Australian Christian Lobby says the Coalition’s decision to hold a plebiscite after the next election succeeded in ‘blunting’ the momentum of the drive for marriage equality

The Australian Christian Lobby has boasted that the decision to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage after the next election succeeded in “kicking the issue into the long grass” and “blunting” the momentum of the marriage equality lobby – exacerbating concerns that the Abbott-era policy has been adopted by the Turnbull government.



Eric Abetz: Coalition MPs will not be bound by plebiscite on marriage equality Read more

The remarks – in a column written for the rightwing US lobby group the Heritage Foundation – come as Coalition divisions over whether politicians should vote to implement the outcome of the plebiscite spread to the National party, after Guardian Australia revealed on Wednesday that prominent conservative senator Eric Abetz believed every Coalition MP would be free to decide how to cast their parliamentary vote on marriage equality regardless of the outcome of the $160m plebiscite.

The Australian Christian Lobby argued in favour of the idea of holding a plebiscite after the next election long before it was adopted by the Abbott government, and in a little-noticed blogpost on the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blog site, the Daily Signal, the ACL’s executive director said the process, by then adopted by Abbott, would have the effect of “kicking the issue into the long grass” and “blunting” the momentum of the marriage equality lobby.

In the post, written shortly after the change in prime ministership last September, Lyle Shelton wrote that “Abbott, a social conservative, had been effective in holding back a relentless campaign to change the definition of marriage in recent years”.

But he said the results of the Irish referendum and the US supreme court decision to legalise same-sex marriage had sent “Australia’s same-sex marriage political movement ... into overdrive cheered on by a campaigning media” culminating in the marathon Coalition party room meeting on the issue.

“Abbott emerged from that meeting announcing the Coalition had decided to use its numbers to block the introduction into the Australian parliament of yet another bill to change the definition of marriage,” Shelton wrote.

“Instead, a people’s vote known as a plebiscite would be held sometime after the 2016 election, kicking the issue into the long grass (putting the issue off) and blunting the momentum of same-sex marriage lobbyists.”

Speaking to Guardian Australia on Thursday, Shelton said he had been “making an assessment of the impact what had happened” in the blog.

Personal, political, persistent: how the campaign for marriage equality learned the hard way Read more

“I was happy the momentum was blunted because I thought the issue was being rushed and it needed more discussion with the Australian people,” he said, adding that he believed politicians should vote according to the results of a plebiscite and “respect the views of the people”.

Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said Shelton’s comments in the blog “expose the real agenda behind his group’s advocacy for a plebiscite which was to delay marriage equality and take it off the agenda”.

“It’s the height of hubris for opponents of marriage equality to think they can use $160m taxpayer dollars in an attempt to delay the aspirations of a majority of Australians. A plebiscite was meant to smooth over divisions in the Coalition, but it has completely failed to achieve this with ever more conservatives declaring they will vote how they want,” he said.

“As a policy option the plebiscite is collapsing under the weight of its own cynicism so we call for Mr Turnbull to return legislation to parliament as soon as possible so reform can pass and Australia can move on.”

After Abetz’s remarks, frontbenchers Arthur Sinodinos and Steve Ciobo argued there would be no point to holding a plebiscite if politicians did not heed its verdict, echoing statements by Malcolm Turnbull last year when he said that “when the Australian people make their decision, that decision will stick ... It will be decisive. It will be respected by this government and by this parliament and this nation”.

But on Thursday two National party MPs, Michael McCormack and Bridget McKenzie, appearing together to announce a regional policy, were asked whether politicians should exercise their parliamentary votes in line with the national vote in the plebiscite and gave opposite answers.

McCormack said: “I would support the will of the people. If the plebiscite said yes to same-sex marriage I would support the fact that the will of the people said that way right across the notion and I would support that. I don’t believe that if there’s a plebiscite which do cost a lot of money which are going out to what the people want if the people of Australia want that then I think it’s up to the parliament then to honour that commitment by the people.”

McKenzie said: “I vote with my conscience on every issue and my conscience on this matter is that I would vote against same-sex marriage.”

Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who said on Wednesday he would never vote for same-sex marriage, derided the plebiscite as “a glorified opinion poll”.

“No government should be bound by that,” he told Sky News on Thursday.

“I think there are many members of parliament who are happy to bow to the whims of what is populist public opinion [but] I’ve never been one of those.”

Assistant minister to the Treasurer Alex Hawke also opposes same-sex marriage, but told Sky News that if the Australian public voted yes he would respect that.

“I’d expect most parliamentarians would respect the will of the Australian people one way or the other – and that’s why you have a plebiscite,” he said. “I’m not certain why some people are coming out and saying they wouldn’t respect the judgment of the Australian people.”

The divisions over marriage equality – which Turnbull has long supported – play into Labor’s attack that the prime minister sacrificed his principles to achieve the top job.

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese said Turnbull was “at war with himself”.

“Turnbull’s at war with the positions that he has held over a political lifetime on the republic, on marriage equality, on taking serious action to avoid dangerous climate change. He has gone from someone who is prepared to stand up for his beliefs when he lost the leadership of the Liberal party ... to the exact opposite of a conviction politician, someone who’s traded all of his principles for the keys to the Lodge and that will be the battle at the election this year,” Albanese said.