tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/eric-abetz-8741/articlesEric Abetz – The Conversation2021-03-24T07:48:35Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1577782021-03-24T07:48:35Z2021-03-24T07:48:35ZScott Morrison leaves Christian Porter’s future in doubt, amid reshuffle speculation<p>Scott Morrison has pointedly left in doubt the future of Christian Porter as Attorney-General, saying he is presently considering advice on Porter’s situation in the context of the “ministerial guidelines”.</p>
<p>Morrison’s statement heightened speculation about a cabinet reshuffle after parliament adjourns this week until the May budget.</p>
<p>Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, currently on medical leave with heart problems but due back to work on April 2, is considered unlikely to stay in her portfolio.</p>
<p>It was learned on Wednesday that on medical advice she would not attend the Raisina Dialogue on April 13 in India.</p>
<p>Morrison’s failure to clarify Porter’s future comes a week before he is due to resume his duties as first law officer, after taking mental health leave in the wake of being accused of a 1988 rape, which he denies.</p>
<p>It was the second time in two days the Prime Minister had indicated he was still mulling advice about Porter. </p>
<p>In parliament on Wednesday, opposition leader Anthony Albanese asked whether Morrison had received advice from the Solicitor-General about Porter’s portfolio responsibilities.</p>
<p>Albanese also noted Morrison had previously confirmed he had sought advice from his department in relation to the Attorney-General and ministerial standards.</p>
<p>“Is the Prime Minister preparing to make his Attorney-General a part-time minister or is he preparing to drop him all together?” Albanese asked.</p>
<p>Morrison said he was considering “that advice with my department secretary, in terms of the application against the ministerial guidelines”.</p>
<p>“When I have concluded that assessment […] I’ll make a determination and I’ll make an announcement at that time.”</p>
<p>The assessment of Porter’s position follows his launch of federal court action against the ABC over its February 26 report that the allegation of rape made by a now deceased woman had been sent in a letter to several parliamentarians including Morrison.</p>
<p>It has already been announced Porter will not deal with anything to do with the federal court or the ABC.</p>
<p>Last week Morrison said he had sought advice from the Solicitor-General about the scope of the Attorney-General’s “portfolio responsibilities in light of the defamation law suit”. </p>
<p>Porter is also Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Depending on the content of the Solicitor-General’s advice, Morrison has the options of further carve outs of Porter’s Attorney-General responsibilities to avoid conflicts of interest, standing him aside, or removing him altogether from that position.</p>
<p>If he wished to show some continued support for Porter, he could leave him in cabinet holding just the industrial relations job.</p>
<p>Reynolds went on medical leave after coming under attack for her handling of the Brittany Higgins matter. Higgins alleged she was raped by a colleague in the office of Reynolds, then defence industry minister, in 2019.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz on Wednesday was accused by the Speaker of the Tasmanian parliament, Sue Hickey, of denigrating Higgins.</p>
<p>Hickey told the Tasmanian parliament that on March 1 at a citizenship ceremony in Hobart she had casually asked Abetz whether Porter was the minister involved in the historical rape allegation.</p>
<p>She said Abetz had replied it was Porter, “but not to worry, the woman is dead and the law will protect him”.</p>
<p>According to Hickey, Abetz “then said ‘as for that Higgins girl, anybody so disgustingly drunk who would sleep with anybody could have slept with one of our spies and put the security of the nation at risk’”.</p>
<p>Abetz said he categorically denied “Ms Hickey’s defamatory allegations under Parliamentary privilege”.</p>
<p>“As someone who was on the inaugural committee of a women’s shelter and its honorary legal adviser for a decade prior to entering parliament, I reject outright her suggestions and gross mischaracterisation of our discussion,” Abetz said.</p>
<p>“It’s noteworthy Ms Hickey has made her assertions some 3 weeks after she alleges they occurred.</p>
<p>"At no stage has Ms Hickey ever raised concerns with me about any of our conversations.”</p>
<p>Abetz suggested Hickey was motivated by Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein telling her on Sunday she would not be endorsed by the Liberal party for the next state election.</p>
<p>After the conversation with Gutwein, Hickey said she had been “effectively sacked” from the Liberal Party. “It appears that the men in dark suits are firmly in control and there is no place for small ‘l’ Liberal women who refuse to kowtow or be subservient to the dominant males.” </p>
<p>In 2018 Hickey won the speakership with Labor and Greens support, against the Liberal candidate.</p>
<p>Abetz said that “on her way out the door she is trying to destroy the party”.</p>
<p>Hickey hit back in another statement in parliament on Wednesday, accusing Abetz of “very grubby politics”. She stood by her account and said, “I have witnesses who can testify that I told them of the discussion at the event and immediately afterwards”.</p>
<p>Late Wednesday the ABC reported that Gutwein had written to Morrison requesting he consider Hickey’s allegations against Abetz.</p>
<p>It said that in a written statement Gutwein said Hickey had told him several weeks ago Abetz had made offensive comments but had not gone to the level of detail she had raised in state parliament.</p>
<p>“As Ms Hickey has outlined her allegations in more detail in the Parliament, this afternoon I have written to the Prime Minister and requested that he consider the matters raised.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison has left in doubt the future of Christian Porter as Attorney-General, saying he is presently considering advice on Porter’s situation in the context of the “ministerial guidelines”.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/818472017-07-31T10:21:54Z2017-07-31T10:21:54ZShowdown on same-sex marriage looming within the Liberals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180358/original/file-20170731-30708-cglr3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is a big question over whether Malcolm Turnbull can keep control of the same-sex marriage debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Wainwright/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Just like Tony Abbott in 2015, Malcolm Turnbull is heading into a perfect storm on same-sex marriage. And as it was for Abbott, it has the potential to be very dangerous for him.</p>
<p>There is a big question over whether Turnbull can keep control of this debate. More to the point, perhaps, is whether he’ll even try.</p>
<p>His present strategy seems to be to stick tight to the government’s current policy of a plebiscite – which it can’t get through the Senate – and see where the Liberal party room lands.</p>
<p>With parliament resuming next week, the government’s plebiscite commitment is being openly and concertedly challenged by several backbenchers, who are making a determined move to get it ditched and the issue settled by a free vote in parliament.</p>
<p>Three gay Liberals were out in the media on Monday pushing for change. Western Australian senator Dean Smith, with opinion pieces in two national newspapers, wrote, “It is time to resolve the matter, in Parliament.” Smith has a private member’s bill.</p>
<p>The member for Brisbane, Trevor Evans, said a free vote was the “quickest and most likely course” for achieving reform.</p>
<p>And Victorian Liberal Tim Wilson declared he had “a personal conflict which torments and challenges me on a daily basis and I’d like to see this issue resolved.”</p>
<p>Intense work is going on behind the scenes. Warren Entsch, a Liberal from north Queensland who has been a long term campaigner on this issue, said “I hope we can have a cordial conversation [in the Liberal party room] about the policy and the way forward. It’s time for a resolution.</p>
<p>"My view is that there must be a parliamentary vote. I don’t see any form of a plebiscite as an option”. And that includes Peter Dutton’s idea of a postal vote.</p>
