 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
The decision to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage appears to have been largely a political expedient by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is personally opposed to gay marriage, intended to delay having to respond to same-sex marriage bills then before the Parliament.
Postponing a vote on same-sex marriage meant that the divisions within the Coalition on the question could be side-stepped. A conscience vote was strongly opposed by those within the Coalition who reject same-sex marriage, while continuing to impose an anti vote on all members of the Party was at odds with popular opinion in the electorate and placed Liberals who support same-sex marriage in a difficult position.
When Malcolm Turnbull replaced Abbott as Prime Minister and leader of the party, he pledged support for the plebiscite that Abbott had proposed. This was despite Turnbull's prior support for a free Parliamentary vote on gay marriage. Turnbull had previously lost the leadership of the party to Abbott because his positions were seen as too radical. When he regained the leadership, Turnbull appeared concerned to keep the support of all party members. Continuing with the plebiscite appears to have been one means of holding his party together.
The July 2016 election saw the Coalition returned with a one-seat majority in the lower house, and no majority in the Senate. This problematic result is believed to have worsened Turnbull's position within his party. Despite their narrow winning margin, the Coalition has presented their electoral victory as a mandate for pursuing all the policies, including the plebiscite, which they took to the electorate. Political reality has since seen them have to negotiate and redraft former policies in order to get some of their legislation through both houses. Critics of the plebiscite maintain that it should similarly be scrapped and that a direct Parliamentary vote should be taken, with all parties allowing a free vote on the question. Such a position is a political impossibility for Turnbull.
The Labor Party now appears likely to oppose the same-sex marriage plebiscite Bill. Given that the Greens and Nick Xenophon's party have indicated they will not support it, this means that the Bill will not pass the Senate. Division within the Liberal Party may even mean that it does not pass the House of Representatives. The Labor position appears primarily intended to do political damage to the Coalition. The Labor Party was earlier in support of a plebiscite, their current anticipated opposition places additional immediate pressure on the Government. In the longer term, however, opposition to the plebiscite may be a political miscalculation on the part of the Labor Party.
If Labor supported the plebiscite and if, as currently seems very likely, the electorate voted in favour of same-sex marriage, the Government would then be compelled to put a same-sex marriage Bill before the Parliament. Turnbull has indicated that he will allow a free vote on the issue. If, as seems likely, a significant number of Liberal and National Party members voted against the Bill, this is likely to be damaging in the eyes of the electorate. If the Bill were to pass the Parliament, this would leave Turnbull with some seriously disaffected party members.
The deeply regrettable nature of this debate is the extent to which same-sex marriage has been used as a political plaything by each party. If the institution of marriage is as significant as many in the Parliament and elsewhere contend, and if, as seems likely, marriage equality is as important to the homosexual minority within our community as it appears, then this is an issue which deserves to have been treated with more respect by both sides of Parliament than has so far been the case.
A free vote should probably be allowed by both sides of Parliament, in the same way it has been on complex ethical issues such as euthanasia, and the question should have been seriously and conscientiously debated within the Parliament. There is clearly a place for plebiscites within our political process; however, in the current instance, the plebiscite appears to be being used by the Coalition to sidestep its responsibilities as a government and in the case of the Opposition, to inconvenience the Government. The issue and those it affects deserve better.