It was the far right of the Liberal Party that devised the ludicrous idea of a plebiscite on same sex marriage, a desperate ploy to head off a parliamentary vote on an issue that had been handled with the Abbott government’s usual remarkable incompetence. And it was the right that is ultimately responsible for killing off the idea. It’s the big winner from that as well.
This morning, Nick Xenophon announced NXT would not be supporting legislation establishing the plebiscite, after consulting with his now-numerous colleagues. A short while later, Bill Shorten re-emphasised to Caucus that there was no case for what he termed “a $250 million publicly funded opinion poll”, although he stopped short of ruling out support altogether. But it now looks highly unlikely Labor will come around to backing the bill — preferring instead its own bill enabling same sex marriage. That means the plebiscite bill will fail in the Senate, saving taxpayers a nice wad of cash and sparing LGBTI Australians, and same-sex parents in particular, the ordeal of being vilified by religious groups for months on the basis of fictional claims that their parenting is a form of child abuse.
However, it was Eric Abetz who provided the means to kill off the whole idea. It was Abetz who, while presiding over a party that would cop a belting in the July election and lose all three of its House of Representatives MPs, declared in January that he would be ignoring the result of any plebiscite and voting against same sex marriage anyway. In doing so, he contradicted his enemy, Malcolm Turnbull. A number of far-right MPs then followed suit.
As Abetz would surely have understood, his declaration handed opponents of the plebiscite a deadly weapon: what was the point of a national vote if politicians were going to ignore it? That’s the reason why Shorten is now calling it an expensive opinion poll — because that’s all it will be. Abetz’s announcement provided the perfect pretext for Labor to oppose something that was, and is, electorally popular.
The government response is that blocking the plebiscite will kill off any progress on same sex marriage in this parliamentary term. Perhaps they’re right — the government controls what happens in the House of Representatives, and can prevent a bill enabling same sex marriage from ever coming to a vote or even being debated. But killing off the possibility of progress won’t kill off the discussion. Indeed, each time the government blocks a bill enabling same sex marriage, voters will be reminded of how much Turnbull, famously a strong advocate for same sex marriage, is controlled by the far-right, even those in exile like Eric Abetz. It can only undermine Turnbull further.
Which, of course, is the goal of Abetz and co — and of Tony Abbott, who seriously believes he has a chance of returning to the Prime Ministership as Turnbull’s leadership collapses. Having crafted the plebiscite to protect Tony Abbott, the far-right have destroyed it in order to damage the man who removed him — to the advantage of Abbott.
So, the far-right wins, Abbott wins, Labor wins, those who would have been vilified for months win. It’s hard to think of anyone who loses — except, of course, for Malcolm Turnbull. And, for that matter, same-sex couples, who continue have their rights violated. But the plebiscite was never intended to address that abrogation of a basic right — it was always about the internal politics of the Liberal Party.
Abbott is as cunning as a latrine rodent. First he publicly hands his enemy, Turnbull, the NBN sh*t sandwich then manages to bury a land mine in the form of the plebiscite.
Clearly, the NBN sandwich is yet to be digested, the evidence being the Federal Police raids on ALP employees in May & then on Parliament House last week. The contents of the sandwich may cause Turnbull & Co much more than a belly ache.
Obviously a typo there Guy, “…the perfect pretext for Labor to oppose something that was, and is, electorally popular.”
The plebiscite has never been popular with the public and in fact more than 50% of the public disagree with it, even more so when the expense is explained to them.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/sean-kelly/2016/21/2016/1469082402/fickle-polls
+1
Malcolm – see today’s Essential Report data – support for a plebiscite is 59% – down but still strong.
I might not have been right at the time Bernard, but It didn’t take long for the truth to catch up with me.
They sent us to war (Vietnam, Gulf War) without a plebiscite. So why now for an issue that we know is supported by a majority f voters?
Because ………. Jebus, that’s why.
Yes the real target here is Malcolm Turnbull – and Labor, the Greens and the Liberal hard-right all sit in perfect alignment on that. The latter two’s blocking moves (still just noise in Labor’s case) are designed to hurt him, and (hopefully) destabilize his leadership terminally.
I can understand the way party hard heads calculate these things, but why are the more idealistic “progressives” and in particular the Greens lining up with Abetz to promote Abbott?
Could it be that the Greens simply don’t want the issue to be resolved? As with the ETS, without marriage equality to campaign on they’ve lost one of their strongest election issues. Their position here is very similar to the calculations their Trot candidate in Grayndler candidate was making before the last election, when he said he “preferred Abbott to Turnbull, because it was easier to organize.”
You (rightly) called him out on that, BK, but appear to be giving a free kick to the same tactics now.
Its brutally cynical politics, and totally counterproductive. The losers are gay couples. And everyone else who just wants to get on with it, and stop obsessing over gay marriage.
The Greens want to issue resolved alright. It’s just that the plebiscite was never going to do that, so there’s no point in holding it.
I’m wondering if this scenario could play out.
1. Labor proposes a private members bill to allow SSM.
2. Turnbull then promptly informs the House that he will allow a conscious vote to which he and I expect members like Russell Broadbent would cross the floor for.
3. The ultra conservatives.though thoroughly incensed are politically neutered as is their golden boy Abbott for this round at least.
Turnbull would have shown remarkable cojones (at least for him politically) and the majority of the country would be applauding him. Although Labor would get the kudos for proposing it. most of the glory would be Turnbull’s. And we get this rather silly debate out of our political dialogue.
Just wondering.
That seems like the most reasonable suggestion.
Why don’t our politicians have the guts to cross the floor anyway, as they do in comparable countries?
Ah, that’s too complicated for Australian politicians and the Australian public a sleazy press would have a ball if a politician crossed the floor.
You’re absolutely right. That’s the only way Turnbull can come out of this looking like a winner. It would incense the right wing of his party, but by the same token it would also steal a lot of ammunition from them by having this settled quickly. Instead Turnbull is going to leave this festering which only helps his enemies.
I would love to think you were right but the realist in me believes that the 2016 election weakened Turnbull so much that he doesn’t have much political capital to play within his own party to stand up to the conservatives to which he appears beholden. If the Labor Party continues to oppose the plebiscite (I’m not convinced they will) this issue will still be a live one come the next election.