Same-sex marriage could be legislated by the end of the year, despite the government resubmitting its plebiscite bill to a likely lost vote in the parliament.
Liberal members attending a special meeting in Canberra on Monday stood by the policy taken to the 2016 election for a national vote on changing marriage laws.
However, if the bill fails a second time – which appears likely unless the Nick Xenophon Team changes its position – a postal ballot would be conducted.
Details were sketchy on Monday afternoon as to the format and legal basis for the postal vote, but it is understood the government has advice a postal vote is legal.
Before the meeting, same-sex marriage advocates released their own legal advice showing the government could not conduct a postal vote without its own legislation and that any move down that path would be open to challenge in the High Court.
Senior government members have been talking down the prospects of a private member’s bill, arguing the coalition promised no change would be made without Australians having their say.
“If we want to repair this trust deficit that people talk about in Australian politics, one of the first steps must be to allow the government of the day to keep its promises,” cabinet minister Arthur Sinodinos said.
Listen: Mia Freedman talks to Jayson Brunsdon and Aaron Elias, who are allowed to become fathers, but not get married.
The Labor caucus was briefed on WA Liberal senator Dean Smith’s private bill on Monday, agreeing that it represented an “acceptable compromise” and was in line with a Senate inquiry’s findings.
Labor MPs would get a conscience vote on it if the bill ever came to parliament, which is still possible if the postal ballot goes ahead and achieves a majority “yes” vote.
Labor frontbencher Terri Butler said it was disappointing the Liberal Party continued to put up more obstacles to marriage equality.
“The Liberal Party is already aware the will of the parliament is not to have a plebiscite, because the plebiscite legislation has already been defeated,” she told AAP.
“The Liberal Party in keeping with the sentiment of the electorate and the desire to do the right thing should seek to remove this discrimination against same-sex couples or at least seek to have a free vote on the floor of parliament, not recycle old ideas.”
The decision will now go to the joint coalition party room on Tuesday.
The Nationals have been staunch supporters of the plebiscite, with MP Andrew Broad warning the coalition could split if the policy was dumped.
Speaking before the meeting, Senator Smith said a postal vote was useless.
"It's a D-grade response to what is a defining A-grade social issue," Senator Smith said.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott said the postal vote was "certainly better than ramming the thing through the parliament", but he questioned whether it would carry the same authority as a plebiscite.
Advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality has legal advice it says confirms a postal vote would be unconstitutional.
According to the advice, the government does not have the power to spend money on a postal plebiscite without first passing legislation authorising use of taxpayer funds.
Advocates say they would seek an injunction to prevent the postal plebiscite from going ahead until a High Court decision on its constitutionality.
Top Comments
Like it or not, the coalition went to the last election promising that the people of this country would have a say on this issue. They won that election, therefore should be able to put that policy in place.
Polling suggests that up to 70% of Australians believe that we should all have a say on this issue, in the form of a plebiscite.
In actual fact, we would already have "marriage equality" in this country, if Labor and the cross bench senators hadn't voted against the plebiscite for their own, political means.
Clearly backing down on this policy would be a win for Labor, and you just know that should the coalition actually back down, then Bill Shorten would certainly use this politically and attack the coalition as breaking another promise, even though the final outcome would suit BS's political needs, and the needs of the country.
So what? They break election promises ALL THE TIME. Public opinion has moved on and considering PMs have been deposed based on polls, why can't they do the same here? Every single other English speaking nation has legalised it, and our pollies are IGNORING their constituents and banging on about a plebiscite no one wants and the pollies pushing for will ignore it anyway. The only demographic in majority opposition to SSM is males over 65. The politicians need to do what they are elected to do and represent the will of the people. This political BS has gone on for long enough.
Because we live in a democracy. This government was elected based on a policy of having a plebiscite and allowing every Australian to have their say.
They represent the will of the people through us voting for them, therefore their stated policy, that they took to the election, should remain in place.
Although they do often break election promises, we shouldn't be encouraging them to do so.
A(nother) broken promise is simply more fuel for more political attacks from Bill Shorten.
Governments change their mind on policy every single day, since the last federal election things have changed - there is majority constituent support for SSM, every single other English speaking nation has legalised it, no one wants to be profligate with half a billion dollars to have a plebiscite (ref. KPMG estimate) that isn't even binding and they'll have a conscience vote anyway. SSM is inevitable, we all know it, let's get it done without wasting half a billion - perhaps that could go on services for LGBTIQ communities.
Public opinion has moved on from a couple of years ago, the plebiscite was merely a political instrument for ultra-conservative Abbott to placate the hard-right wingers in the Liberals. We did not have to have a plebiscite for the Racial or Sexual Discrimination Act, we did not have a plebiscite back in the 90s to prevent SSM, why should we now? We should we pay half a billion dollars to enact legislation that the majority of Australia wants? It's abhorrent that people get to have a say on denying or allowing people basic human and legal rights due to being born a certain way - it's down right repugnant. It's a bit bloody rich to take the moral high ground now regarding keeping election promises and maintaining policy that has clearly evolved to be against prevailing community attitudes. No, this is about satisfying religious conservatives and political impotence.
Seeing gay marriage only effects gay people maybe our politicians could keep their their broad electoral based policies on things that effect most people and just do the right thing by minorities.
I thought the definition of Liberal politics was staying out of people's lives as much as possible- cutting red tape etc. legalising gay marriage seems to me to fit into that definition. Let people get on with their lives if itveffects no one else.
SSM affects anyone who has a friend or loved one who is gay. The suicide rate of LGBTIQ teens decreases once SSM is legalised, how can that not affect society as a whole? Yes absolutely we need to let people get on with their lives, but it benefits everyone to extend the same legal rights to all.