The Purpose of Plebiscite Transcript Ellie Cooper: The Abbott government committed the Coalition to a plebiscite on same-sex marriage a year ago. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was firm on the issue in his election campaign. It s now being pushed back to next year, and lots of groups are determined to take it off the table altogether. It s going to be expensive with the estimated cost of $160 million. Many people fear it could be divisive leading to a hate campaign. Another sticking point is a non-binding result, meaning politicians will be free to disregard public opinion and stick to their own. Yet many feel all Australians should be given a chance to have their say. I m Ellie Cooper. In this episode of, The Purpose of Plebiscite, we question whether the vote should go to the public or straight to Parliament. Dr Ryan Goss senior lecturer at the Australian National University specialises in constitutional and human rights law. He says a plebiscite is expensive and unnecessary. Ryan Goss: There s absolutely no need to have a plebiscite on marriage equality. The High Court has been clear in a judgment in 2013 that under our constitution the federal Parliament can pass a low providing for marriage equality and could do that right away if it wanted to. Of course, if a particular political party wants to hold such a vote, then they can, but as a matter of the Constitution and as a matter of law, it is unnecessary. EC: From the government s perspective, what are the advantages of holding a plebiscite? RG: I think that s really a question of their political judgment and their managing the internal dynamics within the Liberal National Party Coalition. Their desire to hold the plebiscite is driven, I think, significantly by political concerns. They may also say that they think this is an issue of such significance that the people of Australia deserve a say. I don t find that argument particularly convincing. We trust our Parliament to decide very significant issues all the time, and there s no reason that marriage would be different. EC: Constitutionally, the government doesn t need to hold a plebiscite, but socially, are there are any concerns or disadvantages of holding a plebiscite? RG: If we would have a plebiscite, I think it s worth bearing in mind that it would be costly. Running any nationwide election is costly, in the millions and millions of dollars. I think there is reason to believe, if you look at the surveys and the evidence so far, there is reason to believe that a plebiscite could be divisive potentially and could cause some degree of damage and upset to many Australians of all political persuasions and any sexual orientations. I think there s reason to think that there might be those social costs incurred, and all of those things may come with the plebiscite. Of course, it may go well. It may run smoothly. It may not be too expensive. There may not be harm done to anyone, but there are risks involved.
EC: In your opinion, do you think that the plebiscite would go ahead? Is it too late for the government to back down, or do you think that there is potential for it to be blocked? RG: There are a range of factors which could dictate whether or not the plebiscite goes ahead, and, at this stage, it s a little bit hard to see how those factors will play out, if they will include the internal party dynamics of the Liberal Party and the National Party and the Coalition. It will include how the senate functions once it s up and running, and for that matter, how the House of Representatives is functioning as well. I think, fundamentally, the ability of the government to get a plebiscite law through both houses of Parliament would depend to some extent on how that plebiscite is designed. I think different forms of plebiscite will be more appealing to crossbench senators and to backbench members of Parliament than some other forms of plebiscite. I think there are a lot of variables there. It s certainly government policy that there be a plebiscite, but they need to get it through the Parliament first. EC: If we do have a plebiscite, what should it look like? RG: If we were to have one, we should make sure that that plebiscite is designed in such a way that people know what they re voting for, and that they know that if they vote for marriage equality, that will have an effect. My concern here is if we don t do those things well, we risk falling into the same mess or a similar mess that the UK has fallen into after the Brexit referendum. One of the remarkable things about that Brexit referendum in the UK was that there wasn t actually a plan. There wasn t actually a proposal for what Brexit would look like. It was just an in principle vote. There was no sense in the vote about what would happen if people voted to leave. I think if we re going to have a nationwide vote on marriage equality, we need to ensure that people know exactly what will happen if they vote yes. Otherwise, I think it basically amounts to a very, very expensive and lengthy opinion poll rather than an actual vote that would be paid attention to. EC: That was Dr Ryan Goss from ANU. As Dr Goss points out, the plebiscite decision ultimately rest with Parliament. Journalist Wendy Williams sought out politicians from opposing sides. Wendy Williams: Labor Senator Lisa Singh has publicly called on the Labor Party to block the samesex marriage plebiscite in a bid to pass marriage equality through a free parliamentary vote. I asked her why it needs to be stopped. Lisa Singh: We promised to bring legislation within the first 100 days if we were elected for marriage equality. I still want to see that happen. I certainly haven t given up on that. I just think a plebiscite is a divisive, delaying tactic by the conservative stronghold in the Liberal Party, and that Malcolm Turnbull should be standing up to them. WW: What are the problems that are associated with the plebiscite? Why is it important to stop it? LS: I have progressive Labor values. That means I m going to, obviously, stand by our country moving towards marriage equality. I just think that a plebiscite just delays that. It would lead to discrimination and hate speech, I think, through that plebiscite process, which is just so unnecessary and unneeded.
