It’s not always a sensible strategy to deploy logic when it comes to fathoming what the Coalition may be up to on any given issue, but in this case, logic helps, even when the subject in question is marriage equality.



Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen Christopher Pyne overshare in a bar, then Malcolm Turnbull try to contain the subsequent fallout by publicly recommitting to a plebiscite, then a short period of radio silence, followed by the Liberal senator Dean Smith clearing his throat meaningfully in a Sunday paper.

Smith has now committed to pursuing the private members bill to legalise same sex marriage (he was already pursuing that before Pyne told everyone in the government what they already knew, given it was hidden in plain sight) – and some conservatives pretended to be shocked and outraged by the outbreak of progressive infamy in order to try to kill Smith’s bill.

Christopher goes the Full Pyne as moderates’ roast gives conservatives indigestion Read more

Interestingly, Turnbull seems less intent than he did a couple of weeks ago, at the height of the Pyne bodice ripping frenzy, about trying to head this issue off at the pass.

The plebiscite, Turnbull noted over the weekend, was Coalition policy, but everyone knows Smith has a personal stake in the issue. “Dean crossed the floor against the plebiscite bill in the Senate, you know, so he has a longstanding view on it,” the prime minister told travelling reporters, soothingly.

So what the hell is going on, you ask?

Utterly reasonable question.

To put our story together, we need to take a big step back and examine the requisite parts. The first thing to understand is the Smith bill gets the marriage equality issue back to the Liberal party room for debate. That’s actually quite critical. It gets the issue back in the door.

Having a concrete proposal to discuss will trigger an internal conversation about whether the Coalition should now move past the plebiscite to a conscience vote position on marriage equality.

It’s hard to have that conversation without a trigger, and a bill is a trigger.

Malcolm Turnbull kills off moderate Liberals' push for marriage equality bill Read more

Given the prime minister now has fair warning it’s coming, he’s likely to make some necessary preparations between now and when the parliamentary circus resumes in August, which in layman’s terms, probably means sounding out Cabinet and war gaming some options.

The Coalition’s internal conversation, when the issue ultimately hits the party room, could play out in a number of different ways. Let’s consider some of them.

It could play out with a majority of MPs saying it’s time to ditch the plebiscite, move to a conscience vote, and, voila, here’s a bill where we can all exercise our consciences.

It could play out with MPs saying let’s keep the plebiscite until the next election, and have a free vote in the new term.

Or it could play out by people arguing the plebiscite should be brought back before the parliament so that voters remember the parliament (and not the government) rejected it; or perhaps via another mechanism, like the postal plebiscite Peter Dutton floated a little time back, to give conservatives some cover.

Who was that again? Peter Dutton. A leading conservative, who was looking for a way forward on same sex marriage, with the support of another leading government conservative, Mathias Cormann.

Now why would that be?

Well, because no pragmatic conservative with a shot of taking the party leadership in the fullness of time wants to inherit an unresolved government position on same sex marriage. That’s just poison. It’s weight in your saddle bags.

Peter Dutton backs voluntary postal plebiscite on marriage equality Read more

It’s true some conservatives are completely implacable on marriage equality, and will look to thwart progress at every turn, because for them, this is a threshold values question.

For others, it’s values, overlaid with cause of convenience. Some just need this to remain rolling mayhem for Turnbull. (Hello, Tony).

It is also true that not all conservatives are created equal on this issue. Some just need a solution, because they are playing a longer game.

So, in summary, it’s important to understand there isn’t just a simple binary split – there are multiple agendas in play, and our story could have a number of different endings.

The other thought to bring into the mix is this might prove to be a difficult conversation inside the Liberal party about a single policy issue – about same sex marriage – or it might develop into something far more operatic, depending on how the next few weeks go, and depending on the mood of the various protagonists.

Logic (and experience) tells us this particular conversation, for Turnbull, is dangerous. He can’t control what goes to the party room. Ultimately he can’t control what goes to the parliament.

The only means the prime minister has to stay on top of a complicated and seriously vexed issue is to do something very old-fashioned – deploy some conduct considered near extinct in Australian politics.

He will have to plot all the points on his compass, with care and precision.

He will have to decide what sort of government he leads.

And then he will have to lead.