Same-sex marriage: George Brandis slaps down Scott Morrison's call for a referendum
|
Version 0 of 1. The attorney general, George Brandis, has slapped down the suggestion from fellow frontbencher Scott Morrison that the Coalition’s same-sex marriage “people’s vote” could be conducted through a constitutional referendum. Morrison, the social services minister, made the suggestion on Wednesday night, saying “when you have a referendum, there is an opportunity for both sides of this debate to be fairly put to the Australian people, for all of the issues to be fully considered and presented I think in an even-handed way.” “I don’t think we’ve been having a very even-handed debate on this issue,” Morrison told the ABC’s 7.30 report. But Brandis said on Thursday a referendum was “entirely unnecessary” and a plebiscite was “the appropriate way to resolve this.” “I only became aware of Mr Morrison’s remarks this morning and I think, it is very important as attorney general that I remove confusion. A referendum is not necessary to resolve this issue,” he told Sky News. Related: Same-sex marriage: Warren Entsch urges Tony Abbott to allow public vote on election day “You have a referendum for one reason and one reason only, to amend the constitution ... in the question of same sex marriage there is no ambiguity ... what the prime minister said was he was attracted to the idea of a people’s vote so the Australian public could resolve what is clearly a vexed public issue, the way you test public opinion on vexed public issues is by plebiscite ... a plebiscite is plainly the appropriate method were we to resolve this by a popular vote,” he said. Brandis’ intervention came as same-sex marriage advocate and Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch warned the prime minister “and his allies” not to “play silly buggers” with procedural tactics to delay or defeat a “people’s vote”, saying it would cost Coalition seats at the next election. Entsch is a co-sponsor of the multi-party bill that will be introduced next week, but it has no chance of success after the Coalition’s decision to support the current definition of marriage until the next election. He said the Coalition party room had not decided what kind of “people’s vote” there should be and it was “disappointing” to see Morrison, speaking out in favour of a referendum. “We need broad acceptance for what we are doing, it shouldn’t be just something that the prime minister and his closest allies think is the clever way to go.” He said if the government did try to delay or influence a “people’s vote” he would “go ballistic” and the Coalition would lose seats at the next federal election. “The party room committed to putting this to the people, not that we would try to find some way to make sure there was no outcome. We certainly did not lock into the idea of having a referendum,” Entsch told Guardian Australia. Related: Teetering Coalition will be seen as strong on marriage and climate, with time | Andrew Laming “If we now start playing silly buggers with this or use it as a means to prevent change or manipulate things to get a no-change outcome, then I will go ballistic ... It worries me that we are now sending mixed messages, that we are saying things that could mean this is pushed well into the next term of government. The things that some in the Coalition are now saying do not reflect the party room debate, there is a subtle movement away from what the party room decided,” Entsch said. “I don’t know why Scott Morrison was out talking about this, it’s disappointing. We politicians forfeited our right to lead this debate – we could have done that next week by voting on the bill, but we chose not to, we chose to put it to the people, so that means we need to find a reasonable set of words that everyone can accept and then we should back off and get out of the way. We deferred to the people on this, so we should give them a reasonable proposition and then get out of their way. “I think if we play around with this too much it will be another government dealing with it after the next election, not us, because this will be a major issue at the next election and it will change votes.” Entsch has called for a “people’s vote” to be held at the time of the next election, but the prime minister has ruled this out. He has also offered to be part of a Coalition process to decide how to hold a people’s vote, and still hoped this would be possible. It was “still early days”, he said. Morrison publicly backed a referendum over a plebiscite in an interview on Wednesday. “When you have a referendum, there is an opportunity for both sides of this debate to be fairly put to the Australian people, for all of the issues to be fully considered and presented I think in an even-handed way,” he told ABC TV’s 7.30 program. “I don’t think we’ve been having a very even-handed debate on this issue.” The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, also said a referendum would be the best way to resolve the question. “I’m in the camp of supporting a referendum, because I think there’s a significant social change being proposed here,” he said. Both Dutton and Morrison are opposed to changing the Marriage Act, which currently limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Three Liberal backbenchers, Wyatt Roy, Teresa Gambaro and Dean Smith, have said they would cross the floor to vote for the multi-party bill, if it ever came to a vote. Referendums, used to change aspects of the constitution, are difficult to carry because they require a majority in a majority of states. Of the 44 put to the Australian people, only eight have been carried. Constitutional change is not required to change the definition of marriage. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Tony Abbott and his allies were employing delaying tactics. “There are a range of people in the more right wing ranks of the Liberal Party who will say or do anything to stop same sex marriage ... it is a delaying tactic, and I don’t trust [Tony Abbott],” he said. “I do think Mr Abbott is being tricky ... I do think he is trying to kick the can down the road.” Asked about the “people’s vote”, Abbott said no decision had been made about the form it should take. “Our strong disposition is to put [same sex marriage[ to the people in a subsequent term of parliament ... precisely what form that putting it to the people will take is something we will decide between now and polling day,” he said on Thursday. Rodney Croome, the national director of Australian Marriage Equality, has previously warned that a public poll would be simply a delaying tactic by opponents. “After the Irish marriage equality referendum, a national vote in Australia might seem like a quick and easy route to achieve the reform, but if we look at the facts it actually serves the purposes of those opposed to change,” he wrote in an opinion piece in June. “Marriage has changed depending on how the commonwealth parliament has chosen to legislate about it at different times, and it can change again,” the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, told ABC Radio on Thursday morning. The shadow foreign affairs minister, Tanya Plibersek, said a referendum would be a waste of money. “Is this really the way we want to spend $120m of taxpayers’ money?” she asked. “This is extraordinary. The high court has decided that the parliament has the power to legislate.” “This is an expensive delaying tactic pushed by the opponents of marriage equality,” she said. |