Same sex marriage plebiscite cost of $525 million skewed: Eric Abetz

The ‘bizarre’ $525m price tag attached to the plebiscite is designed to discredit the Coalition, Eric Abetz says.

Same-sex marriage opponent Eric Abetz has questioned the math behind the $525m plebiscite bill. Picture: Sam Rosewarne

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ report on the economic cost of the government’s same-sex marriage plebiscite has been “skewed” to discredit the Coalition’s policy, says Liberal senator Eric Abetz.

The plebiscite on same-sex marriage would inflict a $525 million blow on the economy, according to the firm’s analysis, which tallies the cost to government, voters, campaigners and mental health.

Senator Abetz, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the report’s estimated $281m cost to voters by dragging them to the polls for one-hour on a Saturday was “quite bizarre”.

“Look you can ask the question what price of democracy and changing the fundamental institution which has socialised children for the past millennia can’t be reduced to bean counting,” he told ABC radio.

“It does show and indicate that this was a study in inverted commas with an outcome that was sought by those doing it.

“And of course it doesn’t take into account the costs on the other side of this debate – people who feel strongly, who will feel depressed about a change if it were to occur – as a result of a plebiscite.”

PwC Australia partner Jeremy Thorpe has told The Australian that the firm’s analysis is as rigorous as any other work undertaken by the internationally recognised accounting firm.

Bill Shorten criticised the government for pursuing the plebiscite policy.

“That’s $525 million for a divisive plebiscite that some in the Coalition (including Senator Abetz) have said they’ll ignore ... when parliament could just do its job and legislate marriage equality immediately,” he said.

Australian Marriage Equlity’s Rodney Croome highlighted the $20m mental health impact predicted in the PwC report.

“The more information we get about the plebiscite, the clearer it becomes that it’s just an incredibly costly and harmful opinion poll,” he said.

“It’s a sign of maturity and strength to change your mind in the face of new information. The plebiscite legislation will be a minefield of unexpected costs, unintended consequences, and complications about timing and public funding.”

An Australian Christian Lobby spokesman said PwC was “not a neutral organisation in the same-sex marriage debate”.

“Having voiced such strong public support for same-sex marriage, PwC is not an unbiased source of information when it comes to the plebiscite or in efforts to redefine marriage.

“By doing whatever it takes to undermine the plebiscite, proponents of change are sending open-minded Australians a message that they would prefer to rush controversial law change without consultation rather than allow people the opportunity to carefully examine the consequences.”

Senator Abetz has previously cited PwC analysis to support his positions in parliament.

Debating industry policy in 2013, Senator Abetz, then the employment minister, told parliament:

“If I have the choice of (ALP) Senator (Kim) Carr or PricewaterhouseCoopers, I plead guilty to accepting the advice of PricewaterhouseCoopers any day of the week.”