Tory Shepherd: Don’t kid yourself, a conscience vote won’t be truly ‘free’

THE upshot of all this marriage equality debate is that we’ll probably get to a conscience vote eventually, but it won’t be truly ‘free’, writes Tory Shepherd.

LIFE and death are the usual stuff of conscience votes.

Marriage often makes it in there as well. Conscience votes — or “free” votes, as they’re sometimes called — are generally about moral and social issues. During John Howard’s time conscience votes included votes on euthanasia, abortion pill RU486 and human cloning.

There have been votes on the death penalty. Weirdly, there was once a vote on putting fluoride in Canberra’s water supply, and a handful on where new Parliament House should be built. But mostly they’re about issues that split the nation and Parliament down deeply personal and direly political lines. In this latest case, that would be same-sex marriage.

The path to a conscience vote is labyrinthine. (Think of it as dark and winding, with the ghost of David Bowie in tight pants watching on). From here, so-called rebels could magic up a vote on the floor of Parliament, the MPs and Senators could actually find their consciences and let it go ahead. This probably won’t happen though.

Parliament will vote on a compulsory plebiscite. It will probably get blocked in the Senate. Once the plebiscite is dead and buried (with only a dim chance it will rise rotting from the ground to face Parliament again) the nation goes to a postal vote. A flawed, third-best option.

Either way there should be some kind of public vote by November 25, before a possible conscience vote in the twilight of 2017. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explained it thus, yesterday: “Since the election, we have come back and gone through Parliament with a bill to enable a ballot. It has been rejected. We will be presenting it again. If it is rejected [again], we will hold a postal vote. All Australians will have their say and express their opinion.”

If the public say “yay”, the Government will facilitate the Parliamentary vote. The conscience vote.

If the public say ‘nay’, the Government will not facilitate the Parliamentary vote, and we’re back to scratch. But because most people want gay marriage, eventually the chances are we will have a conscience vote. The obvious question, then, is do politicians have a conscience? OK, that’s a little flippant. More specifically: what sort of conscience do they have?

What sort of conscience does Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull have? (Pic: Gary Ramage)

And what sort of “conscience” do they vote with? The nebulous “conscience” could be any of these four options:

A VOTE based on a politician’s own, free-willed belief. Whether they do or do not think that same-sex marriage should be a thing.

A VOTE following the will of the people; if a plebiscite (postal or otherwise) shows a majority of people are in favour or against, you give them what they want.

A VOTE that means you stay true to your electorate; if you were voted in on the understanding you were for or against — even if you change your mind — you are bound to that vote.

A VOTE along party lines or made after pressure from a partisan group. The whole idea of a conscience vote is that it is meant to be “free”, but there are some who might let their own ambition or fear overcome their personal beliefs.

The Parliamentary Library explains that in normal life MPs vote on party lines; if not, they either abstain, cross the floor to vote with the Opposition, or the party lets them have a conscience vote.

Gay rights activist Russell Nankervis on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra. (Pic: Kym Smith)

Journalism legend Laurie Oakes talked about the distinction between crossing the floor and a conscience vote: “(Prime Minister John) Howard decides when Coalition MPs are permitted to have a conscience (and all hell breaks loose when someone follows his conscience without permission),” he said.

History certainly shows votes are often not as free as you’d think. When it came to RU486, anti-abortion activists allegedly threatened MPs with retribution at preselections and right-wing minor parties used their preferences as leverage. SA Labor Senator Linda Kirk blamed debate on therapeutic cloning for her disendorsement. She says she was threatened by conservative pro-Catholic elements in her own party.

The upshot of all this is that we’ll probably get to a conscience vote eventually, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that it’s truly “free”. The way individuals vote might depend on the flawed postal vote we took to get there, on many and varied allegiances, and even whether or not they want to paint Mr Turnbull as the leader of a divided party.

What we can hope for is that there are enough people in our federal Parliament who truly exercise their conscience, and carry out their duty. Not to lobbyists or to their party, but their moral duty. All the surveys and public statements show that most pollies know their moral duty is to vote in same-sex marriage. History will show who sits on what side of the ledger.