What did the Libs actually decide today ??, page-5

Here is the state of play...
The Liberals have met to discuss same-sex marriage and, well, as expected, the latest bid to move the issue to a conscience vote has failed.
Only seven Liberal MPs backed the move, meaning the party's policy remains unchanged and the word "plebiscite" isn't going away.
So, let's work our way through what happens next.
A plebiscite

The Senate rejected a plebiscite last November and the Government has not tried again, but Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said he hoped that would change this week.
Yes, the Senate is likely to knock back another plebiscite bill, but the Government says it will put it to them anyway.
That's because some Coalition MPs strongly argue that given it was an election promise, the Government should ask again.
Reporters pressed Finance Minister Mathias Cormann on it:
"Our preference is to give the Australian people a say through a compulsory attendance plebiscite," he said.
"Should that not succeed through the Senate, the Government believes that there is a legal and constitutional way forward to give the Australian people a say through a non-legislated, voluntary postal plebiscite."
A postal plebiscite

This is the next likely step if the full plebiscite cannot happen.
It would be an optional ballot where voting papers would be mailed out to every eligible voter for them to return by post rather than the usual situation where they would go to a polling booth.
Campaigners for same-sex marriage have already said they would immediately launch a legal challenge against a postal plebiscite, arguing the Government cannot spend money to run the postal vote without Senate approval.
A private member's bill

Such a bill could be introduced to the House of Representatives next Monday during private members' business.
The MPs who voted yes:

1. Warren Entsch (Qld)
2. Trevor Evans (Qld)
3. Tim Wilson (Vic)
4. Jason Wood (Vic)
5. Dean Smith (WA senator)
6. John Alexander (NSW)
7. Trent Zimmerman (NSW)

WA Liberal senator Dean Smith has drafted the private member's bill but he has said it would be best if the bill was introduced to the Lower House.
No-one has confirmed they would be prepared to introduce the bill, but a group of Liberals including Warren Entsch, Trevor Evans, Tim Wilson and Trent Zimmerman have been arguing for a free vote in Parliament to change the law to allow same-sex marriage.
On Monday night, they all raised their hands in support of a conscience vote.
Mr Entsch says he could still introduce a private member's bill into Parliament.
A suspension of standing orders

This is the parliamentary mechanism that could be used to try to force Parliament to vote on the private member's bill.
Game of snakes and ladders?


It is a game of snakes and ladders for the Liberals hoping to change the law to allow same-sex marriage.


To pass, there would have to be an absolute majority of 76 Lower House MPs. This could be moved by one of those Liberal MPs who supports same-sex marriage.
It would be supported by Labor and some of the crossbenchers, but the numbers would be tight.
A conscience vote

So, if the Parliament's standing orders were successfully suspended and someone introduced Senator Smith's private member's bill, members would be allowed to vote freely on it.
If that happened, some Liberals who support same-sex marriage would join the group of five Lower House Liberals to vote for changing the law, but some Labor people particularly in the Senate would either vote to continue the ban on same-sex marriage or abstain from voting.
Remember, it is all up to the MPs

Whether the process chosen is a plebiscite or a postal vote, the final decision to change the law can only be taken by Parliament.
The Government has indicated it will push ahead of the plebiscite plan or it might order the postal ballot.
Some in the Coalition, particularly some Nationals, argue there must not be a vote until after a plebiscite has been held.
Dave R.