Tanya Plibersek calls on Labor to make marriage equality a binding vote
ACTING Labor leader Tanya Plibersek has called on her party to change its position on marriage equality from one with a conscience vote on the matter to one that is a binding vote in favour.
The news today comes ahead of Labor’s national party conference in July, where Plibersek hopes the platform would change so federal Labor would be compelled to vote in favour of marriage equality as a bloc.
Labor’s official policy since its 2011 national conference has been in support of same-sex marriage, but it does not make it compulsory for its federal MPs vote in favour of it.
Plibersek said this was an issue of “legal equality”.
“It is a clear question. Do we support legal discrimination against one group in this country? Or do we not?” she told Fairfax Media.
Plibersek said there had been “a significant step forward” in nationwide support for marriage equality, with a 2014 Crosby Textor poll showing that 72 per cent of those surveyed supported it.
However, her call to make it a binding vote is a change from her views in July last year, when she told the Star Observer that her Labor colleagues should not be forced to vote for the measure.
“There are people in the Labor Party who would like it to be a binding vote but it’s very difficult for us to argue for a conscience vote for the Liberal Party and then not have a conscience vote ourselves,” she said at the time.
She had also said while official Liberal policy was against marriage equality, Labor’s free vote put pressure on the Liberals to do the same.
Plibersek has had a marriage equality bill “ready to go”, but was waiting for the conscience vote and co-sponsor from the Liberals before she introduced it in parliament.
Despite this, lobby group Australian Marriage Equality has stated its support for Plibersek’s new push for a binding vote.
ALP presidential candidate Louise Pratt and other members of Rainbow Labor also declared their support for a binding vote from Labor MPs on same-sex marriage.
According to Fairfax Media, while Plibersek indicated she was optimistic the next conference would successfully lead to a change in the party platform on marriage equality, she also acknowledged there would be opposition to it.
One of those opponents is prominent Labor member Joe de Bruyn, the conservative national president of Australia’s largest trade union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.
Bruyn said Plibersek was not only playing up her “cosmopolitan” inner-west Sydney constituency and taking advantage of how Labor leader Bill Shorten was overseas for ANZAC Day, but he also believes a binding vote would cause many Labor MPs to cross the floor if they were forced to support same-sex marriage.
“I just don’t think it will happen, because I think good sense will prevail,” he told Fairfax Media.
“Why would you create this sort of conflict when you don’t need to?”
Meanwhile, NSW Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm — who has been lobbying Coalition MPs to support a conscience vote on his own private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage— rejected Plibersek’s call for a binding vote.
“I think there should be a conscience vote for all politicians,” Leyonhjelm said.
“Nobody should be forced to vote against their values on this. I want politicians to reflect the views of the community and the community thinks the time has come for same-sex marriage.”
Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry bill, which was shelved earlier this year after internal momentum within the Liberals failed to lead to a conscience vote, has been worded as such so that celebrants who object to same-sex marriage would not be forced to officiate at them. It’s a provision that has concerned some LGBTI advocates who believe legislation should not allow discrimination in special circumstances.
The Liberal Party’s first openly-gay federal parliamentarian has also weighed into the binding vote debate, accusing Plibersek of damaging the progress within the Liberal ranks in making a conscience vote a reality.
“If the ALP was to adopt a binding vote on same-sex marriage then the issue of a conscience vote in the Liberal Party is dead,” Fairfax Media quoted WA Senator Dean Smith, who only recently publicly declared his support for marriage equality.
“Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage and a conscience vote will be sitting pretty. Tanya Plibersek will be the first line in their argument.
“This has put the cause back and she needs to explain herself to same-sex marriage proponents.
“There has been a slow and cautious approach to achieving a conscience vote and she has wrecked that.”
In the lead-up to the 2013 election, Prime Minister Tony Abbott — who opposes marriage equality — said a conscience vote on marriage equality was something that would be left to the Liberal party room to decide should a bill be presented in Federal Parliament.
I find it an insult that this decision is being made by a bunch of over-privileged politicians. Who I love or who I wish to marry shouldn’t be made by a select few. You don’t need my permission to marry, so why do I need yours? #equalrightsforall
Yes absolutely.
It’s a bit rich coming from someone who absented themselves from the chamber rather than break labor caucus to vote against the marriage ban when it was first voted on in parliament. She showed a commitment to neither opposing marriage equality when push came to shove, nor to the binding caucus system she is now insisting on. I’m sorry Tanya, I get that you’re sympathetic, but you were my representative, and you stayed out of the chamber rather than vote against marriage inequality for me and everyone like me affected by the ban. And it’s damning to think that in this day and age the Labor machine is still pre-selecting candidates who would NOT vote for equality unless they were bound to.
