid Sidebottom, posed the question on a website poll with 49 per cent indicating they were in favour and 50 per cent were not and the balance was undecided. Federal MHR for Lyons, Dick Adams, said 128 constituents were against gay marriage while 12 were in favour and there was no feedback, apparently, from Labor Bass MP, Geoff Lyons. That clearly differs considerably from the poll that Mr McKim has produced and that is fine. All I am saying is that there is often wide inconsistency between opinion polls and to place all your weight of argument or a large part of it on that basis is foolhardy and not necessarily a true reflection of public sentiment. Even if you are assured of its accuracy it does not necessarily make it right and I would urge the Government, or any government, not to govern by opinion polls.

Ms O’Connor – That is a bit rich coming from you. John Howard made a speciality of it.

Mr HODGMAN – Or if you did you would take note of the last EMRS poll on how well your Government is going and call an election, but you will not do that will you? No, you will not do that.

Members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – You will not accept the fact that 80 per cent of Tasmanians do not support Ms Giddings as Premier. No, you will just ignore that opinion poll, won’t you? So let me be crystal clear, Mr Acting Speaker, in closing. Every member of the Liberal Party totally, totally rejects discrimination and vilification in our community especially on the basis of issues of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. We respect and appreciate that members of the community have diverse views on this issue of same-sex marriage. We do not accept that this motion passing the House of Assembly will necessarily reflect the views of all Tasmanians, nor indeed the majority of them or, more importantly, it will have a material impact. I suspect there will inevitably be the claims from some, including members of this House, in relation to our position that it is somehow endorsing or promoting inequality and discrimination and I strongly reject that on every count. Again I refer to our consistent stated position held by every member of the Liberal Party in our belief that equal recognition -

Ms O’Connor – That is rubbish. Where is your Deputy Leader?

Mr O’Byrne – As told by Senator Abetz.

Ms O’Connor – Where is your Deputy Leader?

Members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – What, did you not see his statements. Did you not hear him on the radio? Have you not read his public comments in recent days? No. Okay.

Members interjecting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – Selective hearing on the part of members opposite will not change the fact that the Liberal Party is unified on this issue. It may not please you and you may disagree with us but if that is the best you can do, trying to concoct some sort of division which does not exist to make a political point, well again that shows that this is more about political grandstanding than the issue itself.

Our record speaks for itself and if there are other instances of discrimination that occur on the basis of sexual orientation, or indeed any of those other things, then they should be dealt with and can be dealt with without necessarily having to change the Marriage Act to do so. I proudly point to instances where our party, in this place, has supported laws that will in fact remove discrimination in the community especially those in same sex relationships. The vote, for example, of Liberal members in this place to support equal recognition of same-sex couples in all Tasmanian laws; the establishment of Australia’s first civil partnership scheme; support of legal recognition of co-mothers of children born through fertility treatments; and support of the legal acknowledgement of overseas same-sex marriages in Tasmanian law.

Ms O’Connor – Well why won’t you support the marriage equality?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – Order.

Mr HODGMAN – I personally voted for same sex recognition in this House. The Liberal Party back in government in 1997 also delivered significant law reform in this area. At the last election we also had a policy commitment to bring in laws which would provide for harsher penalties against those who commit violent crime motivated by hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. So our record speaks for itself and as I say where there are instances of discrimination, and they and should be dealt with without unnecessary recourse to amending the Commonwealth law of Australia which defines marriage and for those who are consistently, deliberately and untruthfully trying to deny our re-stated and consistent position, let me make it crystal clear again. We support the definition of marriage in the Commonwealth Act and what it means, what it stands for and so defined.

I will conclude, Mr Acting Speaker, because I would hope perhaps the words expressed by the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, The Right Reverend John Harrower, very succinctly articulates the arguments against this very motion. I do so not on the basis of Bishop Harrower’s religious perspective but as a very articulated expression of arguments against and I will start with a report on the ABC News website from an interview he conducted, where he says redefining marriage is a step too far, and I quote:

‘It’s not just a word. Words have meaning, they are set in context in culture, and this particular word has the treasured meaning of a man and a woman coming together in love for a lifetime union together’.

