History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step

But views were divided. Victorian Premier Rupert Hamer wrote to Whitlam and to The Australian newspaper, denigrating the choice of anthem and saying that the Victorian government would refuse to play anything but God Save the Queen. Confident his views were shared by the people, Hamer called for a plebiscite on the issue.

In 1976 the incoming Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser reverted the national anthem to God Save the Queen, but allowed civilian events to use any of the three songs the ABS conducted polling for. Political tensions escalated in the lead up to the Montreal Olympic Games and finally, in 1977, a voluntary plebiscite was held on the issue, with 7 million (of a total of 8.4 million) eligible voters going to the polls.

One cannot help but consider the implications for the postal vote regarding marriage equality being conducted by the ABS – a move designed to circumvent the Senate, but that may instigate a High Court challenge. High Court intervention aside, historically legislators have called into question the legitimacy of the ABS when conducting nation polls, and there is nothing to stop those displeased with the ABS’s findings from doing so again here.

Once again, the latter vote simply repeated – even strengthened and reinforced – the outcome of the earlier one (that is, the much smaller ABS poll). Although the choices for song were different between the ABS poll and the later plebiscite, the people’s first and second choices remained the same: first, Advanced Australia Fair (51.4% ABS, 43.4% plebiscite) and second, Waltzing Matilda (19.6% ABS, 28.3% plebiscite).

Lessons from Our Past

Australian plebiscites involve a four-phase process.

The first is the emergence of the political will to defer an issue from Parliament to the Australian people. In all previous plebiscites this pre-vote phase has emphasised the link between the question and Australians’ national identity and place in the world.

Beyond the occasional observation that Australia is becoming a global outlier in not permitting same-sex marriage, marriage equality has not been couched in these terms. Thus this plebiscite is set apart. Human rights and the meaning of marriage have traditionally been considered as issues for the Australian parliaments to determine – they lack the pronounced connection to national identity that has supported previous plebiscites.

Phase two is the interim vote, a unique feature of Australian plebiscites and the nation’s political landscape. All three historical plebiscites were resolved through multiple stages of voting. Australians have been polled on their views on same-sex marriage repeatedly over the course of years, and the results are clear. A pronounced majority of Australians are in favour of marriage equality. All previous Australian experience indicates that the Turnbull government’s proposed plebiscite will only confirm these polls.

Phases three and four – the final vote and its implementation – lie ahead. Plebiscites are non-binding and the present government is keenly aware of that. No previous government has gone so far as to completely ignore the outcome of a plebiscite, although slow action and an (expensive and ultimately ineffectual) return to the polls might be the sum of a government’s initial response.

Against this background one is left wondering what it to be achieved by a constitutionally suspect, $122 million plebiscite that lacks the support of even both Houses of Parliament. Can it really be to ascertain the views of the Australian people? Or to prompt government action? We have been down this path three times and know what the outcome will likely be. But this fourth occasion will set a dangerous precedent regarding the subject matter of plebiscites. This isn’t the nation’s first rodeo, but it may signal a new era in Australian plebiscites with serious economic, social and political consequences.