<p>It’s unclear whether the advocates for change have the numbers in the Liberal party room to overturn the plebiscite policy.</p>
<p>While they are determined, they face tough opposition.</p>
<p>NSW Liberal Craig Kelly said on Monday that “we have an obligation to stick with our election commitments. If we don’t we will be punished”.</p>
<p>Former minister Eric Abetz declared that “the only people talking about this and putting the issue into the media are a select few who have a different view to the Prime Minister and the party room as a whole.”</p>
<p>Tony Abbott has yet to buy in this week.</p>
<p>But while some conservatives are intransigent, others would like to get the matter off the agenda. As Turnbull himself said in 2015, criticising Abbott’s proposed plebiscite, “One of the attractions of a free vote is it would have meant the matter would be resolved in this parliament, one way or another, in a couple of weeks.”</p>
<p>In the background are the Nationals, seeing this as another Liberal distraction from what they regard as issues higher up on the agendas of their voters. On Monday Nationals were lobbying for a postal vote. The plebiscite was a commitment in the agreement between Turnbull and the Nationals leadership when he became leader.</p>
<p>If the push for change lost in the Liberal party room, would the rebels abide by the decision, or would they cross the floor when, for example, there was a move by Labor for a vote in parliament?</p>
<p>That would be a major defiance of the party room. Given the government’s razor thin majority, it could allow a bill to be brought on.</p>
<p>Some took Turnbull’s comment on Monday that “in our party, backbenchers have always had the right to cross the floor” as sanctioning such action.</p>
<p>But the Prime Minister’s Office quickly said this was not meant to be any sort of green light, but rather a statement of how the Liberal party operated, in contrast to Labor’s binding rules.</p>
<p>One irony for Turnbull, as he stands by the present policy, is that some – though not all - of those who are agitating to scrap it are from his own moderate faction.</p>
<p>Cabinet minister Christopher Pyne provoked anger from among conservatives when he recently predicted at a factional gathering that same-sex marriage might be delivered “even be sooner than everyone thinks”.</p>
<p>One can understand why Turnbull would be inclined to try to stay above this fray and let events play out, rather than move to lead them.</p>
<p>It might seem the safest course, in a situation that could be delicate for his leadership.</p>
<p>But such safety carries its own risks. If the party room stuck with the plebiscite and the rebels successfully defied it to enable a vote on a bill that subsequently passed, Turnbull would be humiliated.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the party room changed the policy, authorising a free vote that ended in reform of the law, Turnbull would hardly be able to claim much of the credit for delivering the policy via the process that he championed in 2015.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
If the push for change lost in the Liberal party room, would the rebels abide by the decision, or would they cross the floor when, for example, there was a move by Labor for a vote in parliament?Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/682462016-11-04T11:49:01Z2016-11-04T11:49:01Z18C case against students dismissed but conservatives’ push for change continues<p>Late on Friday the long-awaited decision came in a key test of the much- debated section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.</p>
<p>A federal circuit court judge killed a complaint from a Queensland University of Technology employee against students who posted allegedly offensive comments after she ejected them from a computer lab reserved for Indigenous people.</p>
<p>Those inside and outside the Coalition agitating for the section to be rewritten or removed have had laser-like focus on this case. If it had gone the other way, that would have much strengthened their argument. But the decision has not deterred but actually energised campaigners such as Eric Abetz, as they point to how the students have suffered through the drawn out process.</p>
<p>When prime minister, Tony Abbott really wanted to gut 18C, but he was forced to back off, after a massive backlash from ethnic communities.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t wanted to touch the section, repeatedly saying the government has “no plans” to do so. But he’s found himself having to respond to the mounting push for change within his own ranks and from the powerful News Corp. Turnbull on Friday again flagged he favours referring 18C to a parliamentary inquiry.</p>
<p>Whether or not he’s ultimately forced into proposing a rewrite, the issue is unhelpful for a prime minister generally beset by troubles (although it might be a useful quid pro quo with crossbencher David Leyonhjelm in negotiations on the industrial legislation).</p>
<p>18C makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” because of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. A defence of fair comment is provided in 18D. Over many years the section received little attention until the finding against News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt spurred the Coalition, then in opposition, to take a stand.</p>
<p>After Abbott’s retreat, conservative Liberals simply regrouped. They see this as a core “free speech” fight. South Australian senator Cory Bernardi has rounded up almost all the Coalition senators to back a proposed private member’s bill to remove offend and insult.</p>
<p>Events and ineptness by the Human Rights Commission, which deals with complaints under 18C, have given grist to the critics.</p>
<p>Apart from the case of the students, there is the furore around Bill Leak’s controversial cartoon in the Australian, depicting an Aboriginal father, holding a beer can, being told by a policeman, “You’ll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility”, and replying “Yeah righto what’s his name then?”</p>
<p>The Leak cartoon is now before the Commission after a complaint from a Melissa Dinnison. </p>
<p>The attention on a cartoon in a major newspaper gives the 18C issue a justified “free speech” profile.</p>
<p>Given 18D, one would think – and certainly hope – the complaint would be thrown out. People could hardly, for example, stand up for the cartooning at Charlie Hebdo while suggesting Leak should be constrained. If the complaint against Leak were upheld, the push for change would be unstoppable.</p>
<p>While the conservatives are vocal on 18C, the Liberals who support the present law have been very quiet, probably feeling they’re swimming against what has been a growing tide.</p>
<p>But on Friday backbencher Julian Leeser, from NSW, launched a strong defence of the section, in a speech to the Chinese Australian Services Society. Leeser also put forward proposals on how its application could be improved.</p>
<p>He invoked the Liberals’ longest serving prime minister, saying Robert Menzies “recognised both the need for free speech and the protection of minorities as part of the liberal tradition”.</p>
<p>Leeser also pointed out that the particular words critics want removed are commonplace in laws. “Having undertaken a cursory and incomplete search I have come across more than 40 sections in 25 Commonwealth laws alone which use the terms ‘offend’, ‘offensive’, ‘insult’ or ‘insulting’.”</p>
<p>He said: “I support such legislation [as 18C] because the sweep of human history has shown the evils of racist violence and what ends with racist violence always starts with racist speech.” And, he observed, the prohibitions in 18C were limited to offence or insult “at the higher end of the scale”.</p>
<p>The problem was not with 18C but with the processes for handling complaints by the Human Right Commission, Leeser argued.</p>
<p>He proposes the Commission’s act be amended “so that on receiving a complaint the Commission must initially determine whether the complaint has little prospect of success”. In such a case the complaint would be terminated. A judge could be appointed as a part-time judicial member of the Commission to deal with initial complaints.</p>
