Night time politics
As we go to bed, the forces for marriage equality inside the Liberal party have been defeated once again.
Liberal senator Dean Smith had drafted a bill with the support of Tim Wilson, Trevor Evans, Warren Entsch and Trent Zimmerman.
But Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet met today and decided to take a united position to the party room, setting the not-so-compromise position of a plebiscite, a postal plebiscite and then only a free vote if a plebiscite returns a yes.
Turnbull presented it as a cabinet position, so reform supporters would have had to stare down their cabinet - a cabinet many would hope to enter some day.
In the end, only two Liberal MPs joined the five marriage equality MPs in the Liberal party room to ask to dump the plebiscite policy.
The remainder were split into two groups. There were those vehemently opposed to any change of the Marriage Act. (Think Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Kevin Andrews etc). Then there were those who did not want to dump the plebiscite because they had promised it at the last election. And they were looking into the eyes of their cabinet ministers.
And here is the rub.
Supporters of marriage equality have a double jeopardy. They have to get the issue to a plebiscite, then back to a free vote. If Australia or some part of it returns a yes, opponents can still vote no. But if Australia returns a no, supporters of marriage equality don’t get a free vote at all.
It’s a pretty cynical exercise.
That is enough for us tonight, otherwise I won’t have a chance to get to bed before I can get up again. Thanks for your company. In the morn, we will have the Coalition joint party room in full technicolour. Thanks Mike Bowers for your pics and the brains trust of Paul Karp, Katharine Murphy and Gareth Hutchens.
Night night.
The most patient man in the Coalition.
Entsch said he reserves his right to call for a free vote if the plebiscite fails. He makes the point that opponents of marriage equality reserve their right to vote against marriage reform even if the public votes yes.
Entsch said he will vote as he sees fit.
Warren Entsch said there are three groups; those opposed under any circumstances, those who don’t want to break a promise and supporters of marriage equality. He says the middle group would support marriage equality but don’t want to dump the plebiscite yet.
Entsch predicts that the plebiscite won’t be Liberal policy at the next election.
Give them a go.
LNP MP Warren Entsch is on 7.30 Report.
He is bloodied but unbowed.
He will keep fighting for marriage equality. Entsch said when he started this campaign, no one in Labor or Liberal wanted to talk about it. In his own party room, Entsch said they were ducking under tables to escape. In Labor, Kevin Rudd did not want to open the door to him. (Rudd only latterly came to support marriage equality.)
Young people hardly know how to send a letter, says Greens MP
Greens LGBTI spokeswoman, Janet Rice, said the decision was “a crushing disappointment, crushing the hopes and dreams of millions of Australians” who wanted to move to marriage equality.
With this decision, to be reprosecuting, rehashing a plebiscite, it’s a dead end: the numbers in the Senate are going to stop the plebiscite in its track once again ... I’m very confident the plebiscite is going nowhere.
Rice said the “threat of a postal plebiscite” was a “ridiculous distraction”. She warned that mail can go astray and many young people “hardly know how to send a letter ... it’s just not the way to be making a decision”.
Very good from Lane Sainty of Buzzfeed.
Here are the possible outcomes going forward... pic.twitter.com/1vKAafHPu4
— Lane Sainty (@lanesainty) August 7, 2017
— AntiManifesto (@MrRobertsDTD) August 7, 2017
Updated
Liberal MP Craig Kelly told Guardian Australia debate in the party room was respectful and he said it was important that the government stick with its election commitment for a plebiscite.
Kelly said there was a sense in debate “the [government’s] Senate negotiating team should be given wider latitude” to attempt to get the plebiscite policy through the Senate.
Specifically, he suggested the Turnbull government could compromise by ditching the $15m of public funds for each of the yes and no case in the plebiscite “because there’s been so much debate it may not be needed”, and even consider “what the bill would look like”, ie adopt the improvements of senator Dean Smith’s bill rather than stick with the George Brandis bill it first put up.
Specifics about the postal plebiscite are thin on the ground – Kelly suggested it would be held “as soon as possible” and another MP said it was “kind of implied” the government would aim to hold it by the end of the year.
Kelly conceded there were concerns about the constitutional question of whether the postal plebiscite requires legislation to make an appropriation.
Other concerns included its integrity, and whether voters would be disenfranchised, but he said the government would give it “as much legitimacy as possible” if it had to rely on its plan B.
Updated
For the readers below who are asking, as we understand it there was only one vote.
Do you want to dump the plebiscite policy?
Seven people said yes.
Given the cabinet had taken a position of plebiscite, postal and then free vote, the cabinet members were bound by that. As a result, the prime minister did not have to vote in an active way.
Drum roll ... and the winner of the Liberal party room debate is ...
Updated
Gay and lesbian people once again watch as politics trumps their dignity
Tiernan Brady, the executive director of Australians for Equality, said the Liberal party room’s decision meant that gay and lesbian people had watched “as politics trumped their dignity once again, they watched as they were considered to be sacrificial lambs for the case of political stability”.
