Illustration: Jim Pavlidis On his return, Turnbull needs to make it as difficult as possible for the opposition to hold its nerve and vote down what Labor has branded a divisive, expensive and unnecessary national opinion poll on marriage equality – and demand instead that Parliament do its job and decide the issue. His big weapon is that there is no plan B, meaning marriage equality advocates will have to wait at least another three years for the issue to resurface, when the composition of the Senate might be even more problematic. This is unlikely to cut it. Labor insists the message from the LGBTI community is that it would rather wait and avoid homophobic hate-speech being unleashed by those opposing a "yes" vote in the plebiscite. This invites the conclusion that, while Indigenous Australians are fighting to get on a ballot paper to secure recognition, the gay community is fighting to get off one to secure equality. The Prime Minister's initial task is to consider changes to the plebiscite plan that address the main concerns of opponents, though this assumes the conservative flank of his partyroom will agree to them and that Labor will accept them. Right now, neither is likely. Consider the possible changes: the removal of public funding of $7.5 million for each side; making the vote "self-executing", so changes to the Marriage Act automatically follow a "yes" vote, without MPs who oppose marriage equality getting the chance to vote against them; and reducing the cost from an estimated $200 million. As Labor's Mark Dreyfus argues, the current plan would see publicly funded TV ads arguing that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights. "I think that is absolutely wrong," he told a Freedom for Faith conference in Melbourne on Friday. "And, if I think of a young and vulnerable LGBTI Australian in country Australia, far from any support network, watching those ads over Christmas and New Year, I fear for them."

Malcolom Turnbull without budgie smugglers, but looking ready for agility test, anyway. Credit:Peter Rae Labor would also oppose the publication of an electorate-by-electorate breakdown of the vote, out of concern that this could be used to fuel division, and it would demand a change to the proposed wording of the question. Rather than asking for agreement to allow same-sex couples to marry, Labor simply wants to remove the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman so any two human beings can marry, whatever their sexuality. While the defeat of plebiscite legislation would be a humiliating rebuff for Turnbull, voting it down would also be a big and risky step for Shorten. This is far from the best path to marriage equality, but it is the path Turnbull agreed to when he toppled Tony Abbott, the path he promised before the election and he is adamant there will be no going back and starting again. "There was no doubt about our policy," Turnbull told Parliament when introducing the plebiscite legislation on September 14. "Every Australian who took any interest in the election knew that was our policy. We have a mandate for it and the opposition should respect it."

The biggest concern about the plebiscite is the huge emotional toll it could take on young people seeing the legitimacy of their identity debated on the national stage. "A 'no' campaign would be emotional torment for gay teenagers," Shorten has told Parliament. "And if one child commits suicide over the plebiscite – then that is one too many." Herein lies Turnbull's biggest task: to instil confidence that the plebiscite campaign can be conducted in a way that unites the country and strengthens, rather than frays, the sense of national identity and cohesion – and challenge Shorten to help him in this project. There is also the need to persuade the LGBTI community that this is a fight worth having. "A successful plebiscite campaign will be the greatest anti-homophobic campaign this country has seen," says one well-placed observer. "Whenever there is a discussion around things like religious freedom and personal sexual morality in the future, the answer will be: we had that debate and you lost." Two polls by Essential Research this week provide a guide to the degree of difficulty. One, on marriage equality, inspires confidence: 60 per cent of a national vote supports a "Yes" vote, with 30 per cent opposed. The other, on Muslim immigration, is deeply troubling, with a staggering 49 per cent supporting a total ban. "This suggests Australia is going through another period of very, very ugly, black and white xenophobic fundamentalism in which we are afraid of otherness and Hansonesque in our attitudes," says social researcher Hugh Mackay. "That would show up in the plebiscite as well as the immigration debate."

Essential's Peter Lewis was so surprised by the result on Muslim immigration he had the poll done again, with the same result. He suggests three possible reasons behind it: the Australian tradition of rejecting each new wave of migration; concern about Islamic extremism and terrorism; and, perhaps most of all, the alienation of those disenfranchised by rising inequality. This points to another challenge requiring agility, conviction and courage in equal measure: to correct untruths and promote inclusion, equality and prosperity. It is also an opportunity: to be the sort of leader so many voters thought Malcolm Turnbull was going to be. Michael Gordon is political editor of The Age.