The allocation of $122m to the postal survey on same-sex marriage has “no effect on rights” of Australian citizens and the survey itself has no “immediate consequences”, the Turnbull government has claimed.

The claims are contained in the commonwealth’s submissions, written by solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue, for the defence in the high court challenges to the postal survey.

In two sets of submissions, released on Wednesday, the government also claims that finance minister, Mathias Cormann, was “unaware of any proposal” for the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a survey on same-sex marriage when the budget was delivered on 9 May.

The Turnbull government disputes the standing of independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, Greens senator Janet Rice and same-sex marriage advocates in both cases to challenge the allocation of $122m for the survey by arguing that their rights are not affected.

Wilkie and Rice have no special status to attack the spending just because they are members of parliament and lesbian mother, Felicity Marlowe, could show no more than “emotional concern” in the outcome of the survey, the government submitted.

Rice also argued that she was affected because she is married to a trans same-sex partner who is unable to affirm her gender as female on her birth certificate unless the couple divorces and therefore will be directly affected by legalising same-sex marriage.

The government claimed the postal survey “will have no direct consequence for future reform of the Marriage Act”.

Although the result of the survey itself has no direct legal effect, the Turnbull government has refused to allow parliament to vote on a same-sex marriage bill unless the Australian people vote yes.

As a matter of practice, the survey could therefore prove the difference between parliament legislating marriage equality by year’s end or same-sex couples waiting indefinitely for a change in the law.

The government added that Rice’s complaint is with the existing marriage law and any “indirect effect” of the postal survey would be to legalise same-sex marriage, to her benefit.

The plaintiffs are challenging the decision by Cormann to make a $122m advance to the ABS because there is an “urgent need” for the funds and he was satisfied the spending was “unforeseen”.

The government submitted the decision to allocate funds from the finance minister’s advance has less legal effect than an appropriation “but merely earmarks money for a particular entity and particular purpose with no effect on rights or duties of citizens”.

The government refutes the plaintiffs’ claims it is attempting to disguise a vote that should have been conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission as a statistics gathering exercise by the ABS.

“It is not correct to characterise the activity as a vote,” it said. “Among the defining characteristics of a vote, as understood in Australia, are that it has immediate consequences and is compulsory. The [Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey] has neither of those features.”

The submission argues that the allocation of $122m was urgent because it was necessary to achieve government policy within the timeframe the government judges necessary.

Although the government could foresee the need for “some facility” for Australians to express a view on same-sex marriage, Cormann was “unaware of any proposal for the ABS to conduct a survey on the issue ... and it was not Australian government policy to do so” when the budget bill was introduced.

Although government ministers, including Peter Dutton, had suggested a voluntary postal plebiscite on marriage as early as March the submission dismissed the idea as “generalised proposals” that were not government policy at the time and did not create a foreseen need for a particular expenditure.

Even if a postal vote conducted by the AEC could have been foreseen, the postal survey by the ABS could not, it said.

As the timeline in the second set of submissions makes clear, the cabinet and Coalition party room only decided on a postal survey on 7 and 8 August and gave the ABS until 15 November to report results.

On Wednesday George Williams, professor of constitutional law at the University of NSW, told the National Press Club the government faces an “uphill battle” in the cases.

He said the high court was “unlikely ... [to] permit the government a back door” to the requirement that the federal government needs parliamentary approval to spend taxpayer money.

Williams also said it was difficult to construe the $122m as unforeseen or urgent, because the survey was urgent only “because of the government’s own political priorities” and the issue of same-sex marriage and a plebiscite had been debated “for some time”.

Former prime minister, Tony Abbott, who has been campaigning against same-sex marriage on the basis it will harm religious freedom, told 2GB Radio on Wednesday his position was not “driven by religion”.

“It’s driven by the fact that marriage is what produces families, families are what produces communities, societies and nations.”

Although he accepted it was normal for gay couples to be parents, Abbott said “it’s best for kids, if possible, to have a mother and a father”.

“I’m old fashioned enough to think kids do best when they have a mother and a father – certainly we all need male and female role models in our lives and normally the best female and male role models are our mother and our father.”