Brady said that the importance of same-sex marriage marriage is its impact on gay and lesbian people who are Australians friends, family and co-workers.
The reason we are talking about this today is because of them, it’s because the energy they have brought over the last six months as they proved to this government that we will not go away, we will not quietly wait for our dignity to come in 10 years or in 15 years ... they have proved to everyone it will not leave the agenda.
So, @TurnbullMalcolm's solution? Plebiscite 2.0, voluntary postal plebiscite & a free vote only if 'Yes' wins. Heads I win, tails you lose.
— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) August 7, 2017
Luke Howarth MP says he supports the plebiscite.
Andrew Laming MP says he knows it is unfashionable but the Coalition is going to fight to fulfill its promises.
Breaking: Nick Xenophon has told me his senators will "absolutely" oppose the reintroduced plebiscite, dooming it.
— Mark Di Stefano 🤙🏻 (@MarkDiStef) August 7, 2017
Just for the record - six Libs physically spoke in favour at meeting, and a letter from Evans was read out. #auspol
— Paul Osborne AAP (@osbornep) August 7, 2017
A Liberal takes issue with my characterisation of the small number of supporters for a free vote. At issue, the MP says, was keeping faith with Liberal voters. We promised it so we supported the cabinet position to find a path through. No one wants to go to the next election with this hanging over their heads. Well, except maybe Tony Abbott who has said as much.
Bill Shorten: Another day, another argument
The opposition leader says he will just get on and do it.
I am disappointed for hundreds of thousands of Australians that their prime minister has once again let them down.
The Liberals have spent yet another day arguing over whether or not gay and lesbian Australians should have their relationships judged by everyone else.
Wages aren’t growing, living standards are falling, power prices are through the roof, we’ve got a housing affordability crisis.
But instead of figuring out what to do about all of that – they all sat in a room and argued about marriage equality.
Another day spent fighting with each other over an issue that we could sort out in five minutes if Mr Turnbull would just let the parliament do its job and vote on it.
I can’t control what the government does. But if Labor is elected, we’ll legislate for marriage equality in our first 100 days.
We’ll just get on with it and get it done.
Updated
Cross the floor! Cross the floor!
Equality advocates have urged Liberal marriage equality supporters to cross the floor and vote the reform through.
Long-time marriage equality advocate, Rodney Croome:
It’s very disappointing that the Liberal party has failed to do the right thing by the Australian people, but there is still a way forward. We urge Liberals who support marriage equality to table marriage equality legislation and cross the floor to vote for it.
Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays national spokesperson, Shelley Argent:
We will lobby the Senate to continue to oppose a plebiscite and we will move to have a postal vote struck down in the High Court.
We do not accept, and will never accept, the demeaning terms and conditions the Government has attached to marriage equality.
Rainbow Families Victoria spokesperson, Felicity Marlowe:
Our families should not be subjected to the hate and fear-mongering we know will be enabled by a plebiscite or postal vote.
A free vote in Parliament is the only legitimate way to deal with marriage equality.
Just.equal spokesperson, Ivan Hinton-Teoh:
The plebiscite is set to fail in the Senate and the postal vote may well fail in the high court.
We urge sensible Liberals to short circuit this continuing national embarrassment and force a vote.
Updated
After the polite flying of the fur
After special party room meetings, accounts of proceedings can differ depending on who you speak to.
A few things are clear – when the prime minister asked at the conclusion of tonight’s proceedings how many people wanted to dump the plebiscite now and move to a free vote – only a small group of hands went up. Some people say six. Others say eight.
So the Liberal party’s position now is this: the plebiscite stands in the first instance, followed by a postal plebiscite if the parliament won’t change its mind on option one.
Another thing that is also clear: a lot of Coalition MPs aren’t happy with the postal plebiscite as a concept, and expressed reservations in the room.
The Victorian Liberal Russell Broadbent said the government needed to just stick with the original plebiscite – so did Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews.
Abbott in his contribution said voters had gained the impression the government didn’t fight for things, or stand for anything, when it walked away from its commitments. That bit of commentary won a rebuke from Malcolm Turnbull, who pointed out the government stood for plenty of things here.
Liberals Julian Leeser and Andrew Laming argued if the government tried hard enough, they would get the plebiscite through.
Longtime equality campaigner Warren Entsch, was, according to colleagues, the only one of the pro-conscience vote group of MPs to publicly reserve his position on the bill in the meeting.
Mathias Cormann would not say whether the Famous Five promised not to take their bill to the floor of the parliament, as they are entitled to do.
I’m not going to go into the detail of the party room discussion. You wouldn’t expect me to.
So we don’t know what Liberal supporters of marriage equality will do next.
Don’t take the reported seven votes for a free vote as a true indication of the support for marriage equality in the Liberal party room. There are more, but for a range of reasons they cannot or have not voted for what they believe in.