From his statement yesterday, and again I quote the Bishop:

‘I have consistently upheld the church’s affirmation of the definition under the Marriage Act that marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. I have consistently supported the recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, and have advocated for appropriate legal protection for gay and lesbian couples in areas where there was formerly discrimination.’

I am quite happy, Mr McKim, for you to attack me, but I would ask you to show some respect for Bishop Harrower, who is expressing a view commonly held by many Tasmanians.

Mr McKIM – Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I just have to put very quickly on the record that I have never shown any disrespect towards Bishop Harrower and I reject the implication that I have.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER – That is not a point of order.

Mr HODGMAN – I hope you respect his argument, which goes on to say, and I quote from his media release. Bishop Harrower said:

‘Mr McKim’s call for marriage equality is disingenuous. What he intends is a redefinition of marriage itself. Redefining marriage does very little, if anything, to extend rights or equality before the law. It appears to be less about extending rights to a minority and more about compelling all to conform to a novel and unnecessary view. The institution of marriage is much more than the expression of private love, but is a responsibility and a commitment of a particular sort within society. Redefining marriage will disenfranchise those who have embraced and value that particular form of commitment.’

I read that into Hansard because they are public statements recently made by the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania which, in my view, encapsulate the views of many in our community who do not support the concept of same-sex marriage and are strongly supportive of marriage as -

Mr McKim – It doesn’t mean they’re right.

Mr HODGMAN – I know that is your position, but I am putting to you, Minister, an alternative one. I beg your pardon, Mr McKim?

Mr McKim – I said you are over your time and there are a number of other members who would like to speak.

Mr HODGMAN – Well, if you had been as polite as that when you first made the comment -

Mr Best – Some of us want to actually make a contribution, not smoke-and-mirrors waffle as you have done for the last 20 minutes.

Mr HODGMAN – On that basis, for all the reasons I have stated, the Liberal Party will not support this motion.

A Hodgman Liberal Government would provide up to $200,000 in annual funding to ensure that Bravehearts’ can implement their student safety program into Tasmanian schools statewide, with certainty.

It is very timely to make this commitment at the start of National Child Protection Week.

Supporting Bravehearts’ “Ditto’s Keep Safe Adventures” school-based program is a way of reducing child sexual abuse rates by focusing on prevention through education and awareness.

It is a sobering fact that current research shows 1 in 5 children will be sexually assaulted before the age of 18. 

The Bravehearts’ “Ditto’s Keep Safe Adventures” school-based program is proven and research-based with the objective being of educating, empowering and protecting children by providing them with the skills and understanding to be safe.

External evaluations in other States have found the program has the potential to reduce child sexual assault by up to 50 per cent.

The Bravehearts’ program was trialled in Tasmania in 2010 and an evaluation showed extremely positive feedback from teachers and parents, with 98.5 per cent recommending the program for all primary school students.

While the State Green-Labor Government has indicated it will not fund the Bravehearts’ program, we believe the costs of not educating children on sexual assault prevention strategies is far greater than the monetary commitment required.

The program costs around $10 a child yet an Australian study conservatively estimates the cost to society of child sexual assault to be in excess of $180,000 per child.

By funding Bravehearts, the Liberals are demonstrating our commitment to keeping Tasmanian children safe.

Under a Hodgman Liberal Government, Tasmanian High Schools will go up to year 12 within a decade of being elected to office.

It’s a damning fact that Tasmania continues to have the lowest retention rates in Australia.  Only 47 per cent of Tasmanians have a post year 10 qualification, yet 86 per cent of jobs require this level of educational attainment.

