To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? Will that become the question?

A bad precedent, he said, because “the Constitution doesn’t provide for this interposing step in the law-making process….We are not a populist democracy…We are a representative democracy who [sic] does things through an elected legislature…alien to our traditions; unnecessary under our Constitution; and a very bad precedent for the future”.

He claimed the proposal was also “unfair to people who are of a different sexual orientation or gender identity…[and] dangerous to the hostility that it would cause to young LGBT people”.

As for discrimination, he felt that the proposed plebiscite would be “a discriminatory step…designed by those who propose it in the hope of defeating and delaying equality for citizens”. Also, “if we get to a plebiscite everything will be on the table. Everything will be ventilated…and basically, it gets down to the view that God hates homosexuals; that they are an abomination; that they deserve to be treated differently; and that [it] can be justified on religious grounds…We wouldn’t do this today to Aboriginal people, or to people of a different race or religion. But we’re just going to do this to people of a different sexuality”.

Although he did not raise the costs of holding a plebiscite, that issue is a valid consideration, especially as a single occasion held separately from an ordinary election day, and when we are told that public expenditure at this time is critical to bringing the budget back under control, and when a number of informal opinion polls suggest that the answer is already beyond doubt.

But that said, there is much to recommend plebiscites on matters of national importance where public opinion is, or is likely to be, strongly held and whether that opinion is deeply divided or expected to favour one outcome or the other.

Plebiscites, like referenda, where the public is well informed on the arguments for and against, are the most democratic and direct way of resolving general community issues. Even where there is a close vote (and some plebiscites provide for a larger percentage of votes to pass) it can be important to test the public will.

But the two best reasons for holding plebiscites are: Firstly, they tend to settle issues one way or the other, without rancor and recriminations. The losers generally ‘lick their wounds’ and quietly accept the people’s verdict. Secondly, whilst not denying any parliamentary representative the right to abide by his or her conscience on a particular issue, it relieves them, if they wish, from having to justify such decisions to those voters who may not share, agree with nor respect their reasons for so voting.

In this, it is surely unfair for any member of parliament to be judged by the expression of his or her conscience on any controversial subject. Just as it is unreasonable for political parties to require their members to exercise their votes on particular subjects contrary to their consciences and beliefs. Plebiscites are an ideal means of overcoming such difficulties.

Some countries and states allow for public petitions to have certain issues put to a plebiscite. Had such a provision been available here this issue of same-sex marriage would have been settled some time ago. The public is heartily sick of it. The sooner it can be resolved by the holding of a plebiscite for the 3.1 percent of adults who identify as homosexuals the sooner we can turn our energies to other important matters.