There’s a view, especially among some press gallery cognoscenti, that Labor has done the Prime Minister a real favour by deciding against a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, freeing him from the distraction of a nightmarish campaign of bile and hatred over the next four months that would likely culminate in an open split in his party as some reactionary MPs ignore the result. Now, Turnbull can point out that he did his best to bring about same-sex marriage but was stymied by, as the Coalition portrays it, a petty, bloody-minded opposition that prefers to play politics.
As it turned out, Bill Shorten was able to offer a pretty reasonable set of reasons for opposing the plebiscite yesterday — the cost, the fact that the result wouldn’t be binding on MPs, and the impact on people, and especially LGBTI people, of the campaign of vilification that would result. They scrub up better than most reasons cobbled together to justify a partisan position. Especially when the government has all but acknowledged that yes, the campaign would expose LGBTI Australians to the risk of harm.
[Penny Wong is right: plebiscite hate speech will hurt good parents]
But the knockback will only be a win for Turnbull if the issue is now shut down. The Prime Minister yesterday — having heard a hysterical threat from far-right Western Australian Nationals MP Andrew Broad to desert the government in joint party room — was steadfastly refusing to countenance any Plan B if the plebiscite failed. Under repeated questioning from Katharine Murphy yesterday, Turnbull refused to even accept that the plebiscite bill would fail given the opposition of Labor and that of the Greens and NXT.
But there is a Plan B, even if the Prime Minister won’t discuss it. It’s to hope the issue that has hovered over federal politics for more than a year goes away, put off until at least the next election, so that the government can get on with discussing issues it wants to discuss (whatever they are — they’re not at all clear).
Two groups within Parliament are keen to prevent that particular plan from eventuating. One is, naturally, the opposition, which will persistently try to do exactly what it tried last night in Parliament — bring on a vote on same-sex marriage. The other is on Turnbull’s own backbench. While some MPs, nearly all of them on the Coalition side, genuinely simply want to continue discrimination against LGBTI Australians and want same-sex marriage to go away, others are so obsessed with the issue, or so determined to use the issue to undermine Turnbull — or both — that they won’t stop talking about it. Exhibit No. 1 for that is sacked minister Eric Abetz, whose bizarre comments about celebrating gay people who “come out” as heterosexual are only the latest in a long line of interventions on the matter. How much clear air will the government have if Abetz and those like him continue their jihad against LGBTI Australians?
[Not-so-accidental death of a plebiscite: how the right killed their own idea]
There’s a third group who might also have a view on the matter: voters, more than half of whom want the issue to proceed to a parliamentary vote if the plebiscite bill fails.
If Plan A is doomed because of the simple maths of the Senate, Plan B looks highly problematic as well, especially with a government that so far as displayed little skill and had even less luck. Turnbull needs a Plan C for the possible failure of his hope-based Plan B — something that will get the issue off the political radar, at least for Labor if not for the obsessives. The government copped a terrible kicking when it lost several votes in the House of Representatives several weeks ago. Be a shame if, due to more carelessness, chaos and absent ministers, it lost another vote, on something substantive. Like same-sex marriage.
The MSM keep reporting that if Turnbull lets equal marriage come to a vote “all hell will break loose” in his party room. But what does this actually mean? Are a rump of reactionaries really going to bring down the government over an issue on which they’re clearly on the losing side?
It’s an empty threat. Turnbull should openly allow or covertly encourage a bunch of Lib MPs to cross the floor and bring on the vote. There’ll be some fuss and bother as a result, but the issue will finally be dealt with and some clear air created for… er… whatever passes in this government for its program.
That would involve the PM showing some courage and leadership. No chance.
Poor Mal.. a large chunk of his public support comes from people who hold their nose and ignore his dry economic conservatism because they place more importance on his (alleged) more progressive social and environmental leanings. After this week’s intransigence and finger-pointing over ME – and last week’s opportunistic attacks on renewable energy – he’ll find it even harder to keep these supporters on side.
Bit disingenuous to describe Nats wingnut Andrew Broad as “Western Australian” – fair enough he was born in Carnarvon but as former president of the Victorian Farmers’ Federation and now MP for a seat that covers more than 30% of Victoria, surely we West Aussies can hive him off to Victoria now?
As Andrew Broad represents me In parlement if you are going to refer to him as “Western Australian” can you clarifi that he represents the Mallee In Victoria
I had missed Abetz’s latest fantastic missive about sexuality (being in francophone OS and therefore freed from News Ltd temporarily), but appreciate it being brought to attention. Thank you Bernard. Here are tow naff observations.
(1) The News link is hilariously “… /lifestyle/gay-marriage/”, a URL of admission that Eric is wrong; (2) Eric is in fact preaching the very sexual fluidity that undermines the binary ideas of straight-gay, a fluidity that he surely would find even more confusing and abhorrent.
That’s exactly what I thought; that the imaginary person he’s describing would actually be bisexual, not straight.
