As Warren Entsch introduces doomed private member’s bill, PM says decision must be ‘a people’s choice’, despite cabinet colleagues insisting referendum is unnecessary

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Tony Abbott has kept open the possibility of a constitutional referendum on same-sex marriage, despite senior ministers declaring such a step unnecessary.

The prime minister also indicated the cabinet would not resolve the government’s divisions over the issue at a meeting on Monday, while several of his backbenchers pushed ahead with the introduction of a cross-party bill to legalise same-sex marriage.

Cabinet ministers engage in open warfare on same-sex marriage Read more

The Liberal National party backbencher Warren Entsch presented the private member’s bill to the House of Representatives on Monday. It would allow any two people to marry, and have their marriage recognised, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

The bill was seconded by the Labor MP for Griffith, Terri Butler, and has support from Teresa Gambaro (LNP), Laurie Ferguson (Labor), Adam Bandt (Greens), Cathy McGowan (independent) and Andrew Wilkie (independent).



The debate was adjourned to a future date but the bill is not considered likely to proceed to a vote in the house. Entsch pushed ahead with its introduction despite the firm opposition of Abbott.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Terri Butler accuses Tony Abbott of ‘doing everything in his power to try and stop marriage equality’. Link to video

The Coalition decided at a six-hour meeting last week not to grant its MPs a free vote on the issue during this term of parliament and the prime minister has instead proposed a “people’s vote” some time during the next term.

Government ministers have publicly disagreed over the timing and form of such a vote.

The attorney general, George Brandis, has rejected a suggestion by the social services minister, Scott Morrison, that there be a referendum.

Brandis pointed out that such a proposal was “not necessary” because a referendum was used only to change the constitution and the high court had made it clear that federal parliament had the power to make a law in relation to same-sex marriage.

Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne, who both attended the house to hear Entsch’s speech, have backed Brandis’s argument that a plebiscite would be the only option for a people’s vote.

Turnbull said on Sunday that a referendum to confirm parliament’s pre-existing power to legislate for same-sex marriage could “involve the expenditure of well over $100m in an exercise in futility”.

But Abbott carefully kept open both the referendum and plebiscite options when he was asked a direct question about the preferred mechanism on Monday. “The important thing is that it’s got to be a people’s choice,” he said.

“The decision that came very strongly out of our party room last week was that this should not be the politicians’ decision, it should be the people’s decision, and that’s what will happen in the next term of parliament.”

Abbott said the “loose ends” from the party-room meeting would be dealt with “in the next couple of weeks” – after a call from Brandis for the government to make a decision “very soon”.

Asked whether it would be resolved at a cabinet meeting on Monday evening, the prime minister said: “We’re not going to dwell on this and we’re not going to drag out the process, but no – what I think is that we’ve got a lot on our plate today but very shortly we will finalise the precise process for going forward, but it will be a people’s decision and it will be in the next term of parliament.”

Entsch said the introduction of the bill into the lower house was “significant and somewhat unique in that it has the rare distinction of enjoying very strong cross-party support”.

He said the bill did not create different classes of marriage. “It does not establish a hierarchy or ranking system pitting a marriage between a same-sex couple above that of a heterosexual couple or vice-versa,” he said.

“It provides absolute protection of religious freedoms not just in observance of section 116 of the constitution, but because you cannot replace one form of prejudice and discrimination with another.

“The main purpose of this bill is not a complex one – it is to give same-sex couples in Australia the same right to marry the person they love as that which is currently only granted by law to heterosexual couples.

“This bill is designed to promote an inclusive Australia, not a divided one. A divided nation is what we will be if we continue to allow discrimination in relation to marriage on the basis of a person’s sexuality.”

Entsch directly addressed his colleagues who oppose the change. “Colleagues, much of the evolution in our societal norms comes about through greater understanding,” he said. “Many aspects of tradition that were seen as ‘usual practice’ 50 or 100 years ago are today clearly unthinkable.

“As a progressive society, we need to continue to make appropriate changes to our legislation over time.

“We live in a modern society where women and Indigenous people have equal right to vote, mixed-race marriages are acceptable and being gay is not something to be ashamed of. We believe that when it comes to marriage equality, that time is now.”

Entsch told parliament some personal stories about his friends to support his case for changing the law.

He spoke of a Sydney couple, John and Arthur, aged 83 and 87 respectively, who had been together for more than 48 years.



“They are now in their sunset years and would dearly like to formalise their relationship – through the [institution] of marriage – before it’s too late,” Entsch said.

“After an almost 50-year commitment, their relationship is still regarded as second-rate under Australian law. That’s not good enough.”

Entsch said marriage equality brought out “very strong emotions right across the spectrum of viewpoints in our society”.

“However this issue progresses in the coming months and years, we need to continue to aim for a high standard of dialogue, and to deal with this issue with the respect, patience and dignity it deserves,” he said.