Same-sex marriage: disappointment and anger as Coalition party room rejects free vote
|
Version 0 of 1. The push for same-sex marriage to be legalised in Australia has suffered a setback after the governing Coalition decided against allowing its members a free vote in the current term of parliament. But Tony Abbott, who firmly opposes same-sex marriage, conceded after a six-hour meeting of his colleagues that it was the last parliamentary term in which the Coalition could maintain its current position. The prime minister held out the possibility of a free vote or alternatively a plebiscite of the entire population during the next term of parliament – a position seen by supporters of same-sex marriage as a stalling tactic. Abbott called a combined meeting of the Liberals and Nationals in Canberra on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Coalition’s stance ahead of the introduction of a cross-party bill to allow same-sex couples to marry. The prime minister’s decision to include the Nationals – who are more deeply opposed to same-sex marriage – angered numerous Liberals, including the leader of the house, Christopher Pyne, who reportedly likened it to “branch stacking”. Coalition members thrashed out the issue for about six hours, with a half-hour interruption for a new senator’s first speech. There was no formal ballot, but the majority of speeches supported keeping the existing policy that marriage be between a man and a woman. Abbott said about 90 people addressed the meeting, including 60 backbenchers and 30 frontbenchers. About 60 of the speakers backed the current policy while 30 wanted a free vote. The prime minister said it was a “deeply personal ... subject on which decent people can differ”. “I’ve come to the view – I believe this is the party room view – that this is the last term in which the Coalition party room can be bound, although we will definitely maintain the current position for the life of this term,” Abbott said. “Going into the next election, we will finalise another position. The disposition of the party room this evening is that our position going into the next election should be that in a subsequent term of parliament, this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people.” Abbott suggested those options could include “a plebiscite, or a constitutional referendum” – although the details of such a proposal would be decided in the lead-up to the next election, due in 2016. A plebiscite is a non-binding poll of the Australian population, while a referendum is required if there is a proposed change to the Australian constitution. Australia’s high court has previously ruled it was within the power of the federal parliament to make laws to allow same-sex marriage without requiring an amendment to the constitution. The Labor party immediately sought to capitalise on the decision, tweeting that a Shorten Labor government would introduce a bill for marriage equality within its first 100 days. Bill Shorten, the Labor leader, said Australia was “stuck in the past” under Abbott and it was time for change. “Every day that Tony Abbott denies his MPs a free vote, he is denying millions of Australians a fundamental right,” Shorten said. The Greens also condemned the decision, saying it was “an attack on loving couples” and showed “a disgraceful lack of leadership from the prime minister”. The Greens senator Janet Rice said: “A plebiscite would be a costly delay tactic to find out what we already know – that over 70% of Australians support marriage equality.” The only member of the Greens in the House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, said the Coalition had “sided with a homophobic minority and picked fear over love”. “Today the government signed its death warrant,” Bandt said. The North Queensland-based MP Warren Entsch, who has led cross-party efforts to achieve same-sex marriage and raised the issue at the regular Liberal party room meeting on Tuesday morning, said he was disappointed. Entsch said he would push ahead with the introduction of his bill to parliament on Monday next week. “I intend to highlight some of the very personal and heartfelt stories that have led me to take this path,” Entsch said. “I have to concede however that given today’s decision, the likelihood of failure ‐ should it come to a vote ‐ is assured. “A positive outcome from the party room has been a decision that this will be the last term in which the Coalition party room can be bound by the existing marriage legislation position.” The communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who supports same-sex marriage, had earlier warned the meeting about the risk of government disunity if frontbenchers were forced to resign for backing the change. The party room showdown had been cast as a test of Abbott’s leadership. But the environment minister, Greg Hunt, rejected suggestions Abbott’s authority was in doubt. “I think that he is in a very firm position with the strong support of people overwhelmingly,” Hunt told the ABC’s 7.30 program. “What we see today is a member of the party room raised an issue, asked if it could be debated. It’s being debated at length with every single member of that party room allowed the opportunity to speak. This is parliament exactly as it should be.” The treasurer, Joe Hockey, who was reported to be one of the senior members to back a plebiscite, said the discussion was “very interesting”. Liberal party moderates wanted the right to vote in line with their conscience, rather than be bound to the position of opposing same-sex marriage. Several Nationals also support change. Conservative forces sought to block any move towards a free vote, suggesting the Coalition’s policy should remain in place. The retention of a binding vote could place several ministers in an awkward position. The Liberal party permits backbenchers to cross the floor in parliament, but frontbenchers are required to support the agreed policy or quit their positions. Several ministers, assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries – including Turnbull, Simon Birmingham, Josh Frydenberg and Kelly O’Dwyer – have previously publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage. Marriage equality campaigners have intensified their efforts in this parliamentary sitting fortnight, attempting to marshal support around the hashtag #WeCanDoThis ahead of the introduction of a new bill to allow same-sex couples to marry. Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster, had also publicly called on Coalition members to “embrace the future” and support a free vote. She, too, expressed her disappointment on Tuesday evening. Australia’s House of Representatives and Senate blocked similar legislation in 2012, when Labor parliamentarians were allowed a free vote but the Coalition was bound to vote against it. Advocates had focused on lobbying the Coalition to loosen its stance, suggesting this was the best chance of a bill passing the parliament. Labor’s national conference last month decided to continue to have a free vote for two terms of parliament, after which time its MPs and senators would be bound to support same-sex marriage. Shorten asked Abbott during parliamentary question time on Tuesday whether he would allow a free vote. The prime minister zeroed in on the opposition’s two-step approach, saying the consciences of Labor MPs “appear to have a use-by date on them”. “I was clear before the election about our position on the matter of same-sex marriage. I said if it came up, if it came up in the next parliament, it would be dealt with by the Coalition party room in the usual way. That’s what I said before the election and that is exactly what will happen.” Entsch and the Labor MP Terri Butler – a co-sponsor of the proposed marriage equality bill – submitted a notice to the table office on Tuesday that they intended to present legislation to the parliament. The timing of the bill’s introduction to parliament was decided by the Liberal-dominated selection committee late on Tuesday, and is unaffected by the party room decision. Butler said the committee had agreed for the bill to be presented to parliament on Monday next week, although the debate may continue beyond that date. |