<p>Leeser’s proposals are sensible. Such a compromise would save opening a divisive argument that would embroil the government in renewed conflicts with ethnic communities. But the Liberal conservatives are not much into compromise.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/f6fth-64330b?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/f6fth-64330b?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Late on Friday the long-awaited decision came in a key test of the much- debated section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. A federal circuit court judge killed a complaint from a Queensland University…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/647462016-09-01T12:13:37Z2016-09-01T12:13:37ZPolitics podcast: Eric Abetz on the conservatives in the Liberal Party<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136235/original/image-20160901-13446-39r5p9.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pat Hutchens/TC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the first sitting of the new parliament, conservatives within the government have muscled a proposed amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act onto the agenda. Senator Eric Abetz, a strong advocate for change, tells Michelle Grattan that he doubts it will be dealt with this year. </p>
<p>“It will be introduced and then I think it would make sense for it to go through the normal processes. It may well go to a Senate committee, things of that nature. So how it transpires – no timetable has been set but we did want to put it up there on the agenda so it could be dealt with in due course,” he says.</p>
<p>“We would hope that in the period of a three-year parliament, we can chew gum and walk at the same time and that there will be time set aside for what is a very minimalist amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act to remove the words offend and insult.”</p>
<p>Abetz, a former leader of the government in the upper house and a minister in the Abbott government, remains resentful of being banished by Malcolm Turnbull to the backbench and still harbours frontbench ambitions.</p>
<p>“Chances are there’s still some ministerial capacity left within myself. Senator David Bushby, who’s the chief government whip in the Senate – clearly ministerial capacity as well. So I think it’s a disappointment that the prime minister did not see fit to appoint somebody from Tasmania for the frontbench when, if I might say, there is ministerial talent available from Tasmania.”</p>
<p>“I would like to be able to serve on the frontbench again but as I’ve said many a time – I got into politics to serve, not to ‘succeed’, in inverted commas. But of course if you can be on the frontbench you can make a good and positive contribution.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64746/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the first sitting of the new parliament, conservatives within the government have muscled a proposed amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act onto the agenda.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538112016-01-28T19:22:01Z2016-01-28T19:22:01ZGrattan on Friday: In defence of (some) political defiance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109548/original/image-20160128-27167-1cgg9ap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eric Abetz is resisting pressure to fall in line with the outcome of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How far should party discipline go? Not as far as certain proponents of same-sex marriage would like it to go in the Liberal Party. Nor as far as federal Labor MP Nick Champion has advocated in relation to opposing the GST.</p>
<p>With federal parliament resuming next week, the political scene is already noisy and fractious. The choice of former Army chief David Morrison as Australian of the Year quickly became the centre of sniping about political correctness. Invitations for Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews to speak to right-wing outfits in America sparked predictable headlines.</p>
<p>The political mood of the Liberal Party conservatives hasn’t improved over the summer, and they are out prosecuting their cases. Former Senate leader Eric Abetz caused angst when he said that after the promised post-election plebiscite on same-sex marriage MPs would make up their own minds on how they voted in parliament. Cory Bernardi indicated he would certainly vote against changing the law.</p>
<p>Liberal campaigner for same-sex marriage Warren Entsch said: “It makes you wonder why we would spend millions of dollars on a plebiscite if you’re not going to respect the result. I find it rather bizarre.”</p>
<p>We don’t have to wonder why it is proposed to spend that money, when the issue should just be decided by a parliamentary vote. It was a fix conceived by Tony Abbott, as a way of resolving a party conflict and stalling the issue. Malcolm Turnbull later signed up to it as part of the price of leadership. Pure political pragmatism all round.</p>
<p>The question of MPs respecting the plebiscite’s outcome is a bit more complicated.</p>
<p>A “yes” vote would obviously have the Turnbull government moving to implement the result. On usual precedent, frontbenchers would be bound not to oppose that legislation.</p>
<p>But it is another story for Liberal backbenchers. They always have the right – and some exercise it from time to time – to cross the floor.</p>
<p>One can powerfully argue that if the people have spoken, a politician should heed their voice. Some Liberal backbenchers without firm views or even personally opposed would take their lead from a “yes” result. But if a few have very strong beliefs against, they should be able to vote accordingly – and couldn’t be stopped anyway.</p>
<p>It would probably not be many – and not enough to make a difference to the parliamentary outcome. If the plebiscite got through, it is as good as certain the legislation to implement the result would do so. On the ALP’s present policy, Labor’s MPs would have a conscience vote but they overwhelmingly would support it.</p>
<p>Critics of the outspoken Liberals should be more concerned about the plebiscite. While its prospects look good, the threat from the “no” case is always a risk. Opponents will be pulling out all stops.</p>
<p>On the Labor side, Champion, from South Australia, who is a shadow parliamentary secretary, this week made the startling suggestion that Labor’s national executive should “bind all members across the country” to oppose an increase in the GST.</p>
<p>Champion is critical of South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill for opening “debate on a measure so hostile to Labor’s traditional constituency and ideology”. “The SA government should rule out any support to lift the rate of GST and join federal Labor’s long term opposition to this unfair and regressive tax,” he <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/south-australian-labor-must-oppose-gst-hike/news-story/b3d11537b49c7fc1e103705fef27867f">wrote in The Australian</a>.</p>
<p>Champion’s proposal is flawed on several grounds.</p>
<p>It might be a quibble but perhaps he should remember that parties change their minds on policy over time. As treasurer, Paul Keating proposed a broad-based consumption tax in the mid-1980s, though the push eventually collapsed.</p>
<p>More substantially, the idea that Labor’s extra-parliamentary organisation, in the shape of the national executive, should second-guess politicians is unacceptable.</p>
<p>ALP parliamentarians spent decades unshackling themselves from the excessive power of the organisation. To move back the other way would open a Pandora’s box, taking the ALP towards a past when MPs were much more at risk of being under the thumb of unelected players.</p>
<p>A premier should advance the policies he or she believes best for their state. Weatherill has canvassed a higher GST on the grounds (and condition) that it could help fund hospitals and schools.</p>
<p>The challenge posed by hospital funding has been underlined this week by the Australian Medical Association’s 2016 <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-medical-association-report-shows-public-hospitals-under-the-pump-53750">Public Hospital Report Card</a>, which shows a stagnant picture. AMA president Brian Owler, releasing the report, said that “public hospital funding is about to become the biggest single challenge facing state and territory finances”.</p>
<p>The Victorian and Queensland Labor premiers are opposed to GST changes. The fact Weatherill is not in the Labor groove on this indicates some independent thinking.</p>