Bernard- interesting commentary-if The government is on the losing side of the plebiscite why not hold plebiscite to prove the point! Everyone points to the vote in Ireland but in fact it was not compulsory and the small amount of the population that actually voted For the -yes votewas -mathematically 18% of the total population
Why would any population decision expose the LCBTI to any harm-there is no harm at the present it is unlikely harm would be generated by the Australian voting public on the subject of marriage. If one suggests that the LGBTI may have mental health issues because of the population voting on issues brought up by the LGBTI community itself is not an argument that is convincing. The issue is one that is pushed by the LGBTI community itself was whereas most people don’t think about they have to think about things in their normal lives. Also the LGBT I community already have mental health issues that is why they are abnormal. They are already protected by the anti-discrimination laws.
The citizens of the States which make up the Commonwealth did not give up the right to the Commonwealth [and thus Commonwealth politicians]to change the concept of marriage in society -the Marriage Act was merely agreed to by the States to make the process uniform throughout the Commonwealth. To change the fundamental concept must revert to the states and this would be most efficiently performed by a plebiscite.
The reason why the will and opinion of the people is dangerous is that imposition of an unsatisfactory outcome upon the people of Australia by single minded pressure groups would be jeopardised forever. This would prove Canberra politicians are unsuited to decide these societal issues and are a danger to participatory democracy whichever way the plebiscite would go . That is why the Opposition is worried and won’t support a plebiscite and the Government is relieved ,it doesn’t have to do anything.
I’ll give you one good reason to abandon the plebiscite: $200 million. What a colossal waste of money, at a time when the dole is too low, the pension is on the slide and the arts are being defunded.
Yeah, it’s not the plebiscite that will damage LGBTI individuals, but the months of hate speech from RWNJ fundies that will do the trick.
The Marriage Act was changed by John Howard. I don’t recall a plebiscite about that. Where was the participatory democracy then? The change has community support based on poll after poll. Why spend another $170M on something that will deliver the same result as a poll and have the same non-binding quality to it?
I really don’t think it is the opposition that is worried about this.
The citizens of the States which make up the Commonwealth did not give up the right to the Commonwealth [and thus Commonwealth politicians]to change the concept of marriage in society -the Marriage Act was merely agreed to by the States to make the process uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
Then you wouldn’t have any problem with reverting the Marriage Act to its state before Howard unilaterally changed it ?
Or would you like to go back further ?
Non sequitur, drsmithy. The States (colonies) did not decide that the Commonwealth could do as it would with marriage in the constitutional compact. There was very complicated to-and-fro over the disposition of the marriage power, eventually settled in favour of uniformity by including marriage in s.51. There was no discussion in the late 1800s over SSM, transgender or anything affecting the understanding of marriage at the time, dominated no doubt by an orthodox masculinist sis-gendered heterosexual social understanding. But the power was given not to cement its state but to ensure marriage was a matter legislated uniformly in the hands of the Commonwealth-Parliament-to-be. We need go no further back than the Conventions in Parkes and elsewhere because it was not about Lot’s wife but colonial jealousies …
The Marriage Act was established in 1961. Are you arguing this legislation is unconstitutional ?
have a read here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/publications/commonwealth-v-australian-capital-territory-2013-hca-55
“[The case] held that the marriage power in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution is broad enough to encompass same sex marriage.
The case indicates that it is open to the Commonwealth to legislate for same sex marriage at the federal level and potentially also for marriage between people regardless of gender, for example including intersex people who do not identify as male or female.”
So…according to your twisted mind…”…the LGBTI community already have mental health issues that is why they are abnormal.”
Apart from being totally untrue, your statement is grossly OFFENSIVE. And you wonder why we can’t have a plebiscite? Look in the mirror!!
Unfortunately the reality is that LGBTI which ever way one looks it is an abnormality- in our society we tolerate abnormality. For most people going about their ordinary life do not think about the abnormal unless brought to our notice. the LGBTI community has a missionary zeal and the media in the continual 24hour cycle welcome newsworthy items to pad their day out – this results in the abnormal proportion publicity about the abnormal- when was the last time one saw a news item of a John kissing Alice on their wedding day but wow Alice kissing Wendy and John kissing David becomes a news segment on all channels for 2 days.
For sex change operations psychiatric assessment is mandatory so the abnormal mental is not made worse. So to use your terrible terminology ‘the twisted mind does not become more twisted”
the LGBTI community has a missionary zeal and the media in the continual 24hour cycle welcome newsworthy items to pad their day out – this results in the abnormal proportion publicity about the abnormal- when was the last time one saw a news item of a John kissing Alice on their wedding day but wow Alice kissing Wendy and John kissing David becomes a news segment on all channels for 2 days.
Well, Desmond, when the phobic have stopped making non-heterosexual interactions something worth talking about, the “news” will stop talking about them.
Just like nobody blinks an eye when a woman walks into a bar and buys a beer anymore (or into a voting booth to vote).
Equal legal rights would be a good step to take in that process.