George Brandis was expected to make a cabinet submission this week but some MPs are demanding broad exemptions from anti-discrimination laws

The Turnbull government is wavering on its commitment to reveal details of its planned marriage equality plebiscite before the federal election because of deep divisions on crucial issues such as public funding and exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.



The attorney general, George Brandis, has consulted with all sides of the debate and was expected to bring a submission to cabinet this week so the Coalition party room could be consulted and the details announced before an election widely tipped for July.

Greens defend gagging own same-sex marriage bill amid Senate manoeuvres Read more

But conservative MPs have been demanding broad exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for officials and wedding service providers, including florists, bakers and reception centres. Government sources said there were concerns that the issue would become internally “divisive”.

Outspoken marriage equality advocate Warren Entsch said he still expected that all the details of the post-election plebiscite would be known before voters went to the polls. “That is what we clearly promised the voters and I am reassured that nothing will change,” he said.

But if the government does go to a 2 July double dissolution election, the next party room is likely to be in budget week, immediately before the election campaign begins, a time when internal divisions would be even more damaging. Senior government sources said pre-election announcement of the plebiscite details was no longer guaranteed or certain.

Malcolm Turnbull is a strong advocate of marriage equality but was forced to accept the Abbott government’s policy for a plebiscite even though he had personally argued against it.

Bill Shorten: Christensen and Bernardi remind us of the harm words can do Read more

Labor leader Bill Shorten said on Tuesday he was “appalled” Turnbull was sticking with the policy in a speech to the National Press Club when he said the next election would be fought on the issue of “leadership”.

“Just imagine the damage to a young person’s sense of self when they read taxpayer-funded advertising painting them as a second-class citizen. Imagine the effect on children who see Australian government-sponsored advertisements claiming their loving parents are not fit to marry,” he said.

“I have to say it is appalling that Turnbull, who knows better, is prepared to risk so much harm and waste so much money on such a low tactic.”

The issue was not raised in the Coalition party room on Tuesday, but was entangled in the tactical manoeuvring in the Senate, where Labor and the crossbench tried to bring on a debate and vote on marriage equality but were stymied by the Coalition and the Greens, because it would have undermined their deal to use the final sitting week to pass sweeping Senate voting changes. The Senate will now debate the matter on Thursday but won’t vote on it, and in any case it would have to pass the lower house also to become law.

It is understood the government has been considering “very limited” public funding for the “yes” and “no” campaigns as well as an official government-produced brochure outlining each case. The cabinet must also determine the exact question to be put and the extent to which the government will allow exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.



In its submission to the government, Australian Marriage Equality (AME) argued no public money should be provided to the “yes” or “no” campaigns, saying taxpayers should not fund “no” case arguments that could harm the health and wellbeing of LGTBI people. It says if public funding is to be allowed, it should be provided equally to the yes and no campaigns.

AME also argued for compulsory voting, with postal, pre-poll and overseas voting to be allowed, and said anti-discrimination exemptions should be limited to religious celebrants.

Rodney Croome, AME’s national director, said if the “government persists with its flawed policy of holding a plebiscite, the Australian people deserve to see the details so they can make up our own minds about whether it’s worth the immense cost”.

“The exemptions in the cross-party [marriage equality] bill currently before parliament are sufficient to ensure religious ministers won’t be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will. Broader exemptions are unnecessary and set a dangerous precedent,” Croome said.

“Australians do not want to see same-sex couples, or other couples including mixed-faith or mixed-race couples, turned away from bakeries, florists or reception centres.”

Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, has argued for far broader exemptions. “Freedom of conscience rights must also be extended to people of faith or no faith who supply services to the wedding industry,” he said.

“In the United States and Europe bakers, florists, photographers and wedding chapel owners have all fallen foul of the law, and in some cases have incurred big fines, for exercising their conscientiously held views about the truth of marriage. Clergy are not the only ones with freedom of conscience rights.”

It is understood conservative MPs are arguing for similarly broad exemptions.