Worse still, the latest ABS statistics[1] show that only 51 per cent of Tasmanians are considered to be functionally literate.  Of Tasmanian students who were in year 10 in 2008, only 51 per cent went on to complete year 11 and 12 studies.[2]

It is telling that Tasmania is the only state in Australia that maintains a system where secondary education finishes at year 10, and that we also have the lowest retention rates in the nation. The Liberal education policy for year 7-12 High Schools will address our retention black-hole and will build a job ready generation.

Such a substantial but necessary reform won’t take place overnight, and after a decade of Labor experiments it is essential that we get it right, at a sensible pace, and take the community with us. We are committed to consulting widely with all those who share our passion for education, and will make changes only after a clear implementation plan has been developed. This stands in stark contrast with the ego-driven approach taken by this government.

We will start by expanding the offering of vocational, year 11 and year 12 subjects in Rural and Regional High Schools. As part of this process we will explore how best to utilise technology such as the NBN, so geography is no longer a disadvantage.

We will then move to gradually expand secondary education to year 12 in major population centres.

The first stages of this long-term visionary policy will be funded from our new $60 million Education Investment and School Retention Fund.

Under our visionary plan, city-based colleges could be retained as places of year 11-12 and adult skills and academic training, depending on the needs of local communities.  We will not close or sell existing colleges.

*1  ABS Cat. 4228.0.55.004

*2  Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Annual Report

The Liberals today announced that they would support Tasmania’s school system moving to four terms from 2013.

Liberal Leader Will Hodgman said that the Liberals had made the decision in the interests of Tasmania’s students.  “In all of this debate, our primary focus has been on the well-being and interests of our children”, Mr Hodgman said.

“Tasmanian students are at or below average in many education benchmarks, barely 50 per cent of Tasmanians are functionally literate, and our retention rates remain the worst in the country.  Recent analysis of NAPLAN results show that Tasmania’s students are performing significantly lower than the national average in 15 out of 20 measures and about the same on the remaining five measures.

“It’s incumbent upon us as policy-makers to act to improve this.  Parents and educators are increasingly telling us that the longer terms under the three-term model leads to declining attendance and increasing illness. If something’s not working, change it.”

Shadow Minister for Education, Michael Ferguson, said that the Liberals had consulted extensively before making the decision.

The work of the Advisory Group has shown that there is widespread support for the change; and that the tourism industry is comfortable with the change especially given the clear intention to only partially overlap holidays with our interstate tourism markets.

“Having said that, we recognise that not everyone will agree with this decision; however, we believe it is in the best interests of Tasmania’s children.  While Nick McKim might think that our education system has “reform fatigue” and we shouldn’t be seeking to make improvements in our education system, we disagree.

“There is no doubt that Labor has made many mistakes over recent years with their disastrous experiments in our education system.  However, this should not disqualify us from making positive, well researched and well supported changes such as this.

“Of course, this reform on its own won’t be enough to see our poor education results improve.  We believe in improving our education system by ending the experiments, tackling bullying and bad behavior, developing effective teaching practice, greater adherence to a high-quality curriculum, boosting parent engagement and implementing stronger measures for identifying and helping poor performing teachers and students.

A State Government-funded industry organisation is helping to close Tasmanians businesses down because of the problems in our economy and labour market.  This is happening across different trades and industries – from hospitality to traditional trades.

The Centre for Tasmanian Industry has told the Tasmanian Liberals that the skills crisis is adding to the problems that businesses are facing and many businesses simply can’t cope.

The Centre recently helped to close down a business that couldn’t get qualified refrigeration trades-people, despite the fact that the business was otherwise successful.

At a time when we have declining retail sales and the highest unemployment rate in the nation the Labor-Green Government should be doing everything they can to rescue the economy.

Instead, they are sitting on their hands and the only plans they do have are to sack teachers, nurses and police and shut down our vital native forest sector.

Will Hodgman is Tasmanian Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Economic Development