<p>Weatherill’s stance might be embarrassing for Bill Shorten, and at odds with the dominant Labor view. But he has made a substantial contribution to the discussion on taxation, whether one agrees or disagrees with his particular proposals.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly discipline is important in political parties. But it should not be turned into a tyranny of conformity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How far should party discipline go? Not as far as certain proponents of same-sex marriage would like it to in the Liberal Party.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537492016-01-28T00:40:15Z2016-01-28T00:40:15ZCoalition tensions expose the flaws of the same-sex marriage plebiscite<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109417/original/image-20160127-26802-z4hqup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Coalition senator Eric Abetz claims he and other Liberal MPs do not have to respect the result of a coming plebiscite on same-sex marriage.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-15/malcolm-turnbull-keeps-same-sex-marriage-climate-change-policies/6777416">has said</a> the Australian people will have their say on same-sex marriage in a plebiscite after the next election. But Coalition senator <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/27/eric-abetz-coalition-mps-will-not-be-bound-by-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality">Eric Abetz</a> claims he and other Liberal MPs do not have to respect the plebiscite’s result, and may not vote to legalise same-sex marriage even if the Australian people vote “yes”.</p>
<p>Fellow Liberal senator <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/27/coalition-divided-as-cory-bernardi-says-hell-never-support-same-sex-marriage">Cory Bernardi</a> declared he would never vote to legalise same-sex marriage – as has Nationals senator <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/bridget-mckenzie-vows-to-vote-against-same-sex-marriage/7120460">Bridget McKenzie</a>.</p>
<p>Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bizarre-and-extraordinary-coalition-tensions-flare-over-samesex-marriage-20160126-gmeomf.html">told parliament</a> last year that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the consequence of a “yes” vote in the plebiscite will be that same-sex marriage will be legal in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A plebiscite does not bind MPs in any future vote on a piece of legislation. Consequently, it is possible that an MP who does not like the plebiscite’s result would try to find some justification for ignoring it if legislation on this issue were to come before parliament. </p>
<h2>Ignoring a plebiscite</h2>
<p>It is easy to envisage some arguments that MPs might use in an attempt to justify ignoring a plebiscite and voting contrary to its result. </p>
<p>Voting in a plebiscite is only compulsory if the legislation providing for it requires compulsory voting. If voting in the plebiscite were not compulsory, its result might not reflect the views of a majority of Australians. One way to avoid this argument being raised would be to ensure that voting in the plebiscite is compulsory, as it is for elections and referenda.</p>
<p>Also, if members of the House of Representatives and Senate represent an electorate or state respectively, there might also be an argument that they should have regard to the vote of those they represent, rather than the majority of the population. </p>
<p>Suppose a majority of Australians voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, but a majority of people from South Australia were against it. Should a South Australian senator have regard to the views of only South Australians? In a party-political system, there are few occasions when members and senators solely consider the views of those in their electorate or state, so doing so on this occasion would seem rather selective. </p>
<p>Finally, given the plebiscite is to be held after the next election, it would be possible for an MP to be elected having campaigned solely on this issue, promising to vote a particular way should same-sex marriage legislation come before the parliament. That MP might argue that those who elected them gave them a mandate to vote a particular way on this issue. In those circumstances, the MP might argue that they are justified in ignoring the plebiscite’s result. </p>
<h2>An alternative approach?</h2>
<p>Is there a way to prevent MPs ignoring the result of a plebiscite?</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwjCpJjlpMrKAhWKHx4KHQxQAvY4ChAWCCIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3D085cb11d-e7a3-45cd-8b55-bd8897e27986%26subId%3D401640&usg=AFQjCNHeWV0a_ohazHYPh_Dn9XaWO5d3Dw&bvm=bv.112766941,d.dmo">submission</a> to a parliamentary committee examining the issue last year, constitutional law professor Anne Twomey suggested how a plebiscite might be used to bring same-sex marriage legislation into force. Parliament could pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage, with a clause providing that the legislation would not take effect until after the Australian people had passed a plebiscite.</p>
<p>If the plebiscite were not passed, the legislation would lapse.</p>
<p>However, using the plebiscite as a “trigger” for the commencement of same-sex marriage legislation does not avoid parliament having to pass the legislation in the first place. It would simply bring the same problem to a head earlier. Those MPs opposed to same-sex marriage would be able to vote against the substantive legislation prior to a plebiscite and could prevent the issue being put to the Australian people.</p>
<h2>A simple solution</h2>
<p>The parliamentary committee <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj4_Ke5ncrKAhUKqh4KHQ3VCDEQFghUMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FSenate%2FLegal_and_Constitutional_Affairs%2FMarriage_Plebiscite%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FCommittees%2Flegcon_ctte%2FMarriage_Plebiscite%2Freport.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFE9nRsqzggUZxflYbV-IXkczFTpw&bvm=bv.112766941,d.dmo">recommended</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… that a bill to amend the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961 to allow for the marriage between two people regardless of their sex is introduced into the parliament as a matter of urgency, with all parliamentarians being allowed a conscience vote.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://newmatilda.com/2015/08/13/would-plebiscite-marriage-equality-do-anything/">Legally</a>, a plebiscite is unnecessary. As with any legislative change, all that is required is for both houses of parliament to pass a bill. A plebiscite adds a layer of complexity to the political process of deciding whether to introduce same-sex marriage legislation in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53749/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Webster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is easy to envisage a number of arguments that MPs might use in an attempt to justify ignoring the result of a same-sex marriage plebiscite and voting contrary to its result.Adam Webster, Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/463482015-08-19T12:08:35Z2015-08-19T12:08:35ZA well-functioning cabinet – who are they kidding?<p>When Kevin Rudd came under attack from some of his ministers for the way he ran his cabinet, it turned out to be the beginning of the end. Now we are seeing Tony Abbott struggling to contain instability in an openly divided team.</p>
<p>Ministers are undermining each other and the prime minister, with leaks about the substance of issues and complaints about the process of dealing with them. Abbott lectures his colleagues with little result. The government’s Senate leader Eric Abetz <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cabinet-leakers-gutless-says-government-minister-eric-abetz-20150818-gj2cfh.html">attacks leakers</a> as “gutless”.</p>
<p>On Wednesday a serious situation turned farcical when the government’s talking points (distributed to backbenchers as well as ministers) <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/leaked-talking-points-tell-ministers-to-say-our-cabinet-is-functioning-exceptionally-well-20150819-gj2h5c.html">were leaked</a>.</p>
<p>The recommended reply to questions about the cabinet agenda was to say that “in contrast to the experiences of [the] Rudd and Gillard governments, our cabinet is functioning exceptionally well. Everyone knows that under Labor, cabinet submissions were almost never lodged on time and would instead more often arrive on the day or weekend before a cabinet meeting.”</p>
