Cabinet split over holding plebiscite or referendum for same-sex marriage public vote

Updated

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has played down a deepening public rift within his Cabinet over whether to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage.

Mr Abbott has suggested the Australian people vote on the issue after the next election, but he would not say whether that should happen through referendum or plebiscite.

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison, who is against gay marriage, is pushing for a referendum. Conservative Liberal senator and anti-gay marriage campaigner Cory Bernardi has also endorsed that option.

For a referendum to be successful it needs a national majority and the support of the majority of states.

A number of senior ministers have rejected the referendum option and are advocating for a plebiscite, which would only need a national majority to succeed.

Despite his government splitting over which option to choose, Mr Abbott said the party was united in its fundamental wish to include voters in the decision making process.

"We have a very clear position, this should go to the people in the next term of parliament," he said.

"The Liberal Party is a party which has always been a broad church and we've always been capable of having healthy and vigorous discussions."

Communications Minister and same-sex marriage advocate Malcolm Turnbull is one of those arguing against the referendum option. He has raised the possibility of holding a plebiscite, and holding it before the next election.

A plebiscite would not compel the Government to act, but Mr Turnbull said the Parliament could pass legislation to make the outcome of the vote binding.

"What I think you would need to do is pass a bill which legalised same-sex marriage, to go through the legislative process, and then have a provision in the bill which said it is not going to be law until a majority of Australians have voted in favour of it at a plebiscite," he said.

"And that would at least deal with the issue one way or another before the next election."

Mr Turnbull has warned of the consequences of making same-sex marriage an issue at the next election.

"This would be a red-hot issue at the election," he said.

"Obviously the Labor Party really wants that to happen, they want nothing more than that because they think the issue works for them."

Mr Turnbull said it should be up to Cabinet to decide what the next step was.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne told Channel Nine he also believed that if there was a people's vote it should be a plebiscite.

"There is no legal reason to change the Australian Constitution and so a referendum would cost a great deal of money, in fact only to achieve no outcome because there is no legal basis for a referendum," he said this morning.

Attorney-General George Brandis also backed the plebiscite option.

"If we were to take up the suggestion that the Prime Minister raised as a possibility, and merely as a possibility, of having a popular vote on this issue, then the way to do it would be through a plebiscite, not through a referendum," he said.

"Because no constitutional change would be necessary were the parliament or a future parliament ... to decide to legislate for same-sex marriage."

In Parliament, Senator Brandis had a chop at those who, like his Cabinet colleague Scott Morrison, had suggested a referendum.

"I know there are some who are not lawyers who have commented on it, but this is not an area of legal doubt," he told the Senate.

Nationals had 'every right' to be in party room

But there was support for a referendum from backbenchers, including Liberal Dennis Jensen.

Dr Jensen said he favoured a referendum because it effectively killed the push for a republic that had been hotly debated in the 1980s and 1990s.

"So one way or another a referendum puts the issue to bed," he said.

As MPs left Parliament last night, it was revealed senior Liberal Christopher Pyne had asked Nationals leader Warren Truss not to bring his MPs to the special meeting called on Tuesday to sort out the approach to same-sex marriage.

That angered George Christensen, a Nationals MP from Queensland.

"Mr Pyne doesn't run the show, Mr Abbott does," he said.

"The Nationals have got a right to be in the Coalition party room.

"If we've got ministers that are saying they don't want the Nationals in there when decisions [are] made, then boy oh boy isn't it going to be tricky for them when the Nationals take a different point of view on every Government policy.

"So it was only right and appropriate and fair that the Nationals were in that room."

This article includes interactive enhancements which are not supported on this platform. For the full interactive experience in this article, you will need a modern web browser with JavaScript enabled. Find out more about browser support at ABC News Online.

Gay marriage: What are the options?

Coalition moves to free vote



This would see Coalition MPs and senators, including ministers, not bound to a party position after the next election. They would be able to cast a free vote on the basis of their conscience. The outcome of any vote would depend on the makeup of the new parliament.

Plebiscite



This would be a national vote that would need an overall majority to succeed. A plebiscite is usually taken on a matter of national significance that does not affect the constitution. The Government is not compelled to act on the result. It may not be mandatory. There have only been three national plebiscites in Australia – on military conscription, overseas military commitment and the national anthem. The last plebiscite was in 1977.

Referendum



This would be a vote across the country, needing a "double majority" - the majority of states and a national majority - to succeed. The outcome of the vote is binding and means constitutional change. There have been 44 attempts to change the constitution since Federation, and eight have been successful. Conservatives favour this option because it has the least chance of success.

This would see Coalition MPs and senators, including ministers, not bound to a party position after the next election. They would be able to cast a free vote on the basis of their conscience. The outcome of any vote would depend on the makeup of the new parliament.This would be a national vote that would need an overall majority to succeed. A plebiscite is usually taken on a matter of national significance that does not affect the constitution. The Government is not compelled to act on the result. It may not be mandatory. There have only been three national plebiscites in Australia – on military conscription, overseas military commitment and the national anthem. The last plebiscite was in 1977.This would be a vote across the country, needing a "double majority" - the majority of states and a national majority - to succeed. The outcome of the vote is binding and means constitutional change. There have been 44 attempts to change the constitution since Federation, and eight have been successful. Conservatives favour this option because it has the least chance of success.

Support for same-sex marriage could come with political price: Roy

Queensland LNP MP Wyatt Roy is among a handful of government backbenchers who have publicly said they would cross the floor to support legalising same-sex marriage if a bill comes before the Parliament before the next election.

He conceded his outspoken position could have political consequences.

"In the last campaign because my view was widely stated, there was a very aggressive campaign against me on this single issue," Mr Roy told ABC local radio on the Sunshine Coast.

"I accept that it comes with a political cost ... but at some point as a politician surely you would think, 'let's do what we think is right, not what's just going to get me the most votes'.

"If every calculation was made about what gets me the most votes, you'd actually have a government that does nothing good for the country."

The Member for Longman won his seat by 11,592 votes and had a 5 per cent swing towards him in the 2013 election.

"I do feel strongly about this — as a conservative, I think long-term, loving, committed relationships are a very good thing for our country," Mr Roy said.

"I think the institution of marriage is so good that I want to see more of it, not less of it.

"Issues like this should be above politics, and calculations about how many votes you get should be taken out of the fray, and I think this again is a great reason why all Australians should have their say on an issue as important as this."

Topics: marriage, laws, lgbt, federal-government, liberals, nationals, australia

First posted