Howard ramps up attack on Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull is facing a deepening divide within the Liberal Party over same-sex marriage.

Malcolm Turnbull in question time yesterday. Picture: Kym Smith

Malcolm Turnbull is facing a deepening divide within the Liberal Party over same-sex marriage after John Howard ratcheted up his criticisms of the government, accusing it of “washing its hands” of any responsibility to protect parental rights, free speech and religious freedoms.

UPDATE: Turnbull, Pyne defend SSM position

Mr Howard said it was an ­abrogation of responsibility and “disingenuous” for the government not to address the “legitimate concerns” of Australians about the legal protections that were needed to accompany same-sex marriage.

The former prime minister, who launched his campaign for a No vote in The Weekend Aus­tralian on Saturday, warned that in the face of these concerns the government response had been to “wash its hands of any responsibility”. He said existing protections for religious institutions were under assault and could be further unpicked by a future Labor government.

Kelly comment: Great fraud of postal survey

His intervention was backed yesterday by Tony Abbott and ­echoed by a group of senior ­lawyers.

The sharpening of the attack highlights a deepening rift within the conservative side of politics over the conduct of the postal survey and whether religious freedoms are adequately protected.

Senior conservatives including Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann refused to respond to Mr Howard’s criticism, while Coalition MPs in support of same-sex marriage sought to counter his claims.

The conservative leaders within Mr Turnbull’s team have consistently declined to detail how protections would be legislated if laws were passed to introduce same-sex marriage.

In his statement yesterday, Mr Howard said: “It is important for the government to spell out, in advance of the vote, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech and ­religious freedom in the event of same-sex marriage becoming law. The case for these protections is compelling ... It is completely disingenuous to assert that a change of this magnitude to a fundamental social institution does not have consequences. This issue must be addressed before the survey is completed.

“Thus far, the government’s response has been to wash its hands of any responsibility, merely stating that it will facilitate a private member’s bill.”

Mr Howard’s view is that the debate on same-sex marriage is akin to the republic ­debate, when ministers including Peter Costello, then treasurer, were free to ­express their opinions while also performing their day jobs.

Mr Howard and Mr Abbott were also united in their defence of the monarchy during the 1999 republic referendum.

The criticism from Mr Howard came shortly after the parliamentary launch of the Yes campaign for Liberals and Nat­ionals, with supporters of same-sex marriage playing down fears that any change to the definition of marriage would impinge on other freedoms.

Education Minister Simon Birmingham said current provisions for faith-based schools would “in no way be changed by either this postal survey or any of the legislation that’s come before the parliament which would enact marriage equality”.

Attorney-General ­George Brandis argued that religious freedoms would be protected under “very thorough” measures in any bill.

Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer said “religious institutions should always be able to have the ability to determine who they marry”.

Other Coalition MPs backed Mr Howard’s comments. Mr ­Abbott said it was incumbent on those calling for change to identify the broader consequences of same-sex marriage.

“At the moment they can’t or won’t or they’re arguing among themselves about it behind closed doors,” Mr Abbott told radio 2GB. “If you don’t know, vote No because people don’t know exactly what is going to come in the wake of this change.”

West Australian Liberal Andrew Hastie said Mr Howard was “spot on” and there were “consequences to redefining marriage”.

“We must have provisions to protect freedom of speech, religion and parental rights if the Yes vote prevails,” he said. “To pretend otherwise is to ignore the experience of the US, UK and Canada.”

Labor’s legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus attacked Mr Howard’s claim that Labor would examine the exemptions from provisions of anti-discrimination legislation currently enjoyed by religious institutions.

“Mr Howard’s allegation is completely false,” he said. “He should stick to the question at hand: whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry. This is nothing but a scare campaign from the No camp.”