Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has fuelled speculation the government will bypass Parliament and commission a postal vote on same-sex marriage, refusing to rule it out on Wednesday as the idea builds momentum among colleagues.
But it has been revealed Mr Turnbull argued vociferously against a postal vote when he led the campaign for an Australian republic, saying such a method "flies in the face of Australian democratic values".
More National News Videos
Government sticking to its plan
Despite calls for a conscience vote on same sex marriage and some Liberal MPs threatening to cross the floor over the issue, the government isn't budging on its plan for a plebiscite,.
The postal poll - a voluntary, non-binding vote conducted by mail - would substitute for the compulsory plebiscite, which failed to get through the Senate last year.
It is believed by some MPs that unlike a plebiscite, the postal vote would not need to pass the Parliament, and could be funded by the existing Commonwealth Electoral Act. The government is understood to be seeking advice on the logistics and viability.
Despite once arguing that such postal votes would unfairly disenfranchise millions of Australian voters, Mr Turnbull refused to rule out the proposal on Wednesday.
"Our policy, as you know, is to hold a plebiscite to give all Australians a say," he said. That was a "condition precedent, as the lawyers might say", for a free vote in the Parliament.
Asked if a postal vote would fulfil that condition, Mr Turnbull said: "Thanks for the inquiry, our policy is very clear - I've stated it many times, and that is the government's policy."
Pressed again to rule out a postal vote, he said "thank you" and moved on to other questions.
In 1997, as leader of the Australian Republican Movement, Mr Turnbull wrote an excoriating opinion piece against a postal vote on the republic, saying it would contravene basic democratic values.
He warned it would disenfranchise voters who were not at the address listed on the electoral roll, particularly young people and Aboriginal Australians in remote communities, as well as those who struggled with English.
Among Mr Turnbull's other concerns were voter fraud, peer pressure from family members and a high informal vote.
"The voluntary postal voting method ... flies in the face of Australian democratic values," he wrote in a 1997 article for The Australian, unearthed by Crikey on Wednesday.
"It is likely to ensure that not only will a minority of Australians vote, but also that large sections of the community will be disfranchised."
But having once argued in the party room against any sort of plebiscite, Mr Turnbull is now under pressure to adhere to that policy by colleagues who are increasingly embracing the postal vote alternative.
First spruiked by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, the idea is supported by conservative cabinet ministers Mathias Cormann and Scott Morrison, while Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce is inclined to back it if necessary.
The Queensland Liberal National Party resolved two weeks ago to support a postal vote, and former prime minister Tony Abbott has also endorsed the idea.
The debate over same-sex marriage is certain to come to a head next week when Parliament returns, with a handful of Liberal MPs threatening to cross the floor unless a conscience vote is granted.
Mr Abbott on Wednesday warned that crossing the floor would be a "serious attack on the authority of the leadership" and "a major breach of faith" with voters.
In a sign of how important the debate will be, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will cut short a visit to the Philippines to be back in Canberra for parliamentary business.
But lawyers have warned the postal vote option, while politically attractive, could be legally dangerous. Constitutional expert George Williams said a vote of this kind would ordinarily be supported by legislation, "otherwise it could be subject to a constitutional challenge in the High Court".
While the government could fund the vote using the Commonwealth Electoral Act, this was "a fraught course of action because that mechanism is not built for a plebiscite of this kind", Professor Williams said.
"It's something that really could explode in the government's face," he said.
255 comments
Comment are now closed