Senate debates

Monday, 12 September 2016

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Marriage

3:21 pm

Photo of Alex GallacherAlex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Westminster system provides for the executive authority to commit troops. We make agreements and treaties in this place. The Japanese economic partnership agreement, the Korea free trade agreement and the Chinese Australia free trade agreement are all made at the executive prerogative. The enabling legislation comes through these places.

Why is it that on this one issue, probably the first time in 100 years, we need to spend $160-plus million on a plebiscite? The reason is that in order to get the mantle of prime ministership, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull had to do a deal, agree with the conservative wing of his party, that he would maintain the promise by the Hon. Tony Abbott of a plebiscite. It is very, very clear. His heart is not in it. He is on the public record in other areas committing to marriage equality and support thereof. But in order to stay Prime Minister, in order to become Prime Minister, he had to pick up this conservative idea, this $160 million expense, plus the funding for either side, in order to stay Prime Minister. That is as clear as day.

Those on the other side can debate the issues to and fro on marriage equality. But in order to get to Prime Minister, he had to honour Mr Abbott's plebiscite arrangement. He is now in conflict with a bishop of the Anglican Church in respect of whether or not he promised funding, and, really, he could just use the executive prerogative. We did not elect him as Prime Minister; his party room did. Therein lies his problem. He could go out and put this to the Australian parliament as early as this week. He cannot because the conservative wing of this parliament would probably roll him. That is the awful truth.

Question agreed to.

Comments

No comments