On top of that, a plebiscite is extremely expensive to hold when already the majority of the Australian public wants to have marriage equality. WW: One argument for the plebiscite has been to give Australians a chance to have their views heard rather than it being a decision made on their behalf by politicians. How would you respond to that argument? LS: I m always for Australians ensuring they have their views heard and they make their voices heard. There is absolutely nothing stopping Australians doing that on this issue or on any other issues. When it comes to this issue of marriage equality, there has already been a lot of work that has gone into what the Australian public currently feel and the majority of Australians want marriage equality. I think the mandate is there for the Parliament to get on and legislate and bring that legislation forward. We are the representatives of the people. We ve been elected by the people to do a job on their behalf in our Australian Parliament. That s our democratic process. WW: Do you think Malcolm Turnbull s decision that politicians will not be bound by the result just completely undermines any reason for a plebiscite? LS: Absolutely, it does. Absolutely. I mean, there have been politicians such as Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi that have made it clear that the plebiscite will not be binding on them. I think Senator Abetz said he would not necessarily vote with the majority. I think Senator Bernardi also said that he would not vote in favour or same-sex marriage regardless of the public s verdict with the plebiscite. Look, Australians have already made their position clear now. I think it s up to 64 per cent, if not more, supporting marriage equality. If parliamentarians are not bound by plebiscite, it is completely pointless. It is costly and it is a very divisive exercise. WW: Malcolm Turnbull was quite firm during the election campaign that there would be a plebiscite before the end of the year, this has already been pushed back to early next year, do you think it can be taken off the table without him losing face? LS: I think there is a bigger picture here to think about. Each time Malcolm Turnbull delays marriage equality in Australia, he is basically telling a section of Australians that they are not equal, that their sexuality is grounds for discrimination and vilification in that sense. I think he actually loses face each time he delays this important legislation, but I think that this is really a test of his leadership and what kind of legacy he wants to leave as a prime minister. Clearly, if he wants to leave by the kinds of values that he has talked about in relation to marriage equality, he should be getting on with bringing forth legislation. It seems instead he is more interested in appeasing the conservatives within the Liberal Party. It just is incredibly confusing and contradictory and doesn t really show the leadership that this country needs. WW: Liberal Senator Eric Abetz is publicly opposed to same-sex marriage. I asked him what his thoughts were on the plebiscite. Eric Abetz: I m not opposed to a plebiscite. I believe it is important that when you consider changing
the foundational institution of our society, namely the family unit, that everybody get a say and that s why it s important to have the plebiscite. WW: Polls show that the majority of Australia supports same-sex marriage, and therefore some believe the decision should just go straight to a parliamentary vote. Do you agree with that? EA: A lot of polls actually say that Australians support the idea of a plebiscite on such an important issue, and so it depends which polls you take and what you want to make out of them, but the polls have shown that the republic, for example, was going to be supported come the referendum, it was overwhelmingly rejected. WW: You have said it s important that government doesn t rush the process of setting up the plebiscite. However, some have said that pushing it back to next year is actually a conservative tactic designed to ensure failure. Is the government deliberately dragging its feet? EA: It is vital that the government gets the plebiscite right, so we ve got to have a fair question. We ve got to have a fair campaign. We ve got to ensure that the electoral commission has the wherewithal to be able to conduct the plebiscite, and so all these things need to be done in a ordered manner so that the result can be accepted by the people of Australia. Is this a tactic? No, I would ve thought everybody would ve wanted a fair plebiscite, a plebiscite that people could not criticise for being rushed or for not having been properly ventilated. Look, the institution of marriage has been around for thousands of years, and a few months here or there is not going to make any difference in the unlikely event the Australian people were to vote for change. WW: One of the big points of debate has been that the plebiscite is constitutionally unnecessary, and Prime Minister Turnbull has actually said that politicians will not be bound by the results. Does this undermine the reasons for having a plebiscite? EA: The plebiscite is constitutionally unnecessary so are senate committees, but we find them exceptionally helpful to be able