data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ce83f/ce83fb56b07a82e9535da4bbb26bc158d695a132" alt="Dean Smith"
How a collection of supposedly rational adults found themselves in the position the Liberal Party room will be in at 4pm today will forever remain a mystery.
Yes, we know the process by which Tony Abbott tried to delay at best, and sabotage at worst, what is now widely viewed, even by opponents, as the inevitable reversal of the Howard government’s ban on marriage equality. Yes, we understand the difficult position Malcolm Turnbull is in with both his Coalition allies and conservatives within his party.
But the sum of all this is greater than its parts. It requires some sinister political curse to drive a political party to gather and endeavour to formulate a way in which it can continue to defy the will of the electorate and the inevitable, preferably via a means that will guarantee the issue of marriage equality continues to suck air from the government’s efforts to communicate its agenda with the force of an industrial vacuum cleaner.
The current, favoured “solution” — accepting that Dean Smith and his House of Representatives supporters won’t get their way — is the junkmail vote idea, followed by a parliamentary vote, in order to “honour” the party’s commitment to a plebiscite. It’s a second-rate version of a fifth-rate idea, a Plan Z for a party unwilling to consider any rational options. It is also, most likely, the least worst plausible option, if only because it will provide a way forward for the short time before a court knocks it (mis)appropriating money without legislative authorisation. Of course, a court might not knock it off, which could be even worse — assuming marriage equality supporters boycott it and younger voters ignore it, what chance a junkmail vote produces a “no” result? Technically, it doesn’t matter — homophobes within Liberal and LNP ranks have already said they’d ignore a positive outcome from a plebiscite. But it will look bloody stupid holding a parliamentary vote after a loss.
Smith and co are actually offering two sound reasons for moving to a parliamentary vote now: one, it gets the issue off the agenda, which everyone except Abbott, Abetz, Andrews and Craig Kelly — who want the issue to continue to burn up Turnbull’s leadership — agrees is a good thing, and two, Smith’s bill provides protections for religious institutions that are less likely to be provided if Labor legislated the issue instead. Smith has overstated that argument somewhat, but it’s a handy point on which to appeal to conservatives.
At some point, these arguments will convince enough Liberal backbenchers to back them. But not yet. There’ll need to be a few more wasted months while the government chases its tail on this. Maybe after the silliness of the junkmail vote is decided one way or another. But it will happen.
“Yes, we understand the difficult position Malcolm Turnbull is in with both his Coalition allies and conservatives within his party.”
I don’t understand this at all, and think it’s overstated. What would happen if a parliamentary vote was held and marriage equality passed? Nothing. No one is seriously going to overthrow their own government on this issue. It’s all bluster, which the media takes too seriously and thus amplifies.
Agreed. The Nationals will moan about “b-b-but our Coalition agreement!”, but what are they going to do? Divorcing from the LNP would be a long and expensive process that would do nothing but gift a bunch of seats to Labor and One Nation. After Joyce’s Murray-Darling shenannigans he needs all the protection from Turnbull he can get.
Am totally over . . . having two Prime Ministers’ who thoroughly hate each other; running this country.
Absolutely Graybul, the LNP is covering itself in shite by not purging Abbott’s toxic influence once and for all.
No. The least worst option is to put it to a parliamentary vote. Turnbull has to find a spine. What’s the Pell/Santamaria axis going to do about it? Make Potato Head the PM and trigger an election?
Excellent summing up of the complicated balls up, but can’t agree with the postal plebiscite as the “least worst” possible option.
This kinda depends upon Abbott/Abetz and Co behaving themselves from now on. Also, that the stupid compromise developed inside the bowels of the LNP parliamentary meth lab and disco booth won’t further inflame those who want Howard’s change to the marriage act overturned.
My take is that the postal plebiscite thingie is going to be the king of all hand-grenades. It will be fascinating to watch, particularly if, as you say, some “troublemakers” take the challenge to the high court. Lastly the $160 million cost as opposed to a simple vote on the floor.
Poor Malcolm, swinging in the breeze.
Nothing poor about Malcolm on any front. He needs to tell the Luddites to STFU or he’ll call an election for the day after he outdoes Onion Muncher in days served – what are they going to do: call his bluff and be consigned to the scrap heap for a decade?
He just needs to realise his current job is PM, not hack barrister – has he been binge viewing Rake or something?
I can see it now :- a postal plebiscite with “angels” stalking posties – liberating votes to “Fill in properly. The way God wants.”
Hadn’t even thought of that (the whole thing is so ludicrous), but of course you’re right. The security of the ballot would be laughable.