<p>This can only be described as chutzpah. After the massive leak in May of a blow-by-blow account of the discussion about the controversial citizenship changes, and this week’s leaks about the thinness of the circulated agenda, it is obvious cabinet is not functioning “exceptionally well”.</p>
<p>As for proper notice: ministers’ angst over the citizenship changes was partly because they felt ambushed – the proposals had gone to the national security committee, but the cabinet itself had them dumped on it. The same thing happened last year with the plan to require the retention of metadata.</p>
<p>Monday’s cabinet decision to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to limit who can appeal against projects came without the matter being listed on the agenda.</p>
<p>The cabinet, which contains three rivals to Abbott – Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison – is fragmenting.</p>
<p>Abetz has taken on a vigilante role. He said on Wednesday of those who gave unattributed comments to the media: “One, I think it’s gutless. Two, it’s a breach of the rules. And so if somebody is gutless and in breach of the rules, one really wonders why a journalist even bothers to repeat comments from such an individual.”</p>
<p>The use of leaks is a delicate area for Abetz. In 2009 he was deeply involved in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utegate">opposition obtaining leaks</a> from public servant Godwin Grech who, it was then found, had faked a key email.</p>
<p>At the marathon Coalition partyroom meeting about same-sex marriage last week, Abetz suggested ministers who didn’t support the official policy should resign. Previously he had made the same point publicly, describing such a course as the “honourable thing”.</p>
<p>Key ministers are not taking much notice of Abetz.</p>
<p>Turnbull, adopting the licence of being a former leader, has always written some of his own rules, although he has lately become more outspoken in speeches and comments.</p>
<p>What has been really startling has been the bluntness of his fellow moderates, Christopher Pyne and George Brandis, during the same-sex marriage kerfuffle – Pyne criticising Abbott over including the Nationals in the partyroom meeting and Brandis attacking fellow cabinet minister Scott Morrison, who went public with his idea that the popular vote should take the form of a referendum.</p>
<p>Pyne used to be joined at the hip with Abbott, but no longer. He was genuinely angry at what he saw as Bronwyn Bishop being hung out to dry – he had defended her passionately – and he made his view clear in parliament.</p>
<p>Pyne is also deeply worried about his South Australian seat of Sturt. It has a margin of about 10% and Pyne is a formidable campaigner and fundraiser. But he is getting local blowback and is in the sights of Senate independent Nick Xenophon – himself a vote machine – who is planning to run candidates in Sturt and in other lower house seats.</p>
<p>One Liberal quips that Pyne is “lost in the desert”.</p>
<p>It’s harder to get to the bottom of Brandis’ state of mind, although in both the recent issues about which he has been agitated – citizenship, same-sex marriage – there have been questions of legal process that have concerned him.</p>
<p>Brandis is under some preselection pressure in the Queensland Liberal National Party, with which he has an uneasy relationship. Now that former Queensland senator Brett Mason has been dispatched to a diplomatic post, there is no real doubt that Brandis will retain his number one spot on the Senate ticket, but he will remain anxious until that is confirmed early next year.</p>
<p>Once a cabinet starts to fragment, it is very hard to glue it together again.</p>
<p>In the next few months Abbott is expected to have a reshuffle, which gives an opportunity to freshen the team but also produces losers, who can be difficult to handle.</p>
<p>Even if Abbott didn’t want to make changes they may be forced on him.</p>
<p>Abbott is desperate to keep Warren Truss, the leader of the Nationals, in the deputy prime ministership beyond the election (assuming the government is re-elected). And some Nationals want him to stay in particular to groom a wider succession field than Barnaby Joyce. Truss has renominated for preselection. </p>
<p>Despite that, there is continued speculation that Truss, who has previously been in poor health, is more likely than not to step back from the leadership in the new year and depart parliament at the election. Truss’ wife, Lyn, who would prefer him to retire, has more influence with him than does Abbott and will have a big say in what happens.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-clare-oneil-and-the-future-of-progressive-politics-in-australia-46208">Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast with guest, Clare O'Neil, talking about her new book Two Futures.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/3gsrk-580f97?from=wp" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/3gsrk-580f97?from=wp" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
When Kevin Rudd came under attack from some of his ministers for the way he ran his cabinet, it turned out to be the beginning of the end. Now we are seeing Tony Abbott struggling to contain instability…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/445572015-07-14T04:07:06Z2015-07-14T04:07:06ZJoyce breaks cabinet rules, but his fate is PM’s call<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88192/original/image-20150713-1325-1vuy6li.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barnaby Joyce has been outspoken in opposition to a government decision to build a coal mine in his electorate of New England.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/agriculture-minister-barnaby-joyce-slams-abbott-government-over-shenhua-coal-mine-approval-20150708-gi7yh8.html">described</a> a federal government decision to allow mining on prime agricultural land in his electorate as a sign of a “world gone mad”. Is this criticism of a fellow minister (Greg Hunt) exercising his authority in his portfolio a breach of the principle of collective responsibility, or cabinet solidarity? Yes, it is. </p>
<p>Will anything happen? No, it <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/barnaby-joyce-cabinet-position-safe-after-shenhua-watermark-outburst-20150713-giark0">will not</a>.</p>
<p>Collective responsibility is an axiom of political prudence – if we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately – that has mutated into constitutional convention of how ministers should behave. But it remains convention, a rule – not the law. The key issue is that one person both defines the rules and decides when they will be applied or sanctions exercised. That is the prime minister.</p>
<h2>What are the rules?</h2>
<p>The rules, as expressed in the <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Cabinet_Handbook_8th_Edition.pdf">2015 Cabinet Handbook</a> issued by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A Westminster-style Cabinet is defined by adherence to the principles of collective responsibility and Cabinet solidarity. These principles are the binding devices that ensure the unity of purpose of the Government and underpin the formulation of consistent policy advice.</p>
<p>Collective responsibility … requires that whatever the range of private views put by ministers in Cabinet, once decisions are arrived at and announced, they are supported by all ministers…</p>
<p>In practice, a decision of the Cabinet is binding on all members of the Government regardless of whether they were present when the decision was taken.</p>
<p>Members of the Cabinet must publicly support all Government decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not agree with them. Cabinet ministers cannot dissociate themselves from, or repudiate, the decisions of their Cabinet colleagues unless they resign from the Cabinet. It is the Prime Minister’s role as Chair of the Cabinet, where necessary, to enforce Cabinet solidarity.</p>
<p>In upholding the principles of collective responsibility and Cabinet solidarity, ministers must … not express private views on Government policies nor speak about or otherwise become involved in a ministerial colleague’s portfolio without first consulting that colleague and possibly the Prime Minister.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joyce’s comments are inconsistent with these clauses – even if it was a ministerial decision, rather than a cabinet one. The minister was operating within his delegated responsibility. Given the chance to say he was speaking as a concerned local member, Joyce <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/labor-says-barnaby-joyce-must-resign-for-breaching-cabinet-solidarity-rules-20150710-gi98km">insisted</a> he was speaking as the agriculture minister.</p>
