Editorial: Gay marriage threatens Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces his greatest challenge as leader next week when the vexed marriage equality issue hits parliament.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces his greatest challenge as leader next week. Picture: AAP

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces his greatest challenge as leader next week when the vexed marriage equality issue hits parliament.

In what is looming as a potential D-day on the issue, the PM faces a revolt from pro-marriage equality MPs within Liberal ranks.

Suddenly, the substantive issue of modifying the Marriage Act to include same-sex equality could morph into a de facto vote on his own leadership.

Negotiating the road to a marriage equality decision via plebiscite, Mr Turnbull’s election pledge, or the parliamentary free-vote alternative pushed by equality advocates, has shadowed Mr Turnbull since his leadership began.

Some senior conservatives on Tuesday claimed the PM’s grasp on power would be lost and his leadership “terminal” if he cannot prevent MPs from his own faction crossing the floor on same-sex marriage if a private member Bill is introduced. Conservatives say that if Mr Turnbull cannot shut down the play for a conscience vote by moderate colleagues, then it would be “the beginning of the end” of his leadership.

Peter Dutton is the conservatives’ preferred replacement as prime minister.

Given what the Herald Sun has revealed over the past 48 hours, a continuing delay on same-sex marriage — despite Mr Turnbull’s likely support of marriage equality — may be untenable. With parliament resuming next Tuesday, the PM has six days to put out the fire or watch to see if a key group of members crosses the floor of the House of Representatives in support of a conscience vote. The winner by default in that scenario will be Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. And, to a lesser extent, Peter Dutton as the conservatives’ preferred replacement as prime minister, and Tony Abbott.

The gay marriage schism threatens to tear the government apart. Members on both sides of the debate have passionate views — whether for or against — on moral, ethical and theological grounds.

But a lack of Coalition unity, and the frustration of pro-equality advocates tired of the issue dogging the government, underlines just how fragile Mr Turnbull’s leadership has become.

Paralysis and drift have largely been the hallmarks of the Turnbull Government since he wrested the prime ministership from Mr Abbott just shy of two years ago and won election in the knife-edge July 2016 poll.

There have been successes, including the reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Gonski and childcare reforms, intervention in the CFA dispute to protect volunteers and a range of savings measures in an otherwise Labor-lite Budget. But the goals have been few and far between. And that record, together with a perceived lack of overt conviction and action from Mr Turnbull on issues from climate change and marriage equality to Budget repair and tax reform, may have emboldened some within the Coalition. Indeed, this collection of his own moderate colleagues, who have seen him bow to conservative elements, are now willing to take him on. Responding to conservative fires within the party, not least those lit by Mr Abbott, the PM has sought to define the Liberals as a party marked by pragmatism and progressive endeavour. But he finds himself now facing a revolt on both sides, from some moderates and many conservatives. Trying to appease both may yet cost him the leadership, and lose his party government.

Many commentators fairly ask what more Patrick Dangerfield could have done to prevent Kreuzer’s injury. Picture: Peter Ristevski

UNFORSEEABLE DANGER

THE one-match suspension handed to Patrick Dangerfield — and the byproduct of losing eligibility for the 2017 Brownlow Medal — is wrong both in substance and gravity.

No one would argue Dangerfield’s trunk tackle on Carlton’s Matthew Kreuzer had malicious intent. The incident left Kreuzer with mild concussion and the ruckman was unable to return to the field.

Rules and penalties that focus on protecting a player’s head and neck are fundamental and necessary.

But in such a fast-paced and dynamic contact sport, complete control can never be achieved over how a player being tackled lands. Sling and spear tackles, of course, are a dangerous blight and should be penalised heavily. But sometimes, even in an otherwise legal tackle, there is unforeseeable danger.

That doesn’t automatically imply recklessness. This is not a game devoid of physical risk and can never be, if we want to retain its gladiatorial and athletic highlights.

Intent or recklessness must be a central consideration in findings of guilt.

The AFL’s Match Review Panel deemed the Geelong superstar and former Brownlow favourite’s tackle was indeed dangerous. The incident was graded as careless contact with medium impact to the head.

Many commentators fairly ask what more Dangerfield could have done to prevent Kreuzer’s injury.

Given Dangerfield’s sterling record of 196 games without a report against him, the two-match suspension was halved to one with an early plea. The price far outweighs the gravity of what was a regrettable, but unforeseeable, accident.