The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, has said Malcolm Turnbull is facing his own “Jackie Kelly moment” after members of the Liberal party were reportedly caught distributing misleading anti-marriage equality pamphlets in Sydney.

The pamphlets were distributed this week by a group called Children’s Future, whose three directors are Liberal party members, Fairfax Media reported.

The pamphlets falsely claim a change to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage would trigger the “compulsory” adoption of the Safe Schools program in all Australian schools.

“The radical ‘Safe Schools’ content will become compulsory in all schools and anti-discrimination laws will be used against parents who object,” claims the group, which Fairfax says has links to the Catholic religious society Opus Dei.

At the 2007 federal election, the husband of former Liberal MP Jackie Kelly was caught distributing fake election pamphlets that claimed the Labor candidate for the western Sydney seat of Lindsay supported the construction of a mosque in the local area, and clemency for convicted terrorists.

Dreyfus said on Friday: “How can the prime minister, how can the attorney general be believed, when they try to give these assurances about the supposed respectful tone of the anti-marriage-equality campaign when members of their own party ... have been caught redhanded distributing this false, misleading and vicious material.

“It’s apparent from this material that, for example, children of same-sex couples are going to be used as pawns in the debate. It’s apparent that these members of the Liberal party were quite prepared to put false material into these pamphlets as part of this campaign.”

On Monday, Dreyfus is due to meet the attorney general, George Brandis, to discuss the government’s proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite.

The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, insists Dreyfus is only interested in the meeting going ahead because he wants to hear what the government is willing to compromise on.

Brandis confirmed on Sunday that the Coalition was prepared to negotiate with Labor to win its support for the plebiscite.

“[Dreyfus] wants to hear the arguments and issues, he’s doing so on behalf of the Labor party,” Shorten said on Friday. “But let’s be clear, we haven’t heard so far any good argument to support this plebiscite and I’m still waiting for the first one.”

Shorten said a free vote in parliament would stop scare tactics of the sort being used by Children’s Future. “We’ve just now seen breaking in the last few hours reports of quite hateful material being distributed, scaring people, linking a vote on marriage equality to all sorts of other issues,” he said. “I don’t know why Mr Turnbull wants to see this nation have a divisive debate at a time when we all need to be working together.

In a speech to the Freedom for Faith conference in Melbourne, Dreyfus reiterated his own opposition to the plebiscite.



“This government-proposed plebiscite – which will cost taxpayers more than $200m to hold – was indeed dreamed up by people who wish to delay and defeat the cause of marriage equality,” Dreyfus said.

“It’s an idea that became Coalition party policy after a six-hour party meeting when a desperate prime minister, Tony Abbott, was trying to shore up his leadership. Many of those on the frontbench who are now trying to sell the plebiscite as a good idea – Malcolm Turnbull and George Brandis are the two names I am thinking of – were vehemently opposed to a plebiscite when it was first raised.

“My reasons for deep concern about a plebiscite fall into three categories – the precedent it sets, the ridiculous cost to taxpayers, and the damage it could do to the LGBTI community.”

Shorten is expected to recommend that the Labor caucus block the plebiscite legislation when it meets in three weeks.

On Sunday, Brandis defended the government’s proposed architecture for the 11 February poll – including $15m of public funding for yes and no case advertising – but said the government was prepared to compromise.

He also conceded the plebiscite was “constitutionally unorthodox” and there could be “outliers” on either side of the debate who did not engage in civil debate.