<p>But how collective responsibility is defined is, as the handbook notes, up to the prime minister. That was always so. In 1984, Labor minister Stewart West <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/19720">objected</a> to a cabinet decision on the mining and export of uranium. He wanted to resign from cabinet to protect his left-wing credentials, but remain as a minister and oppose the decision in the Labor caucus. </p>
<p>So the prime minister, Bob Hawke, with the drafting assistance of his departmental secretary, redefined collective responsibility in the 1984 Cabinet Handbook:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All Ministers are expected to give their support in public debate to decisions of the Government; non-Cabinet Ministers, however, are not prevented from debating in Caucus decisions in areas apart from their portfolios. Caucus decisions are binding on all Ministers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The relaxation of collective responsibility for some ministers in caucus was an exercise in political calculation to maintain support. There was, and is, no definitive definition. Only the prime minister can decide when it has been irrevocably breached.</p>
<h2>Why nothing will happen in Joyce’s case</h2>
<p>In part, nothing will happen possibly because Joyce is deputy leader of the National Party. It is a position that he does not owe to the prime minister. And, traditionally, leaders of the Country Party in coalition had a degree of wriggle room when they had to play to their members: remember <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mcewen-sir-john-10948">John McEwen</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/dynasties/txt/s1241115.htm">Doug Anthony</a>. </p>
<p>In part, it may be because Abbott would prefer to keep a sometimes recalcitrant Joyce in cabinet – and suffer the occasional embarrassment – than have a Joyce martyred for standing up for his country constituency on the backbench as a running critic. It is a calculation based on political reality, rather than constitutional rectitude.</p>
<p>There are occasions when collective responsibility is not applicable but is still evoked. It may be Liberal policy that there is no conscience vote on same-sex marriage, but party policy can be debated and discarded – as a number of election commitments have been. </p>
<p>Unless it becomes a cabinet decision, pushed through against the stated opinions of senior ministers, it is not yet a government decision. So Eric Abetz’s <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/02/abetz-any-fronbenchers-gay-marriage-should-resign">suggestion</a> that ministers who do not like the policy should resign is stretching the meaning. </p>
<p>Abbott’s <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/07/qa-panellists-criticise-abbott-government-frontbenchers-ban">ban</a> on frontbenchers appearing on the ABC’s Q&A program is not an application of collective responsibility either. No-one has suggested that Joyce or Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull were going to challenge government policy on the program. On the contrary, they would have been there to advocate it enthusiastically. </p>
<p>The ban is just part of government strategy to mute criticism. Political strategy is not cabinet policy to which collective responsibility refers.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, in one sense, all these examples come under the same broad rubric: what does Abbott want to do to manage his government in a way that best achieves his purposes? </p>
<p>Interpreting collective responsibility, keeping items off the agenda, controlling access to the media all fall under that title. They always did. The interpretation and application of collective responsibility always was less a constitutional requirement than a captain’s call.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44557/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Weller holds an ARC Discovery grant.</span></em></p>Collective responsibility – or cabinet solidarity – is an axiom of political prudence that has mutated into a constitutional convention of how ministers should behave.Patrick Weller, Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/445582015-07-13T00:35:25Z2015-07-13T00:35:25ZOpponents of same-sex marriage are losing touch with secular reality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88134/original/image-20150712-17428-1x09z0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Marriage is now the yardstick by which genuine acceptance of homosexuality is measured.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2004, then-prime minister John Howard introduced the <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361">Marriage Amendment Bill</a>, which incorporated the common law definition of marriage – “the union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others” – into both the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/">Marriage Act</a> and the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/">Family Law Act</a>. It thereby gave Australia’s same-sex marriage movement its impetus. </p>
<p>Australia now <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327">lags behind</a> most other Western democracies in allowing same-sex marriage. Public support for this has <a href="http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/">grown dramatically</a> in the past few years.</p>
<p>The gay liberationist tradition has always been sceptical of marriage, and some of us have taken pride in relationships that are sanctioned neither by the state or the church. But the issue has taken on huge symbolic importance for many people. It is now the yardstick by which genuine acceptance of homosexuality is measured. </p>
<p>“Marriage equality” is increasingly presented as a fundamental right. This appears to be the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/triggs-says-parliament-has-failed-over-samesex-marriage-debate-20150710-gi9u7g.html">position</a> taken by Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs.</p>
<p>After the referendum in Ireland, where a strong majority <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-ireland-is-born-its-a-big-yes-to-marriage-equality-42298">supported</a> same-sex marriage, and the US Supreme Court decision which found same-sex marriage to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/gay-marriage-legal-in-all-50-us-states-thanks-to-supreme-court-ruling-43959">guaranteed</a> by the US Constitution, the opponents of marriage have resorted to a series of increasingly arcane arguments. </p>
<p>Coalition ministers <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-should-not-legalise-samesex-marriage-because-asia-hasnt-eric-abetz-20150702-gi336j.html">Eric Abetz</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asia-would-see-us-as-decadent-if-we-embraced-gay-marriage-barnaby-joyce-20150705-gi5btt.html">Barnaby Joyce</a> have discovered a remarkable concern for Asian public opinion. It is not one they have demonstrated on other issues.</p>
<p>Their interventions can be dismissed as silly, and are unlikely to slow the trend towards support for same-sex marriage. More significant is Paul Kelly’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-same-sex-marriage-debate-and-the-right-to-religious-belief/story-e6frg74x-1227437429587">argument</a> in Saturday’s Australian. He claimed the debate has failed to respect the rights of those with religious convictions against same-sex marriage: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and the laws of the church will be in conflict over the meaning of the most important institution in society.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But church and state laws have long been in conflict over issues such as divorce, abortion and contraception. </p>
<p>Kelly’s concern that churches – and presumably non-Christian religious institutions, which he fails to mention – may be forced to employ same-sex married spouses or provide housing for same-sex couples ignores that exemptions already exist that allow religious institutions to <a href="https://theconversation.com/religious-freedom-should-not-necessitate-sexual-discrimination-43068">discriminate</a> against homosexuals, married or not.</p>