Yes I do
Yes they should.
Marriage is between man and woman. Those others can find their own name for it. I do not want what my wife and I have belittled.
LOL.
You’re going to have to abolish divorce then too. That’s the biggest threat to you’re institution. But please, how does the relationship of two people affect the marriage between you and your wife?
marriage is special between us and has been for nearly 40 years. Although we do not care what you people do, just do not degrade the meaning of marriage.
Well I wish you straights would stop trashing marriage.
Marriage equality does nothing to damage to your marriage Allan W. Rodger, the damage is entirely in your brain.
Tell me exactly why my daughter’s marriage to the woman she loves would ‘belittle’ your marriage? Your marriage is yours only and is not affected by the relationships of others. If anything, the fact that at least 1 in 3 marriages break up might ‘belittle’ or devalue your marriage!
Not my marriage as such, the meaning of it. What is the problem with a different name, they stuffed the word gay, even the word rainbow sound bad now. I do not care about these people other than they should be cured.
There is no other way to put this – you’re an idiot.
Oops, that idiot comment was directed at Allan W Rogers. Why is he reading a gay rag anyway, is he a closet case?
So why are you following the Star a Observer then?
So by your understanding we are all suffering from a mental illness Allen?
Having sex with a man, what do you think. Thats why women have an in and an out.
I did not realise this was a gay site until now. Poor buggars, bye.
Yes.
No. Why? Because there should not even be a vote. It should simply be made legal. Voting is irrelevant when it comes to an issue such as this. It’s a matter of basic human rights
Not how our legal system works I’m afraid
I know that. I’m just saying it should not even be an issue
I say good on Tanya! They vote in a block on everything else and this isn’t a conscience issue, it’s an equal/human rights one.
Yes as personal religious opinions etc have no place, a politician has to do what’s best for their community. Not what their own beliefs tell them
What if they have a highly religious electorate?
Every individual is perfectly entitled to their beliefs, including religious ones.
I’m in favour of SSM btw.
I agree, marriage is governed by the law. A religious marriage is an optional extra. And 72% of Australians support marriage equality, along with 53% of Australian Christians!
Marriage equality is legal in England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, South Africa, Holland, Belgium, Slovenia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, United States under SCOTUS, Mexico (under their version of the Supreme Court) and Ireland 59 percent approved by referendum (I predict)!
Australia still missing from the list!
Since 2004, gay marriage has been banned in Australia – TIME FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY AUSTRALIA!
I would rather prefer a conscience vote. We can then see who the morons are. They cannot hide any longer. Let them wallow in their ignorance.
It’s a secret ballot I think? Help me out Ben
It’s not a secret ballot when there’s a vote in Parliament, everyone’s name will be recorded.
Ooh good then
It’s not about what each individual MP thinks … We live in a democracy & the majority of Australians believe that we should have marriage equality- so yes, go for it Tanya!
There are bigger problems in Australia than this and drug smuggler would your time be better suited getting this corrupt government dealt
A government can do multiple things. There will always be a bigger problem than something else. That’s a poor excuse to avoid the issue.
No it’s these people committed s crime in s foreign country they knew the penalty GET OVER IT Australia
Yes, it’s high time they stopped poncing about on the issue
For a progressive country there seems to be an awful lot of talk over a very lengthy time! The kiwis laugh!!
Right, let’s get the show on the road and pass marriage equality NOW!
The thing about this that frustrates me is this is about EQUALITY! Stop calling it ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ like we are different. It’s MARRIAGE for fucks sake and I demand my right to marry like anyone else and I don’t give a flying fuck what any politician thinks!
they follow the party line on everything. Why not this as well?
Go Tanya
Equality should not be dictated by prejudiced religious beliefs. Those who oppose marriage equality are primarily (with some exceptions in the gay community I’m sure) those who have the legal freedom to marry who they love. Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd included along with Abbott & co there.
There are binding votes on lots of issues individual politicians probably don’t always support. If the tow the party line on other issues why should this one not be as important to require such discipline?
Brvause the labour part has powerful homophobes but wants to regain inner city seats which they are losing to the greens?
It’s pure politics and homophobia at play here. Make no mistake about it.
If there was a conscience vote on indigenous land rights Plibersek and her ilk would make a bigger fuss than this.
