Decision to give $7.5m to each side strengthens Labor opposition, meaning the plebiscite proposal is all but certain to be lost in the Senate

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

Cabinet has approved a plan to give $7.5m in public funding to both the yes and no campaigns in the marriage equality plebiscite, but Labor has warned that makes it even more likely to block the popular vote.

According to reports on Monday night cabinet approved a plan for a plebiscite on 11 February that will ask voters: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

The cabinet position is a win for conservative MPs who argued publicly on Monday that a “proper” plebiscite required taxpayer funds to persuade and inform voters, although the sum is less than their nominated figure of $10m for each side.

The provision of public funding is likely to result in Labor blocking the plebiscite, together with the Greens, Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch.

On Tuesday Liberal senator Dean Smith announced he would abstain or cross the floor to block the plebiscite, describing it as an “abhorrent” departure from representative democracy.

Smith said public funding “added insult to injury”, Fairfax media reported.

The Labor deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, told ABC radio the opposition had “deep concerns” about the plebiscite and the cabinet position “doesn’t allay any of those concerns, in fact it worsens them”.

Only one person has something to gain from a marriage equality plebiscite | Peter Lewis Read more

“The idea that we’ll have a $15m publicly-funded battle, when we’ve already seen the sort of material that’s put out against marriage equality, and we’ve got organisations engaged in this debate saying anti-discrimination law and rules around advertising should be suspended,” she said.

Concerns have been raised over how public funding would be spent. The Australian Christian Lobby has said it will argue against the “consequences” of same-sex marriage, not simply against the change itself.

The ACL director, Lyle Shelton, told Radio National on Tuesday: “It’s been a very one-dimensional debate about the love of two people, but there’s been very little discussion about the consequences.”

He said those consequences included “programs like Safe Schools” and “genderless sex education”.

Reports also suggested cabinet wanted to cap tax-deductible donations to each campaign at $1,500 per individual.

As the Liberal party room met on Tuesday morning, Guardian Australia confirmed the proposal includes a 10-person committee for both the yes and no campaigns to determine which organisations will get a share of funding to run the cases.

The committee will consist of two government members, two from the opposition, one from the crossbench and five citizens selected by attorney general, George Brandis, in consultation.

The plebiscite proposal will be discussed by a joint Coalition party room later on Tuesday, with legislation expected to be introduced on Wednesday.

The Liberal senator Chris Back told the Senate on Monday he would vote according to the majority of his home state, Western Australia, rather than abide by the national result of the plebiscite.

Back called on parliament’s 225 members to do the same, saying they should vote according to the majority in their state in the case of senators or electorate in the case of lower house MPs.

On Monday the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, kept his options open, telling parliament any funding provided to the yes or the no case would be “scrupulously equal and fair”.

On Tuesday Plibersek said “nothing about this proposal is fair”.

“This is an expensive delaying tactic designed by the conservatives in the Liberal party to prevent marriage equality.

“This is not about giving Australians a say, it’s about making sure that every opportunity is used that prevents something a majority of Australians supports.”

On Monday the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, ratcheted up Labor’s stance against the plebiscite by warning it could put vulnerable LGBTI youth at risk of self-harm or even suicide.

Plibersek defended Shorten’s decision to link the plebiscite to suicide, saying LGBTI people were five times more likely to have major depressive episodes and 15 times more likely to have suicidal ideation.

“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say we should be concerned about that,” she said. “Young kids growing up hearing that there’s something wrong with the fact they’ve got two mums or two dads – why should their family be subject to that sort of public criticism?”

Speaking on Tuesday the leader of the opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, questioned Malcolm Turnbull’s mandate for a plebiscite because he “didn’t go to an election saying he’d shovel a whole heap of money at people who have said some pretty horrible things”.

She noted the ACL had described children of same-sex couples as a new “stolen generation”.

“They attack us for who we are – and they attack our children, this is what that taxpayer money is going to be used for.”

Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Australia blasted the decision to grant public funding.

Veteran gay rights campaigner Rodney Croome said he was concerned the question would ask about a “change to the law” which he said was “unnecessary and distracts attention from the key issue”.

“A simple question would be something like ‘do you believe same-sex couples should be able to marry’.”