Historically, issues relating to marriage or sexuality have been treated as free votes by the Liberal Party. My position in the lead-up to the election was very clear. I said I supported a free vote and, if one were allowed, I would vote to recognise same-sex unions as a marriage. Other coalition members made similar commitments. I set out my views on the substantive issue of same-sex marriage in this lecture in 2012. Last week Last week this issue was considered in a Coalition party room meeting and it was clear that a majority of members – about two to one – did not agree with a free vote. At the end of the meeting, the Prime Minister saidthere would not be a free vote in this Parliament

However, this is the last parliament in which Coalition members can be bound to vote in accordance with the current party policy. He had a disposition to have a public vote on the issue in the course of the next parliament. What sort of public vote? Neither the Cabinet nor the party room has considered this matter and so there is not yet a concluded Government position, but two options have been mentioned. The first is a plebiscite, which simply means a public vote. There is no standing legislation to enable plebiscites, so Parliament would have to authorise it. One approach would be for Parliament to settle the terms of a bill to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage and then ask the people whether they approve of it.

Another may be to simply ask whether the people approve Parliament legislating to enable same-sex marriage provided that religious freedom is protected and in particular no person, including any church or minister of religion, would be required to solemnise any marriage other than in accordance with the principles of their own faith. Parliament would determine the manner in which the plebiscite is conducted, and I would expect that voting would be compulsory (as is our tradition in Australia). Some people have suggested there should be a referendum to amend the constitution. As the Attorney-General has spoken about this on Sky Agenda, I will just recap what he has said. In 2013, the High Court held, unanimously, that the power given to Parliament to legislate with respect to marriage does extend to legislating for same-sex marriage. In other words, the constitution does not need to be amended to allow same-sex marriage. An amendment to provide, for example, that "marriage" can extend to same-sex couples would, therefore, involve the expenditure of well over $100 million on an exercise in futility. If the amendment were approved, Parliament's current powers would be unchanged. If the amendment were rejected, Parliament's current powers would be unchanged.

The only constitutional amendment that would have any relevant effect on this matter would be one which expressly stated that Parliament did NOT have the power to describe same-sex unions as a marriage. I have not heard any opponents of same-sex marriage propose such an amendment. The best approach to this, in my view, therefore, is to consult the people openly and honestly, to set out the proposition before them and ask them to approve it or not. Timing of the plebiscite The government has not made a final decision on the timing of a plebiscite. The Prime Minister has indicated a disposition to have this considered after the next election. The party room has not debated the matter nor indeed has the Cabinet. As you may have seen, I have expressed the view a plebiscite should be before the next election. This is more a matter of political timing as opposed to political principle, and I recognise others would have a different view. But I want you to understand why I have expressed that opinion.

The definition of marriage and the manner in which same-sex unions are recognised are very important issues and they deserve to be considered calmly and thoughtfully. My view, for what it is worth, is that it would be better if same-sex marriage were not a contentious issue at the next election – there are sincere, conscientious differences of opinion throughout the community and on both sides of the political divide and issues like this are better dealt with outside of the frenzied hurly-burly of an election campaign. An election campaign lasts about 35 days – I would rather spend every one of them talking about economic management, how we ensure Australia's prosperity, how our free trade agreements will drive prosperity, how we are promoting innovation, technology and science and so on. Important though the matter is, talking about same-sex marriage every day will distract from the Coalition's core messages. malcolmturnbull.com.au