We are the lowest of the Low on the pole. They just want our vote so make half hearted pleas like this.
I think people like Tanya Plibersek are being genuine about their desire to achieve a change in policy.
She can’t possibly expect all to have the same beliefs – or are they the Sheep Party?
Well it’s the same situation in the Coalition, where they are all bound to vote against marriage equality, so why not?
Its not really a vote if you are being told what to vote for. Let them have their own say that’s how the voting system works
All politicians have sheep brains
This is not a conscience issue, this is a human rights issue and the MPs should treat it as such.
Why? The state codified marriage into law; it’s up to the state to decide on the definition.
Do groups of three or four have ‘human rights’ to marry too?
I’m all for SSM but I think there are much better arguments in favour.
If they dont like it leave the party. Labor has some real gay hate preachers amongst them…some as bad as Fred Nile
Fred Nile is in the state of NSW upper house – not the federal parliament!
Replace “marriage equality” with “any issue” and you have the voting coercion that’s a fundamental flaw with Labour parties worldwide. No, it’s a conscience issue.
Conscience votes are terrible. Why should one conscience, that of an MP, trump the consciences of the rank and file who help make party policy?
How will you convince the Liberals to allow a conscience vote if they know the ALP has a binding vote? It makes them look weak, and encourages conservative Libs to dig in and enforce a binding “no” vote on their side. Better to encourage all parties to support a conscience vote and work on getting a majority of politicians onside, one by one.
http://littlelioness.net/2015/04/27/on-the-so-called-conscience-vote/
It’s called “being in a party”
But then what do you think about pro-marriage equality Libs “being in a party” and prevented from voting in support? If the ALP all votes yes, it’s even less likely that Libs will be allowed a conscience vote
Perhaps it should be a referendum?
good idea in theory, except that some of our religious extremists would drag any discussion regarding equal marriage straight down to the gutter/lies .. ie, “all gays are paedophiles”… It would end up FAR too dirty and divisive
You cannot have a referendum to change the law. Referendums can only change the constitution.
We have majority support for marriage equality, and the religious right is pretty small in Australia. Referendum if it came up would be good. The aust population is more progressive then politicians
Jays right referendums are for constitution change, the marriage act is not a part of that document and can be simply changed by parliament
Bec,James is also right the filth campaign that would be run against the gay and lesbian community would be revolting leading up too any public vote..it would be sickening and I would hate young gays and lesbians who are or yet too come out have too see that.
John, you don’t think young queer people aren’t already acutely aware of the bigotry against them? The point is how do you empower them to fight it. There is a lot of research that indicates that engagement with campaigns for social justice give people a sense of agency they don’t usually have… This is particularly true when the campaign would have an immediately tangible result i.e. a successful referendum.
There would be an opposition, of course – but I think you over estimate it John. The marriage equality campaign thus far has had tangible success in changing public opinion on the question. In poll after poll, it comes back that the majority support it – including 80% of young people. That is huge. High profile figures have come out over the last few years as well strongly advocating. This means that there are considerable forces which could be mobilised on the streets, in the media etc in support of the campaign. I remember in a campaign group meeting freemantle media offering their support – that is massive. Majority of unions are also supportive. We are not in a position of weakness here
PLEASE, NO REFERENDUM ON MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA!
And I think you both underestimate the Australian Christian lobby and the other groups it would team up with and the dirty public campaign they would participate in….and this is mute anyway this is not a constitutional issue and requires no referendum.
The Australian Christian Lobby represents a tinny minority of practicing Christians with practicing Christians as a whole in sharp decline. They have almost no sway over the general population… Furthermore they have less sway over the general population then our politicians. What you are essentially saying by turning your nose up at the general population is that you think a bunch of reactionary politicians led by Tony Abbott are more likely to support queer liberation then ordinary people.
.. It’s kind of disturbing that people are not able to express their opinion, but rather have to rely in a member of parliament (that they most likely did not vote for), and the member of parliament is not free to express his opinion or the opinion of the people he represents because he has to tow the party line … Something is wrong with the system
Kim we can’t hold referendums for every issue.
And asking the majority to vote on the rights of a minority is not cool
So you’re opposed to next years referendum on Aboriginal and Torres Staright Islanders?
http://www.recognise.org.au/
Well surely you wouldn’t stand for a party that didn’t support your own beliefs??? So yes I think Tanya is right
Isn’t it their (politicians) job to make decisions based on “what’s best” for the local community/state/country, not based on their own personal beliefs/opinions??