Double dilemmas for Abbott

Tony Abbott doesn’t support gay marriage but he wants indigenous recognition in the Constitution. As it stands now, the Prime Minister will not get his preference on either issue.

Gay marriage will be legalised but constitutional recognition for Aboriginals will likely continue to struggle to find a form that will assure its success at a referendum.

Despite his admirable commitment to constitutional recognition, Abbott is surprisingly not rushed, as if the debate will look after itself.

Likewise on gay marriage, an issue which he would prefer to remain “subterranean”.

But gay marriage is well and truly out of its cushioned crypt, sunning itself in rainbow rays.

It is an issue in need of prime ministerial decisiveness. It is not one that will any longer afford denial or delay. Because it won’t go away.

The successful referendum in Ireland, the home of supposedly conservative Catholicism, has removed a psychological barrier for some of the PM’s ministerial and backbench colleagues.

Even strong supporters of traditional marriage within the coalition believe the issue has to be resolved, one way or the other, before year’s end.

“If we turn into the election year with gay marriage continuing to suck up oxygen, we’ll be in trouble,” says one conservative MP from a rural seat. “Let’s have the vote and bloody well move on.”

This is not an uncommon view. Gay marriage, Liberal MPs report, is not the issue it once was.

There are still people who have strong views about it, either for or against, but it is no longer a debate characterised by a split between moderates and the Right.

Right-wingers such as WA Liberal Dean Smith and Northern Territory Country Liberal Natasha Griggs support marriage equality, as do three Nationals, at last count: Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion, Victorian Darren Chester and Kevin Hogan from NSW.

There are others waiting to join them. As much as he’d rather put it off, Abbott must forge a response that allows the Government to return to the issues that will decide the next election: the economy and national security.

Abbott’s leadership requires it. Scott Morrison’s urging of colleagues to take a “breather” on gay marriage may not be especially good advice for Abbott if it only sees a festering within coalition ranks at the PM’s expense.

Malcolm Turnbull’s pro-gay marriage stance has been long known but Julie Bishop, another leadership option, has noticeably calculated it best to keep her view on gay marriage unaired.

Handling a fracturing conservative base is a more urgent task than Abbott would care to admit.

Liberal National Party MP George Christensen was slightly exaggerating when he likened the internal coalition disquiet on gay marriage to the 2009 rift over emissions trading, which saw Turnbull deposed as leader, but Abbott needs to be alert to revolt. Fuelled by suspicion in some quarters that Abbott has given tacit approval to supporters of gay marriage, a dozen hardcore marriage “traditionalists” in the Liberal party room are beginning to formulate a battle plan.

Their first tactic, driven by fear that there may be enough votes in the House of Representatives for a co-sponsored Bill to pass, is to demand the party stick with its policy to support the current definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.

They hope this would extinguish the push for a conscience vote.

But its price would be the appearance of Abbott rigging the result — dangerous when the reality is that even if a free vote were denied, some MPs and senators would use an existing right to exercise their conscience by crossing the floor.

The prospect of having dissidents, whatever the issue, is unappetising for any leader.

Tying the Liberal vote to a joint ticket with the Nationals would not be widely tolerated, either. The split in the Nationals makes this impractical in any case.

Abbott will have to own the issue by shaping its outcome, even if his preference is for there to be no change to the Marriage Act.

One option being spoken of, is not to redefine marriage but to broaden it. Rather than replace “man and woman” with “two people”, which would incense the religious and arch-conservatives, the definition of man and woman could be retained but with the addition of man and man, woman and woman or another construction.

With the issue fast running away and the prospect of a nasty stoush brewing, Abbott has little time to waste. Letting the issue drag on is not an option.

Similarly, the time is fast approaching for Abbott to take a more hands-on approach to constitutional indigenous recognition.

This is certainly not a subject that animates the conservatives’ core constituency. Like gay marriage, they see it as a distraction.

But Abbott’s embrace of the Recognition movement necessitates his stewardship.

The push to correct Australia’s foundation document must not fail. In the words of one frontbencher: “If a referendum on recognising indigenous Australians in the Constitution failed to get up, the international community would depict us as a bunch of racist bigots.”

Troubling the Recognition movement is the hydra-headed options it has spawned. While removal of the race powers in Section 51 is relatively uncontroversial, there is great convergence thereafter.

The minimalists are content with acknowledgment of the existence of indigenous Australians before European settlement. But there is no consensus on how this model would be pursued.

The ambitious — the Left, the activists and many Aboriginal leaders — suggest significant amendment, including entrenched racial discrimination provisions. There is no consensus here, either.

And Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s idea for a separate indigenous body to be created out of the Constitution to advise and consult on legislation affecting indigenous people, would radically rewrite relations between black and white Australia.

History shows us that to succeed, a referendum needs bipartisanship, overwhelming support of the people and no organised opposition to achieve a double majority (majority support in a majority of States).

Without a miracle intervention, such as through unexpected agreement at the indigenous leaders’ meeting on July 6, these preconditions look lost.

Abbott’s preferred referendum date, the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum — May 27, 2017 — is beginning to look awfully optimistic, even from this far out.

As it is, this would potentially be just a fortnight after the first Budget of a second-term Abbott Government; a Budget that must be tough to make up for the enforced timidity of the coalition’s first term.

On gay marriage and indigenous recognition, the squeeze is on Abbott.