Malcolm Turnbull is showing leadership — against conservatives on SSM

PM Malcolm Turnbull is refusing to enshrine discriminatory laws against gays. Picture: Kym Smith

Sections of the conservative right are angry that the Prime Minister isn’t showing “leadership” on the issue of same sex marriage. But what do they mean by that?

Rather than allow MPs and Senators a free vote in the parliament, as a delaying tactic many conservatives supported a plebiscite, arguing over and over again that it was important to give the people their say. They just don’t like the conclusion voters came to.

The plebiscite tactic was used to slow down the debate and avoid Labor’s rush towards a parliamentary vote. Yes Labor went from refusing to support SSM in government to strident advocacy when they were no longer in power. Their collective hypocrisy deserves to be called out. But with so many western nations moving to legalise SSM Australia was being left behind. Hence why this issue assumed greater prominence in recent years.

Conservatives told me directly the value of the push for a plebiscite was about “buying time” to see what happens overseas and hopefully use an international backlash against SSM to stop it ever happening here. Or to prevent the majority supporting it in an eventual popular vote, thus legitimising the No case.

The problem, however, was that the opposite has been the overseas experience. Conservatives opposed to SSM in New Zealand and the United Kingdom have publicly admitted that once legislated the evidence informed them that their collective concerns were overblown. Many have said that if they had their time again they would have supported SSM from the outset.

It’s a bit like people who wanted blacks to continue to ride at the back of the bus, or racial segregation of toilets, or bans on interracial marriage. When the laws changed they realised they were on the wrong side of history. History eventually leaves such opponents looking, well, not so good.

But such comparisons are many years away. For no opposition to SSM remains a sizeable minority, just like opposition to racial equality was a sizeable minority decades ago.

In the here and now, opponents of SSM are fighting a rearguard action to enshrine discriminatory provisions into the Bill. To allow bakers to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM. Or a taxi driver using his or her faith to refuse to accept a fare to a SSM. If we don’t allow such discrimination for Jewish taxi drivers not wanting to take Muslims to their weddings, or Catholic bakers refusing to bake a divorcee a cake for their second wedding, why is it OK to discriminate against gays?

We can’t pretend criticisms of the PM for not showing “leadership” are him refusing to provide religious freedom protections, as some conservatives are claiming. He’s refusing to enshrine discriminatory laws against gays at the very time they are about to secure marriage equality. And secure it after a vote which saw 62 per cent of Australians support the move.

Standing up to these sections within his own party is the PM showing leadership, rather than giving in to bullying which goes against the will of the people.

The No case campaigned hard warning that the world would collapse if SSM was legalised. A major aspect of their campaign was to claim that religious protections weren’t adequately addressed in Dean Smith’s bill. Yet 62 per cent of people still voted for SSM. Either the No case was hopeless in their messaging (they have been telling us ever since the result how well they did) or people simply didn’t care about their fear campaign.

Either way this rearguard action should be resisted.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia.