History of same-sex marriage in Australia

The government pledged to facilitate the passage of a private member's bill legalising same-sex marriage in the Parliament if a majority of respondents voted "Yes" in the survey.

[8][9] Previously a matter for the Australian states and territories, uniform national marriage legislation was first introduced by Attorney-General Garfield Barwick of the Liberal Party of Australia 19 May 1960.

Two Australian same-sex couples married in Canada in 2004 and lodged an application in the Family Court of Australia in Victoria, seeking legal recognition of their Canadian marriages.

[32] Upon returning to the prime ministership in June, Rudd promised to introduce same-sex marriage legislation within 100 days if Labor won the 2013 federal election, while granting its members a conscience vote.

[35][36] By December 2013, deputy Labor Opposition Leader, Tanya Plibersek, announced that she would introduce a private member's bill in the Parliament, seeking the assistance and co-sponsorship of Coalition government minister Malcolm Turnbull and a free vote among all parliamentarians.

[44] Despite several Coalition MPs criticising Shorten for political opportunism,[45] Prime Minister Tony Abbott promised a "very full, frank and candid and decent" debate inside the Liberal Party and also appeared to rule out a referendum on same-sex marriage.

[52] Abbott was accused by Christopher Pyne of "branch stacking" the party room by calling a joint meeting with the largely socially conservative Nationals, as this reduced the prospects of a free vote being endorsed.

[55] On 17 August 2015, in defiance of Mr. Abbott, Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch introduced the aforementioned private members' bill, saying, "a divided nation is what we will be if we continue to allow discrimination in relation to marriage on the basis of a person's sexuality.

Same-sex marriage lobby groups subsequently began pressuring Prime Minister Turnbull to allow a free vote on Mr Entsch's private members bill or at least bring forward the proposed national plebiscite to the next election or earlier.

[60][61] In January 2016 at least two Liberal MPs (Cory Bernardi and Eric Abetz) stated they would be unlikely to vote in favour of same-sex marriage in parliament even if the proposed plebiscite returned a majority yes result.

[80] The decision meant that, in order for the plebiscite to proceed, it would have needed to receive the support of the opposition Labor Party, who had yet to formally respond to the proposal but had previously labelled it "a second-best option".

[94] A Senate committee was subsequently launched to discuss the text of the Government's draft same-sex marriage bill, which was published by the Attorney-General's office during the parliamentary debate on the plebiscite.

The committee gathered submissions from lawyers, religious and social service groups, with particular consternation regarding provisions in the bill allowing civil celebrants to refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages.

[102][101] The committee also rejected the proposal to allow civil celebrants to refuse to perform same-sex weddings on the basis of "conscientious belief", declaring there was no need to "disturb decades of anti-discrimination law and practice in Australia".

[102][101] On 4 February 2017, several Coalition MPs supporting same-sex marriage stated to Fairfax Media they would push to abandon the government's plebiscite policy over the following fortnight in favour of a free vote on the floor of Parliament.

[102] By mid-March, the issue had once again split the government, with a private and sustained effort by moderate Liberal MPs to move for a free vote allegedly hitting a "brick wall" following opposition by more conservative members of the party room.

[105][106] Subsequently, it was revealed in a Senate Committee hearing that the government had sought official advice on conducting a plebiscite via postal mail, a proposal which received a mixed response.

Smith stated he intended to bring the bill to the Liberal party room for debate in due course with the hope of having a conscience vote on the legislation before the end of the year, though the prospect of crossing the floor was also raised.

[114][115][116] The move was countered by a fresh push from several conservative members of the government, including Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, to instead have a plebiscite conducted by postal mail.

[120][121] Up to five Liberal MPs in the lower house and one Senator stated they would consider crossing the floor to bring on debate on a same-sex marriage bill, even if the party rejected a free vote and maintained its plebiscite policy.

[123][124][125] In response to the prospect of the Liberal Party potentially moving to a free vote, Nationals MP Andrew Broad stated he would quit the Coalition and sit on the crossbench, saying the likely outcome of such a decision would be the fall of the Turnbull government.

[110] At the party room meeting, an overwhelming majority of MPs voted to maintain the plebiscite policy, moving for the legislation to be put back to the Senate the same week.

If the postal survey returned a majority 'yes' verdict, the government announced it would facilitate a private member's bill in the final sitting fortnight of the parliamentary year which would legalise same-sex marriage.

[131] This cleared the way for the Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, to make an immediate appropriation to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) the purpose of conducting the postal survey.

[132][133] The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, then issued an official direction to the ABS, requiring it to collect information relating to the people's views on same-sex marriage.

[134][135] Immediately following the failed motion in the Senate, same-sex marriage advocates Shelley Argent (national spokeswoman of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and Felicity Marlowe (head of Rainbow Families), along with independent MP Andrew Wilkie, announced they would challenge the legality of the postal survey in the High Court.

Several amendments to the bill proposed by conservative Coalition MPs, designed to increase protections and exemptions offered to individuals and businesses opposed to same-sex marriage, were defeated.

[155][156][157] States and territories have long had the ability to create laws with respect to relationships, though Section 51 (xxi) of the Constitution of Australia prescribes that marriage is a legislative power of the federal parliament.

[165][166] Those experts were proven correct, when on 12 December 2013, the High Court of Australia struck down the Australian Capital Territory's same-sex marriage law.

[173] On 13 September 2013, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government announced that it would introduce a bill to legalise same-sex marriage, following a decade-long attempt to legislate in the area.