to deal with issues and to ventilate issues. We ve had plebiscite like on our national song, so these things are not uncommon and it s a good way of involving people in our democracy. There is this desire, demand that people be bound by the result, but it seems that those who support change shouldn t be bound by the result. WW: One of the arguments against sort of course is that people are concerned that plebiscite could descend into a hate campaign against same-sex couples. Is this fair? EA: That sort of terminology and questions shows yet again the bias in this debate. I ve seen nobody s office being trashed or chalked for being in favour of same-sex marriage, but I ve seen it happen to colleagues who are against same-sex marriage. I ve seen people who are in favour in maintaining the status quo being labelled with all sorts of hate-filled word such as bigot, such as a homophobe, and it hasn t been going the other way. It s quite a bizarre allegation, in fact, to make that there might be hate speech against one sector when in fact it has been coming from elements of that sector to the other side.
EC: That was Liberal Senator Eric Abetz speaking to Wendy Williams. It s been reported that the marriage equality movement has split. Some advocacy groups are reluctantly resigned to a plebiscite, while others maintain it can be blocked. Shelley Argent is the national spokesperson for Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. PFLAG refuses to accept the plebiscite and stepped up their campaign this week with the launch of a platform that makes it easy for supporters of a free vote to write to their local MP. I asked Argent why she s opposed to the plebiscite. Shelley Argent: For me personally as a parent, I just think it s absolutely insulting that the government would suggest that it s alright for strangers to decide on the rights of my child, because if we were to go into their home and start talking to them about how we didn t agree or we didn t support something for their children, they would be outraged. EC: PFLAG has conducted a number of polls to gauge public opinion on the plebiscite. What are they telling you? SA: People may be in favour of a plebiscite, but when you ask them, would they mind if people voted on their rights to marry, then they see it in a different light and then may change their opinion. Then again in another poll that we did ask people were they in favour and they said yes of the plebiscite, and then when we asked them about were they happy about the cost, were they happy that it was nonbinding, support dropped. It s a case of people just need to understand the absolute implication and the impact that it has on an individual and they soon change their mind. EC: What do you think is the best method to achieve marriage equality? SA: The best way is the free vote, because any changes to the Marriage Act, it doesn t matter whether it was no blame divorce or whether changing the age to 21 to 18 before you needed consent of parents, that was just parliamentary process, and that s what this should be. We ve never had a plebiscite on people s right. That s what they re doing. It s like a popular vote, and that is just so wrong. EC: As an organisation, how do you balance being opposed to a plebiscite and then needing to prepare for a campaign if it does go ahead? SA: Well, at the moment, we are not preparing for a plebiscite because we are concentrating solely at this moment on stopping the plebiscite. EC: What is your response to the argument that a plebiscite is better than nothing when it comes to achieving marriage equality? SA: Well, that s not right. We did another survey, in a week, we got five-and-a-half-thousand LGBTI people who all responded and it was asking them what did they want, 85 per cent said, no, they did not want a plebiscite, and then the next question was if we cannot have a free vote and if they insist
on the plebiscite, do you want to go ahead with the plebiscite or would you rather wait? 65 per cent said no, they d rather wait. That is the stance that I m taking. EC: That was PFLAG s spokesperson Shelley Argent. Australian Marriage Equality on the other hand is said to be carefully balancing both approaches, including trying to obtain the best possible terms for a plebiscite. former national director Rodney Croome, who founded AME, recently quit to focus his efforts on blocking the plebiscite. Australian Marriage Equality national spokesperson Dr Shirleene Robinson explains the organisation s position. Shirleene Robinson: We ve always argued that the most straightforward and quickest way to get this done would be to have a free vote in Parliament, and we were quite excited last year when for the first time we had the numbers to get marriage equality passed through federal Parliament. Unfortunately, it has been something that hasn t happened yet, but we continue to emphasise that a free vote is the best way to get this reform to happen. EC: Do you find that you have to balance being opposed to the plebiscite and preparing for a campaign if it goes ahead? SR: We do feel a weight of responsibility and that we would have a duty to have some level of preparation if a plebiscite was imposed on us despite us arguing that that shouldn t be the path