<p>It is a basic principle of a secular society that public services are accessible to all, and that we allow a fair amount of leeway for people to exercise their conscience where it does not affect others. </p>
<p>This is hardly a new issue. We expect pharmacists to sell contraceptives, even if they disapprove of their use. The Pharmacy Code of Conduct requires compliance with all anti-discrimination legislation. </p>
<p>That religious institutions which receive government funding are exempted from requirements we expect of, say, taxi drivers or baristas, remains a contradiction. But marriage will not change that contradiction.</p>
<p>Kelly quotes with approval the dissenting US judges, who argued the court should not act as a legislator. This is an odd argument coming from a court that has been responsible for some of the most significant social changes in American history. Decisions on <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_brown.html">school segregation</a> and <a href="http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html">abortion rights</a> changed the course of American history. </p>
<p>Because Australia has no Bill of Rights in the Constitution, its High Court has far less opportunity to make social policy. And, unlike the US, marriage in Australia is clearly a <a href="https://theconversation.com/act-law-delivers-neither-marriage-nor-equality-the-high-courts-verdict-21406">federal responsibility</a>.</p>
<p>The fight for same-sex marriage in Australia is different to that in the US, where there is little recognition of de facto relationships, and even health benefits can depend on marital status. </p>
<p>In other areas, such as recognition of same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes and retirement benefits, Australia has long been far more progressive. There is something odd in the US government <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/samesex-marriage-us-gay-lobby-group-advises-australia-to-seek-legal-and-political-change-for-equality-20150711-gi8svz">funding</a> delegations of Australian same-sex marriage proponents to New York for advice on campaigning. </p>
<p>As with those who come out as homosexual at the end of their careers a little humility is called for. It is only seven years ago that the US was lining up with Iran and the Vatican to oppose <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-03-19/washington-backs-un-declaration-on-gay-rights/1623842">naming homosexuals</a> in UN resolutions.</p>
<p>I hesitate to claim that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Many thought that about a republic, which now seems less attainable than at the time of the 1999 referendum. But the arguments against it from the Right are increasingly a mixture of homophobia and desperation, which may well suggest that they, at least, believe they are losing.</p>
<p>I used to be a sceptic about the importance of same-sex marriage. Its advocates too often sound as if no injustice exists beyond their inability to walk down the aisle with the partner of their choice. </p>
<p>But rather like Howard’s legislation in 2004, the current opponents of same-sex marriage have turned the debate into one that is about far more than just extending the term “marriage” to already existing long-term relationships.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Opponents of same-sex marriage have turned the debate into one that is about far more than just extending the term “marriage” to already existing long-term relationships.Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441912015-07-02T20:15:20Z2015-07-02T20:15:20ZGrattan on Friday: Abbott will look tricky if he tries to abort the same-sex marriage bill he encouraged<p>The prime minister is suddenly looking like a throwback to Tony Abbott, health minister, when he was fighting trenchantly against losing ministerial power over the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1507408.htm">abortion drug RU486</a>.</p>
<p>Driven by the wish to keep the support of Liberal conservatives, on whom his leadership depends, and by his personal moral views, Abbott appears to be digging in against giving parliament a chance to <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-caught-in-no-win-situation-on-same-sex-marriage-44160">consider same-sex marriage</a>. He would thereby deny his party the opportunity to decide whether this should be a conscience matter for Liberal MPs.</p>
<p>Worse, Abbott is trying to do this by trickiness, suggesting the cross-party bill to be brought forward by Liberal MP Warren Entsch is likely to die the natural death of most private members’ bills. And that is despite giving the go-ahead to Entsch for negotiations on such a bill, and leaving the public impression that he would play fair on the issue. His critics are already seeing it as Abbott going back on his word.</p>
<p>Abbott lost – in a parliamentary free vote and despite using the odd dodgy tactic – over RU486. But the outcome in the same-sex marriage fight is unpredictable.</p>
<p>The stakes are high for Abbott. If the conservatives lose, they would blame him for failing to hold the line. But if same-sex marriage is held off, the Coalition will hand Bill Shorten a useful popular issue for the election. Abbott may think it is marginal, but quite a few people care about it – especially younger voters.</p>
<p>The battle in the next few weeks is likely to be ugly. Senate leader Eric Abetz has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/comment-eric-abetz--on-gay-marriage-20150701-gi26gi.html">kicked off</a> what will be a ferocious campaign from conservatives. He warned of opening a Pandora’s box, in which he sees polyamory residing. With a dig at those who say we live in the “Asian century”, he asked “how many Asian countries have redefined marriage?” He noted the strong grassroots feeling in the party in favour of the status quo – something that would be feeding up to Abbott as well.</p>
<p>Abetz said frontbenchers had a duty to support the present Liberal policy against same-sex marriage. His message was clear to those who could not: he recalled that when in opposition he had opposed the emissions trading scheme policy, “I did the honourable thing and I resigned from the frontbench”.</p>
<p>Much will rest on how ministerial proponents of same-sex marriage – and in the first instance a conscience vote – conduct themselves. They include Malcolm Turnbull, Marise Payne, Simon Birmingham and Josh Frydenberg. Their voices are needed to give some spine to more fainthearted colleagues – MPs who would lean to a conscience vote but are susceptible to scare tactics.</p>
<p>It is ridiculous to say these frontbenchers should resign – not least because it would be a disaster for the government if they did. They will need, but may not have, political courage and a good strategy. In terms of the former, they might take a lesson from Abbott’s sister Christine Forster, who is campaigning widely for change. Forster is both a Liberal and close to her brother. Her position can’t be easy.</p>
<p>Abbott seems, as a first option, to be looking to try to bury the bill rather than gamble on defeating it. “It’s quite unusual for private members’ bills to come on for debate and vote in the parliament,” he said on Thursday. He’s always maintained that a partyroom decision on the conscience question would only arise when a parliamentary vote was imminent.</p>
<p>The government has the numbers in the committee that prioritises legislation to cut the bill off in its early stages. But Abbott would probably find that annoyed backbenchers raised the issue in the partyroom anyway. Would Entsch and fellow Liberal sponsor Teresa Gambaro relish being hung out to dry after they had followed instructions? One way or another, a party room debate seems likely, whatever Abbott’s attitude. Abbott would look more leader-like if he facilitated it.</p>
<p>How the partyroom numbers would fall out on the conscience issue is anybody’s guess; if the Liberals had a conscience vote, the numbers in parliament would still be uncertain.</p>
<p>One argument being invoked – that same-sex marriage is a distraction from the government’s priorities of economic and national security – is a furphy. The political menu has multiple issues; parliament has time enough to deal with them.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, some Liberals were relishing the division in Labor between those wanting to preserve their conscience vote on same-sex marriage and those saying ALP MPs should be bound. The party’s national conference later this month is due to vote on that.</p>
