Malcolm Turnbull at a press conference in Canberra.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has played down the prospect of parliament passing a law allowing same-sex marriage, but will not intervene to prevent two prominent Liberal MPs from offering their own forthright views.

The communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said last week he believed Coalition parliamentarians were “very likely” to be granted a conscience vote and there was a “reasonable prospect” of a same-sex marriage bill passing this parliament.

Turnbull followed that up with an interview on Sunday in which he suggested Australia was increasingly “out of step” with other large English-speaking democracies which had legalised same-sex marriage.

The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told the ABC Turnbull should resign from the frontbench if he wanted to “talk about fringe issues outside party policy”. Insisting that the party’s longstanding position was that marriage was between a man and a woman, Bernardi said there was “no room for a personal view” among frontbenchers.

Turnbull’s office declined to respond to Bernardi and it appears Abbott will not step in to end the public debate. Guardian Australia has been told the prime minister believes both Turnbull and Bernardi are “entitled to their views”.

The high court ruled on Thursday that the Australian Capital Territory’s marriage equality bill had no effect but that federal parliament had the constitutional power to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, subsequently announced plans to introduce a private member’s bill. Plibersek said on Sunday she would like Turnbull or another Liberal or National MP to co-sponsor her bill in a bid to signal the matter was “above politics”. She said her bill hinged on Liberal and National members being granted a conscience vote.

But in a radio interview on Monday, Abbott was unwilling to commit to a conscience vote, saying any private member’s bill would be considered by the Liberal-National party room “in the normal way”. He pointed to the past failure of legislation to legalise same-sex marriage.

“If there is a proposal put to the parliament, a private member’s bill put to the parliament, it will be dealt with by our party room in the normal way, and our policy has been that marriage is between a man and a woman but in the end it’s up to the party room to decide what our policy is,” Abbott told the ABC.

The prime minister said he continued to support “the traditional position”.

“When this matter was last considered by the parliament about a year ago there was a pretty decisive vote to keep the Marriage Act the way it is. When this matter was first considered by the parliament back I think in 2004 both the Labor party and the Coalition strongly supported the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“If we see a bill come before this parliament, as I said, the party room will consider it [and] will deal with it in the usual way.”

The reference to 2004 relates to amendments to the federal Marriage Act, pushed by the Howard government, that explicitly ruled out same-sex marriage. Last year, after the Labor party changed its party platform to reflect a new position of supporting marriage equality, both houses of federal parliament voted against the proposal. Labor parliamentarians were allowed to vote freely but Liberal-National Coalition members were bound to oppose same-sex marriage.

The national director of the Australian Marriage Equality lobby group, Rodney Croome, said about a third of the parliament supported same-sex marriage in 2012 when Coalition MPs were not granted a conscience vote.

“If you look at the history of the issue it shows that support has increased every time it’s been voted on in the parliament,” Croome said. “He [Abbott] has cited the history of the issue in order to suggest it won’t succeed if voted on again.

“I think the history shows the opposite: that support is increasing all the time and with a Coalition conscience vote the reform has a fighting chance.”

Croome said he wanted a private member’s bill to be co-sponsored by Labor, Coalition, Greens and independent members to avoid any competing pieces of legislation. A bill would need to be put on the table before the Coalition would consider allowing a conscience vote.

Abbott infuriated some supporters of same-sex marriage by sending a congratulatory letter to the NSW Christian Democratic state parliamentarian Fred Nile, who remarried at the weekend and has been one of the most vocal opponents of changing marriage laws.

Abbott wrote that he and his wife, Margie, sent their warmest congratulations to Nile, 79, and Silvana Nero for “publicly acknowledging your love for each other”.

“It is an occasion to celebrate the love you share as well as your hopes for the future,” Abbott said in the letter. “We hope today is one of your happiest days.

“Marriage is about walking the same path together. It is a profound, rich and fulfilling journey that should draw out the better angels of our nature.”

Croome said he could understand why some couples whose marriages were dissolved by the high court last week would have found Abbott’s letter “a bit galling”, but urged them to see the positive in the prime minister’s description of marriage in a way that should leave the door open to same-sex marriage.

“The prime minister has said marriage is about love and companionship and by blessing this particular union he’s saying it’s not necessarily about procreation and that is the definition of marriage we agree with,” Croome said.

Plibersek said the high court decision showed it was up to federal parliament to legislate for marriage equality. “I’m going to reintroduce into parliament next year a private member’s bill that will make it possible for same-sex couples who love each other to marry,” she said.

“What I’d like to see is a conscience vote for Liberal and National members of parliament. Until Liberal and National members of parliament are allowed a conscience vote, it’s not possible for such legislation to pass.”

Turnbull told Sky News he could not co-sponsor Plibersek’s bill because he was a cabinet member, but if Coalition MPs were granted a conscience vote he would support same-sex marriage. Plibersek said she would not introduce her bill until Abbott agreed to allow his members to vote in line with their conscience.

The high court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the ACT marriage equality law could not sit concurrently with the federal Marriage Act provision that marriage was between a man and a woman, and the entire ACT law was therefore “of no effect”. This effectively nullified the marriages of several dozen couples who wed in the days between the law taking force and the high court ruling.

But the court also found that the federal parliament had the power under the constitution to legislate on same-sex marriage and the federal Marriage Act was a “comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage”.

Supporters of same-sex marriage said the clear finding of the federal parliament’s legislative power was significant because it removed one argument opponents raised about the constitutionality of change.

Photo: Alan Porritt/AAP
Author: Daniel Hurst
Publication: theguardian
Date 17 December 2013
Read original article here