First up tonight, we finally have a date for the same sex marriage plebiscite.
The 11th of February.
But everythingI just said doesn't mean anything because it could still not happen.
"I'm not gay, but if I was, I would want equal rights.
I'm not gay, but if I were, I would marry who I like.
It's not fair I'm not gay, the government has a say..."
The Federal Cabinet has signed off on plans to hold the plebiscite early next year.
The government has also pleged $7.5mill each
in public funding to both the Yes and No campaigns
on top of the $160mill it will cost to host the plebiscite.
This news basically means nothing because...
"You'll recall that the results of the election were such that
the government does not have a majority in the Senate."
The Greens, Nick Xenophon Team, and Derryn Hinch are all planning on opposiing the plebiscite bill.
Labor haven't officially said whether they'll block it or not,
but Bill Shorten had this to say earlier:
"I think the plebiscite is a bad idea.
I also think it's a bad idea because of the cost,
so we have a lot of reservations about this."
Yeah, so I don't think Labor is going to support the plebiscite either.
One person who definitely doesn't want Labor to support it
or for the plebiscite to go ahead is Sally Rugg from GetUp!
Sally, what's actually wrong with the plebiscite for you?
We already know that the plebiscite is going to be exorbitantly expensive
ethically fraught, it's potentially going to be really divisive,
and it's procedurally unnecessary.
But this morning we learned a whole bunch of new details
because the legislation for the plebiscite was confirmed.
The thing that most people are upset about, including myself,
is the fact that the government want to give $15mill of public funding
to both sides of the campaign.
We already know what anti-equality groups like the Australian Christian Lobby are capable of.
So the thought that public funds will be potentially funneled into groups like that
to run advertising campaigns like that - it's completely unacceptable.
The most recent poll suggests that a majority of Australians
support same sex marriage, so a plebiscite would be successful,
so why not let people vote in February? What are those procedural issues you were referring to earlier?
A plebiscite is procedurally alien for Australia.
We don't have plebiscites - we elect a parliament and they make decisions for us.
The thought, or the fact, that the gay community have been singled out
as a group of people whose rights will be decided on by the majority
is really offensive and really humiliating.
We learned today that the plebiscite question will be,
'should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?'
That's the question. You're not happy with the wording -
why is that?
The main concern for me is the fact that it uses that prescriptive term
'same sex couples'.
And by explicity saying same sex couples
they're actually excluding some intersex people and some people with non-binary genders.
If it's not equality for all of us, it's not equality at all.
What would you like it to say? What would you like the question to be?
The question that marriage equality advocates have put forward is very similar to the one in Ireland.
Should two people be able to get married regardless of their sex?
Really simple.
Sally, the only real option that exists on the table for the next three years is a plebiscite:
why give that up? It's just going to delay this further.
The plebiscite is the delay.
The plebiscite is the delay tactic.
Blocking it isn't delaying it.
The plebiscite was invented by Tony Abbott a year ago
and we've seen today with the legislation that's come through
it's been completely crafted by people in the far-right faction of the Coalition
who really don't want marriage equality.
The plebsicte isn't a viable way forward for marriage equality
and that's why we're calling on all members of parliament
including the Labor Party,
to block the legislation so we can focus on
getting a free vote.
Sally Rugg, thankyou so much for joining us.
Thanks for having me on.