Many Liberal MPs would, quite properly, have assumed there would be a conscience vote. … Indeed, there has never been a substantive policy issue (as opposed to a procedural one) where Labor has had a conscience vote and the Liberals have not.
Amanda Vanstone, former Liberal MP
Last year, the Labor Party’s national platform was changed to endorse same-sex marriage. But that was only half the battle. It was announced over the weekend that a group of parents with gay sons and daughters are now launching a campaign to convince Liberal leader Tony Abbott to offer his MPs a conscience vote in the event of a private members’ bill being put up to amend the Marriage Act. One poll found that a strong majority of coalition voters wanted their MPs to be offered such a right. (Who knew there was quite so many liberals in the Liberal Party these days?) And now a prominent ex-Liberal MP has thrown her support behind the conscience vote movement.
In an op-ed for The Age, Amanda Vanstone (a minister during John Howard’s reign as prime minister) argues that Abbott risks putting many in his party — and in the wider electorate — off side. He declared that there would be no conscience vote for Liberal MPs late last year, after the parliamentary session for the year had ended, and therefore without consideration from the party room. His justification was that all Liberal MPs went to the last election on a platform to preserve the notion of marriage being between ‘one man and one woman’. But as Vanstone notes, that commitment wasn’t debated by coalition MPs either — it was Abbott’s call to begin with. The problem for Abbott then is that, as someone already identified as a devout conservative with strong Catholic values, he looks like his faith is driving policy judgements — something that leaves many Australians (who are largely secular-minded) decidedly queasy.
It is commonly noted that a conscience vote is not strictly necessary for the opposition. Unlike in the Labor Party (where the principle of unity dominates), Liberals are entitled to cross the floor without retribution. That said, frontbenchers are expected to tow the official line — were they to vote out of step with the leader’s wishes, they would also have to resign their post. Hence senior Liberals who are also philosophically liberal, like Malcolm Turnbull (the party’s communications spokesman), would be left with the unenviable position of choosing between principle and power. A conscience vote would conveniently (for them) square that circle.
