Australians would be forced to go to the polls three times in the next four years if Tony Abbott gets his way as he declared marriage reform to be "so sensitive, so intimate" it should be put to the people and not the Parliament.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But the Prime Minister says he will not support calls from Labor, the cross bench and marriage equality advocates for the matter to be resolved at the next federal election.
Instead, he wants a separate plebiscite on same-sex marriage, as well as a referendum on recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution.
Each poll would likely cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. A single question referendum alone would cost more than $120 million, according to the Australian Electoral Commission.
"I don't think the public mind having a say on these things and while obviously this is a government which wants to minimise expense, by the same token we do want the public to have a say on this," Mr Abbott told reporters on Wednesday.
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull slammed the idea of a plebiscite, saying it would ensure same-sex marriage continued to be a live issue up until and beyond the next election.
While he said marriage equality was "very important", it was distracting from other issues like jobs and the economy.
"One of the attractions of a free vote is that it would have meant the matter would be resolved in this Parliament one way or another in a couple of weeks," he told reporters.
"The reason I haven't advocated a plebiscite after the next election is that it would mean, it will mean, that this issue is a live issue all the way up to the next election ... and, if we are returned to office, it will be a very live issue in the lead up to the plebiscite itself."
In a pointed comment about ministers needing to be involved in any decision about the Coalition advocating a plebiscite, Mr Turnbull added, "obviously that is a policy as yet unformed but it will presumably have to go through the normal cabinet process before it is fleshed out".
Earlier Mr Abbott warned his ministers not to vote in support of a private member's bill on same-sex marriage or they would have to resign from the front bench.
The Prime Minister talked up his government's economic credentials on Wednesday and said the next election would be a battle between political movements.
"The next election will rightly be a contest between two political movements, two very different political movements, and then I think we can have a separate discussion about where we should go with this important subject," he said.
He added "it's right that our country should consider where we want to go on this".
"Obviously, for many, many, many centuries there's been a settled position on this. In recent times there's been a strong social movement for change."
While there was no decision at Tuesday night's Coalition party room meeting to put marriage equality to voters, Mr Abbott said it was "the disposition" of the Coalition to allow the people to decide through a plebiscite.
Tuesday's snap Coalition party room meeting voted against allowing MPs a conscience vote by about 60 votes to 30.
"I believe we've got a very good and fair way forward. What could be fairer than asking the people to tell us what they think on this and agreeing to be bound by what ever the outcome of that people's vote is?" Mr Abbott said.
"If the people decide to support the existing definition of marriage between a man and a woman, obviously I'd be pleased and I think everyone else should accept that."
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor had not given up on pushing for marriage equality during this term of Parliament.
Mr Shorten said the Prime Minister had gone back on what he said in May when he declared the issue was one that should be owned by the Parliament.
"There hasn't been a plebiscite held in this country since 1976. It is a strategy to delay marriage equality," he said.
"A plebiscite will cost tens of millions of dollars. Mr Abbott wants to spend taxpayer money because he doesn't want to deal with an issue because it doesn't suit his stuck in the past views."
with Judith Ireland
