Mediaboss Marketing

Senator Eric Abetz: if a government loses a vote on the floor of the House because certain members deliberately vote with Labor and the Greens then that is an exceptionally grave matter. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Tasmanian Liberal Eric Abetz says the Turnbull government should pursue a postal plebiscite to resolve the way forward on marriage equality but he will not agree to be bound by the result, noting that plebiscites by their nature are non-binding.

Abetz also used a television interview on Tuesday evening to issue a public warning on behalf of restive conservatives to a group of Liberal MPs currently contemplating crossing the floor to bring on a parliamentary debate about marriage equality.

The Tasmanian said he did not want to speculate about whether Malcolm Turnbulls leadership would come under direct challenge in the event MPs crossed the floor but what I will say as a matter of objective analysis is that if a government loses a procedural vote on the floor of the House because certain members deliberately vote with Labor and the Greens then that is an exceptionally grave matter.

Apparently ignoring other times Coalition MPs had crossed the floor without significant consequences, Abetz declared support for a procedural motion to bring on debate would signal to the Australian people that the government has lost its authority, has lost control on the floor of the House.

I think that would be an exceptionally grave matter and that is why any of my colleagues who are contemplating such action should be thinking about this, not two or three times, but a dozen times, then come to the conclusion that losing government isnt worth it.

The public intervention by Abetz is indicative of deep unrest in government ranks about an internal debate that will be triggered when parliament resumes next week about whether the Liberal party should move now to a conscience vote position on same sex marriage.

With some MPs signalling this week they are prepared to cross the floor to either allow marriage equality to be debated, or support the change in the event a bill makes it to the floor of the House, Malcolm Turnbull has noted publicly this week that the Liberal party by tradition allows MPs to cross the floor in legislative debates.

Turnbulls comments about the long tradition of free votes triggered a round of anonymous backgrounding by conservatives, who told some news outlets that any change of policy could trigger a challenge to the prime minister.

Anonymous threats were also delivered about peoples preselections.

The idea of rebel Liberal MPs supporting a Labor procedural motion on an issue that divides the government is particularly incendiary in some quarters of the Coalition.

On Tuesday, the prime minister, travelling in Perth, reiterated that the government was committed to a plebiscite. Our governments policy position on this issue is very, very clear and it has not changed.

We went to the last election promising that the Australian people would have their direct say on this issue, Turnbull said.

Queensland MPs are pushing the government to adopt a postal plebiscite because the parliament has rejected the Coalitions original plebiscite proposal. LNP MPs have been ringing Liberal colleagues in other states to try and drum up internal support for the idea.

The prime minister ducked a question from a reporter in Perth about whether the government was contemplating a postal plebiscite, which has been supported publicly by the governments most senior conservative, Peter Dutton.

Abetz on Tuesday evening said given the Senate had rejected the original plebiscite, the government was now entitled to explore other options which would give expression to our policy, namely of engaging the Australian people and giving them a say in this fundamentally important issue.

I think it is appropriate for us to explore a postal ballot to ensure the Australian people have a say and we retain faith with the electorate, the Tasmanian said.

But asked a number of times whether he would vote in favour of marriage equality if that was the result the plebiscite delivered, Abetz suggested he would not feel bound to follow a yes vote.

Any plebiscite, by its nature, is non-binding, Abetz told Sky News.

I would trust that the public accepts ... that no matter which way the plebiscite goes, I doubt there will be a 100% vote in favour or against changing the definition.

And I think its appropriate that the minority view, whatever that may be, is still expressed within the parliament.

He said he had no doubt the vote of the Australian people would ultimately be reflected in the parliament.

Liberals who favour moving to a conscience vote argue it is time to make the change on two grounds.

They say Tony Abbott, when he was prime minister, said the last parliament was the final time government MPs would be bound on same sex marriage. Abbott has subsequently backtracked on that statement.

They also argue that some of the loudest voices in favour of a plebiscite in government ranks have given absolutely no guarantees that they would support the result of any public vote which undercuts the purpose of the exercise, which is public consultation.

See the original post here:
Eric Abetz warns Liberals: crossing floor on same-sex marriage 'a grave matter' - The Guardian