For instance, cabinet members are bound by the cabinet position of Pleb, Postal Pleb & Free Vote. Other members have not come out, so to speak, for their own reasons, including pressure from various quarters in their own party room.
Co-chairs Alex Greenwich, Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and Anna Brown, of the Equality Campaign are expressing their disappointment soon after Cormann’s press conference.
Greenwich thanks the Famous Five for standing up in the party room.
Brown says the Liberal party has broken the hearts of gay and lesbian people in Australia.
Updated
Mathias Cormann is asked, if there was a private member’s bill, would members still be bound?
I think that I very clearly expressed the position of the government.
I think that is a yes.
Asked how the government would pay for the postal plebiscite,
The government believes that there is a legal and constitutional way for the government to facilitate a voluntary, non-legislated postal plebiscite, says Cormann.
Updated
The timeframe will be determined by the joint party room tomorrow.
If there is a no vote on the plebiscite, whichever one they use, there will be no free vote.
The public determines they are not in favour of changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, then the government will not be facilitating consideration of a private member’s bill to change the law.
(So you see the yes case has extra hurdles. If a plebiscite brings in a resounding yes, opposing MPs can still vote no. But if the plebiscite brings in a no, by 51%, marriage supporters in parliament do not get to express a view.)
Nice.
Cormann: MPs still not bound by plebiscite or postal plebiscite
Mathias Cormann says MPs won’t be bound by any plebiscite outcome, no matter whether it is compulsory or voluntary postal.
(Which means its not much use...)
The position of the government is that if the plebiscite vote comes back with a ’yes’ vote in favour of changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, we will have a private member’s bill to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. There would be a free vote informed by the plebiscite outcome and our expectation would be that that law would pass the parliament.
The joint party room tomorrow (Tuesday) will decide the processes going forward following the Liberal party room decision. (The Nats also support the plebiscite policy.)
The plebiscite bill is for a compulsory attendance plebiscite.
If it were to fail, the government believes it has a legal way forward through a non-legislated voluntary postal plebiscite, says Cormann.
Updated
Mathias Cormann reports the Liberal party reaffirmed the plebiscite policy.
The government intends to put the same bill back to the Senate to consider.
Updated
Cormann is up now.
So by reaffirming the plebiscite, we are back to square one.
The Senate has knocked back a plebiscite once before.
Then we go to a postal plebiscite.
The government maintains it doesn’t need a legislation for a postal plebiscite.
Marriage equality advocates maintain they have legal advice suggesting the government does need legislation (because it needs to make a budget appropriation to foot the bill).
Updated
Although the photo of Malcolm Turnbull at the top of the blog is one Bowers prepared earlier, it is a fair reflection of the discomfort felt by the PM on this issue.
Turnbull is a marriage equality supporter. He was against plebiscites until he was for them. He was against postal plebiscites (in the republic debate) until he was for them.
Reports are filtering out – which we are currently substantiating – that only seven MPs supported a free vote.
That is the Famous Five plus presumably Victorian MP Jason Wood, who flagged his support with Katharine Murphy last week and John Alexander, Bennelong MP.
Updated
Finance minister Mathias Cormann is speaking in five minutes.
This meeting, at only two hours, was a lot shorter than the last six-hour marathon meeting.
Updated
Liberal meeting has broken: pretty much status quo
The party room meeting is over after two hours.
The party has added a third hurdle to marriage equality.
Jump the plebiscite (which has been blocked by the Senate).
Then jump the postal plebiscite (which will be immediately challenged in the high court by marriage equality advocates).
Then you might get a free vote.
Updated
Good evening good blogan people,
Long time no see. I trust you all got on with your lives, keeping calm and carrying on. Back in the political wonderland that is known as Australian parliament, the break has not been much of a break. The Winter Of Our Discontent was dominated by the marriage equality issue as well as imploding senators and the ghosts of citizenships past.
We have taken to this special edition of #politicslive, on the evening before parliament to bring you all the news from the Special Liberal Party Room Meeting On Marriage with a capital M.
The reason we have come to this point is that Liberal senator Dean Smith has put a private senator’s bill together for marriage equality and associated religious freedom. As a result, the Coalition had no choice but to determine whether its MPs were allowed a conscience vote on the issue. More in sorrow than in anger, Malcolm Turnbull called the special meeting last week.
There has been a small and determined group in the Coalition calling for a free vote, who have since been dubbed the Famous Five. They are
-
Dean Smith and lower house Liberal MPs:
-
Trent Zimmerman
-
Warren Entsch
-
Trevor Evans
- Tim Wilson.
Going into the party room, it wasn’t sounding hopeful for our happy few.
Before the meeting started, cabinet had its regular knees-up this morning and allegedly endorsed a plan to put to the party room.
Via various sources in the party room, cabinet wants the following process:
- Plebiscite.
- If the plebiscite gets blocked, a postal plebiscite.
- Only if both of the above are exhausted, a free vote.
So in the event that the free vote is blocked, the most fascinating part was what next?
Join us below or on the Twits @gabriellechan.
Updated