<p>In one of those embarrassing twists that politics often brings for those exhibiting too much hubris, Coalition MPs find themselves embroiled in a much more serious split on same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>In Thursday’s news conference Abbott said that he could only remember in the 21 years he had been in parliament two or three occasions when a private member’s bill had come on for debate and a vote (his memory was faulty about numbers). Presumably one he remembers very well is that on RU486, which passed in February 2006. He might also recall that John Howard agreed to bring that bill to a vote and allow his MPs a free vote. Howard himself then voted against the bill.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/mark-butler-1435488439/?token=9afa27e13f644e35af420e21342f1cfc">Listen to the Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, with Labor environment spokesman Mark Butler, here or on iTunes.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/nv27e-56fabb" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The prime minister is suddenly looking like a throwback to Tony Abbott, health minister, when he was fighting trenchantly against losing ministerial power over the abortion drug RU486.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/224792014-01-29T19:47:51Z2014-01-29T19:47:51ZBikies, unions … and the ABCC? Spinning the policing of work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40080/original/n3ndm7w9-1390964689.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The CFMEU says corruption within the building industry should be referred to the police for prosecution, but the government is looking to a revived ABCC.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julian Smith/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-28/union-accused-of-ties-to-crime-figures-kickbacks-for-jobs/5221234">investigations</a> into the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) by the ABC and Fairfax have revealed relationships between rogue union officials, underworld figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs. These connections are alleged to have resulted in extortion, bribery and threats of violence within the construction industry. </p>
<p>Let’s be real - organised crime happens within the union movement. CFMEU President, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-28/cfmeu-will-not-tolerate-corruption-says-secretary/5221784">Dave Noonan, agrees</a>. He also thinks these matters should be referred to the police for prosecution. </p>
<p>Apparently, the federal government takes a different view, suggesting serious crime within the CFMEU should be investigated and prosecuted by reviving the Howard-era Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). </p>
<p>Seizing upon the scandal, employment minister Eric Abetz has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-28/union-accused-of-ties-to-crime-figures-kickbacks-for-jobs/5221234">said</a> “any argument against the re-establishment of the ABCC has just disappeared out the window”. Prime minister Tony Abbott added that the ABCC will be, “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/abbott-intensifies-pressure-on-labor-to-allow-return-of-abcc/story-fn59noo3-1226811805062">a strong cop on the beat</a>”. </p>
<p>Other coalition voices have pitched the ABCC as “<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/hansard/senate/dailys/ds050905.pdf">a fighter of organised crime</a>” with “<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/hansard/senate/dailys/ds050905.pdf">real criminal teeth</a>”. Curiously, however, a revived ABCC will have no power to prosecute serious crime.</p>
<p>Rather, the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5129">Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill</a>, which aims to resurrect the ABCC, creates only two criminal offences. Both offences relate to failures to comply with the investigative powers of the ABCC. They are punishable by up to six months and 12 months imprisonment respectively. Incidentally, these powers infringe some of the most basic rights and freedoms known to the rule of law, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/fair-work-or-more-productivity-revived-abcc-will-deliver-neither-21353">the right to silence and the right to legal representation</a>. </p>
<h2>The ABCC and the law</h2>
<p>Essentially, the ABCC is a <a href="http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/mdocs/InvestigativePowers.pdf">civil law regulatory body</a> designed to monitor and enforce industrial law. <a href="https://theconversation.com/fair-work-or-more-productivity-revived-abcc-will-deliver-neither-21353">The substance of the ABCC’s work</a> involves civil prosecution of building workers and the CFMEU for exercising industrial rights in accordance with international labour law. Perhaps the government could be forgiven for confusing these <a href="http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/mdocs/InvestigativePowers.pdf">extraordinary industrial law powers</a> with the coercive power of criminal law.</p>
<p>To date, the federal government’s crusade against <a href="https://theconversation.com/fair-work-or-more-productivity-revived-abcc-will-deliver-neither-21353">“fair work” for construction workers</a> has been motivated by an economic imperative to “improve productivity”. <a href="https://theconversation.com/fair-work-or-more-productivity-revived-abcc-will-deliver-neither-21353">The government’s evidence for this claim</a> is questionable. But if the productivity enhancing powers of the ABCC have lost credibility, it appears a new imperative of “stamping out corruption” might wash better. This one even comes with moral panic about outlaw motorcycle gangs!</p>
<p>The causes of <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780814743737/">organised crime infiltrating organised labour</a> are well documented. The North American industrial relations landscape throughout the 20th century demonstrates that weakened trade unions increasingly rely on other, more nefarious means to secure the rights of workers. </p>
<p>In the 1940s and 50s, US governments introduced industrial legislation that persecuted unionists and disincentivised union membership. Accordingly, organised labour looked to organised crime to “lean on” employers who would not accept union organisation. In turn, organised crime required payment through union pension or superannuation funds as well as shares in labour hire agreements.</p>
<p>The Nixon administration responded to this phenomenon by implementing the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm">Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizantions (RICO) Act 1970</a>. In effect, the RICO Act busted unions through a “crackdown” on organised crime. Union officials were prosecuted and sacked while the federal government centralised control of unions. With organised labour firmly in the hands of the State, unions lost their independent power to bargain with the State and Capital on behalf of workers. Perhaps this is what the federal government has in mind for the CFMEU. </p>
<p>The preservation of industrial democracy requires that all sides – unions, employers and the State - uphold the rule of law. This means that when serious crime is committed, it must be referred to an appropriate arm of the State for prosecution. State and federal police forces, their allied public prosecution agencies, as well as the Australian Crime Commission, all have extensive powers of criminal investigation and prosecution. The proposed ABCC is unfit for this purpose. It does not possess the power to prosecute serious crime, and nor should it. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the investigative powers of the ABCC breach the rule of law in the name of upholding it. In this context, a revived ABCC is code for an authoritarian urge by the federal government to create a specialised workforce police targeting workers and their unions. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eugene Schofield-Georgeson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent investigations into the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) by the ABC and Fairfax have revealed relationships between rogue union officials, underworld figures and outlaw motorcycle…Eugene Schofield-Georgeson, Lawyer/PhD Candidate, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.