A CONCESSION from Calare’s member-in-waiting that he would be willing to vote against his own conscience on the issue of same-sex marriage if that reflected the views of his constituents clearly illustrates the stupidity of the Coalition’s policy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has promised a plebiscite on the issue of marriage equality in the first 100 days of parliament if his government is returned on Saturday, clearing the way for an expensive, divisive and completely unnecessary vote.
Of course, that policy was never Mr Turnbull’s in the first place – rather it was the legacy of his predecessor Tony Abbott who had to find a way to appease the right of his party while not ignoring the continued polls that showed widespread public support for same-sex marriage.
When Mr Turnbull rolled Mr Abbott for the top job last September, one of the conditions placed on the coup was that he maintain the plebiscite as Coalition policy, despite his own opposition to it. And now we can see just what a nonsense it is.
Mr Gee has previously stated that his personal view was that there was no need to change the traditional definition of marriage. He has every right to that view and it’s undoubtedly one shared by many Nationals voters. What’s not so clear, though, is whether that’s a view shared by the majority of Calare voters.
Feedback to this newspaper over the years suggests that’s not the majority view but a plebiscite would finally provide concrete proof either way.
Only problem is that if, as many suspect, the majority of Calare voters do come out in support of same-sex marriage then that would put the local member – assuming Mr Gee is successful on Saturday – at odds with his constituency.
And once the issue finally came before parliament, Mr Gee would be put in the ridiculous position of having to choose between voting with his own conscience or the conscience of his electorate.
Mr Gee indicated he would bend to the will of his voters and good on him for that. But other MPs might not be so willing to prosecute an argument on behalf of their constituents that they did not believe themselves.
So, we ask again, what is the point of the plebiscite in the first place? Why spend $160 million asking Australia what it thinks if MPs are not to be bound by the findings?
We shake our heads in disbelief.