Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator McAllister today relating to the proposed marriage equality plebiscite.

It is another sitting week, it is another day and it is another example of a government without discipline, without diligence and without direction. We have gotten to the stage where it would be a front page news story if this government were not in chaos and disorder. After yesterday's debacle—a debacle where senior members of the government were forced to filibuster on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General because they had no legislation for us to discuss—we then had the pleasure of hearing the coalition endlessly debate a primary industries levy, a levy which was supported by almost everyone in this chamber, because they did not want the embarrassment of having to adjourn this chamber early.

I was blown away—I was surprised—by the ability of the government to debate non-controversial legislation amongst themselves. Then I thought, 'Well, they're in practice, aren't they?' They are in practice, because they have spent the last few months debating one another endlessly, not in this chamber, but actually out in the media. So let's just review that. Let's just hear some of the voices coming from the government, some of the things we have heard, when the government has been arguing against itself on a few issues.

Question 1: is Senator Brandis doing a good job in managing the plebiscite? Actually, we know what Senator Brandis would say. I think we all understand what Senator Brandis would think about his own role. But what did the member for Leichhardt think? He said, 'I want him to be more transparent, more open, more inclusive.' He said, 'Rather than having everyone second-guessing about what may or may not happen, I want him to reassure them and take them on the journey with him.' That was the view of the member for Leichhardt—very different, one imagines, to the view of Senator Brandis.

Question 2—another question of public discussion: should there be public funding for both sides of the plebiscite? Some of course say no. The reports are that Senator Brandis opposes it. Senator Brandis has said publicly that he wants to keep the cost as low as possible. Senator Paterson: 'If we can't think of a better way to spend taxpayers' money than this, we're not doing our jobs.' The member for Leichhardt vehemently opposed public funding. He says: 'We're giving the churches the plebiscite they want. Do not come asking for money.'

You would think that would all be pretty clear, wouldn't you? But with this government there is always another side to the story, another side to the story that is usually prosecuted in a very public way, not through their party room, not internally, but through the media. And so, on the yes side—because of course there are many people on the coalition side who do support funding for a plebiscite—we know that the member for Canning, the member for Menzies, Senator Bernardi and Senator Abetz are all in support of funding for the plebiscite.

What did Senator Bernardi say? He said, 'We don’t want the plebiscite to be dominated by money from wealthy individuals overseas.' What did Senator Abetz say? 'For a change as fundamental as changing society's basic institution'—not the parliament, incidentally—'there is an imperative that the arguments be able to be put, and that requires funding.' And, according to Senator Abetz, that would actually require $10 million for each side. We know who won that argument, don't we? We know who won that argument in the cabinet.

Question 3: has the Prime Minister been telling the truth about his approach to this question? On the yes side, the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, has said that Mr Turnbull gave an unambiguous offer to provide taxpayer funding at a meeting in February, and that is a claim that is backed up by the Australian Christian Lobby director, Lyle Shelton.

The member for Menzies, when asked if he believed the Prime Minister had given this commitment to the public or to religious leaders, answered, 'Both.' Senator Bernardi said, 'People will make up their own minds about whether they believe the PM or the church leaders.' Senator Abetz said, 'I'm sure that nobody when we first discussed the plebiscite thought there would not be equal public funding for both sides.' On the no side, you have the Prime Minister, because the PM and his staff have both denied giving these commitments.

Question 4, which I think is the big question for this chamber and for the Australian public, is this one: is the Prime Minister losing his fight against the social conservatives in his party? There is really no need to hear from the government on this one. The answer is very clear. Every decision about this plebiscite has been made with the foot of the right wing of the Liberal Party pressed firmly against the Prime Minister's throat. After months of uncertainty, we are only now starting to get details of what this plebiscite will look like.

Senator Brandis in his answer to my question said that the coalition had landed on a structure that 'treats both sides equally', which probably marks the first and the only time that the social conservatives in his party have been committed to complete equality on any matter. (Time expired)