Julia Gillard has launched a passionate attack against Tony Abbott’s plan for a “people’s vote” on same sex marriage, saying the idea poses “real dangers” to democracy because it implies politicians are not capable of taking decisions or leading reforms.

Tony Abbott says 'it's OK to be gay' but insists same-sex marriage is not OK Read more

The former Labor prime minister, who was an opponent of same-sex marriage while in politics, said she had now changed her mind, and was particularly motivated to argue against Abbott’s plan because of the “long-lived dangers” it would pose for the political system.

Asked about Gillard’s comments, Abbott told Seven’s Sunrise program on Thursday: “Look, Julia Gillard will have an opportunity to cast her vote on this matter just as every other Australian will. Every voter, about 18 million of us, will have the chance to have our say on this in the next term of parliament should the Coalition get elected. I think this should be a people’s decision, not a politicians’ decision.”



Since a popular vote is not needed to change the definition of marriage, Gillard argued in the Michael Kirby lecture in Melbourne on Wednesday night, “the only foundation stone for the idea of a plebiscite or referendum is an appeal to the all too popular sentiment that politicians are inadequate, that their decision making is somehow deficient.”

“The derisory references to the ‘politicians’ choice’, makes the blunt nature of the populist appeal clear,” she said.

“There is truly something absurd about politicians themselves inviting the public to conclude that politicians are not up to making a decision. Particularly so, when it is actually in our nation’s interests to be bolstering belief in the capacity of our parliamentary system,” she said.

Gillard argued “the speed and temper of our times” was “already working to undermine faith in the ability of democracies to cope and to embrace reform” even as it became more necessary than ever.

“The bonds that bind government and the governed together are already fraying. Enabling our nation to ready for the future, to adopt the continuing stream of big changes necessary, requires thoughtful strengthening of those bonds, not unusual tactics calculated to increase the wear and tear. All this means a plebiscite or referendum is an idea of superficial appeal and long lived dangers.

“I am genuinely troubled about this proposal’s potential long term ramifications for our democracy and its capacity to sustain reform. Indeed, I am so worried, that as a former prime minister, I feel a responsibility to respectfully lay out a case for rejecting this idea of a plebiscite,” she said.

While in office Gillard always supported the idea marriage had to be between a man and a woman, but since leaving office has said she accepted things could change.

She said if she had a vote in parliament now she would vote for same-sex marriage and “if, much against my views about what is best for our nation, a plebiscite or referendum is held on same-sex marriage, then as a voter, I would certainly cast my ballot in favour of same sex marriage.”

The Coalition has been deeply divided over the same-sex marriage issue in recent weeks. Abbott said a recent six-hour party room debate concluded there should be a popular vote on the issue. He said the vote will be held after the next election and has left open the possibility it could be a plebiscite or a constitutional referendum.