Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:21): I too would like to make a contribution to taking note of the answer by Senator Brandis to Senator Farrell's question. The question was fairly clear: whose recollection was correct, or did the Prime Minister make a commitment to funding the respective sides? Senator Brandis has said, 'Well, it wouldn't be the first time that someone's come away from a meeting with a different recollection'. But, truly, who is correct—the bishop or the Prime Minister of Australia? I do not think a question gets any clearer than that, and it probably deserved a more concise and straightforward answer. My position in this debate is on the public record. I have listened very carefully to the debate on this plebiscite issue and I am persuaded by the Hon. Michael Kirby, who made a prescient contribution in respect of this debate in a recent interview. He said: The constitution doesn't provide for interposing this additional step in the law-making process. The last time we tried it was in 1916, 100 years ago, on the question of overseas compulsory military service. And we haven't really attempted a plebiscite as an interposition for 100 years. He comes to that position as a juror, as a lawyer and as a judge. He said further: We are not a populist democracy and we don't elect our prime minister or a president. We are a representative democracy who does things through an elected legislature, which meets in public session, whose record is kept by the Hansard, whose speeches are recorded, whose votes are recorded. That's the way we've done it for 110 years— 'And we really should do it this time.' I am persuaded by that argument. There has been an election. There is a government in place, and it should govern. It should take on that decision-making authority that it has and proceed. A plebiscite at a cost of $160 million, with equal funding for either side to add to that, would seem a little excessive to most of the hardworking taxpayers and the electors of this country. The really interesting thing is that the Westminster system provides for this parliament, the executive, to commit troops in times of war without reference to a plebiscite. Senator Brandis: Parliament doesn't commit troops. Senator GALLACHER: The Westminster system provides for the executive authority to commit troops. We make agreements and treaties in this place. The Japanese economic partnership agreement, the Korea free trade agreement and the Chinese Australia free trade agreement are all made at the executive prerogative. The enabling legislation comes through these places. Why is it that on this one issue, probably the first time in 100 years, we need to spend $160-plus million on a plebiscite? The reason is that in order to get the mantle of prime ministership, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull had to do a deal, agree with the conservative wing of his party, that he would maintain the promise by the Hon. Tony Abbott of a plebiscite. It is very, very clear. His heart is not in it. He is on the public record in other areas committing to marriage equality and support thereof. But in order to stay Prime Minister, in order to become Prime Minister, he had to pick up this conservative idea, this $160 million expense, plus the funding for either side, in order to stay Prime Minister. That is as clear as day. Those on the other side can debate the issues to and fro on marriage equality. But in order to get to Prime Minister, he had to honour Mr Abbott's plebiscite arrangement. He is now in conflict with a bishop of the Anglican Church in respect of whether or not he promised funding, and, really, he could just use the executive prerogative. We did not elect him as Prime Minister; his party room did. Therein lies his problem. He could go out and put this to the Australian parliament as early as this week. He cannot because the conservative wing of this parliament would probably roll him. That is the awful truth. Question agreed to.