that we go down. As you mentioned, it is something that we do have to be careful about considering. EC: Why are you opposed to the plebiscite? Could you argue that a case of a plebiscite is better than nothing? SR: There are a lot of people in the community who has quite strongly felt fears about what a plebiscite might look like, and I think it s important for me to say at the moment that we really can t discuss too much about a plebiscite because we really haven t been given very much information about what plebiscite might look like. In terms of a question itself, we don t know that yet. We don t know whether voting would be compulsory. We don t know where the funding will be given to both sides. We actually argued that public funding should not be given to any no campaign. There s a lot we don t know. I think that we need to see more information before we could even start to really talk more about what that plebiscite might look like. EC: Do you think that there is any chance that it might not go ahead? SR: We ve just sort of seen the state of Parliament take shape. We ve seen more information about the Senate and so on. Clearly, as the numbers have been finalised and as we know who s in the senate, there is certainly always, I guess, some degree of uncertainty about what stances people will take. I think what we will do is continue to very strongly emphasise that the easiest way would be just for people to vote in support of this reform which has overwhelming community support. EC: Is there a divide between LGBTI and marriage equality organisations because of the plebiscite?
SR: I don t think so. I think that all the people who work to promote marriage equality and to put LGBTI rights at the forefront are united. We re concerned for the community, and we certainly have really productive and open discussions and dialogues with other groups, because ultimately we all are spending our time trying to do what is right for the community. We might be taking on different tasks or responsibilities, but at the moment, I feel very positive about the relationships that we do have across those organisations. EC: That was AME spokesperson Dr Shirleene Robinson. Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton says he s pro plebiscite. Lyle Shelton: This is an issue that s been going on in politics for more than 10 years now, and it s been quite intense in the last six or seven years. There s been a concerted effort to try and change the definition of marriage. There s been about 17 bills put to the federal Parliament. It keeps getting rejected. The activists who are pushing this keeps bringing it up and up and up, running parliamentary inquiries. I think it s had such a good run in the Parliament. It is such an important issue that it is time now for the Australian people to be the ones who decide. EC: Parliamentarians have already been elected to make decisions for the Australian people, so why do they need a say on this particular issue? LS: Because it keeps getting brought up over and over again in the Parliament, that under the Abbott government when this issue kept coming up and up again they decided that it was time for the Australian people to have a say. I think that s right because we had a referendum about the republic which was simply about a change to the ceremonial head of state, not upending our system of government, what we re talking about with changing the definition of marriage and law is upending what the family is, what parenting is. It upends our assumptions about gender in marriage and therefore gender in parenting. That is a massive change. It s a bigger decision than the republic and it s got much bigger consequences. EC: You said publicly that you wish no ill will to people who are gay, so are you concerned that campaigning against same-sex marriage in the lead up to a plebiscite could have a negative impact on the LGBTI members of the community? LS: Look, I m always concerned that people might take offense or that there is potential for harm, but I think if anyone looks at our track record, I have over 10 years involved in this debate, you won t find anything homophobic or bigoted from us. We ve always engaged in a respectful way. Sometimes it s robust and it should be robust discussion in a democracy. We just hope that others will be respectful to us. We are very tired of being called bigots and homophobes. I think that sort of language has got to go out of the debate and there should be respect on both side. EC: Even if you are being respectful, there is research that has come out that shows the public debate around same-sex marriage is causing extra anxiety and depression in this community. Is that a concern,
do you think? LS: It s always a concern, if that is being triggered as a result of a discussion about a really important public policy issue, I suggest that there s probably other issues at play. EC: Do you think that politicians should be bound by the result of the plebiscite? LS: Politicians should always be free to vote however they want in the Parliament, but the rigid party system doesn t always makes that so, but I do believe that the Parliament should respect the will of the Australian people and I do believe that would be the case. EC: If the public does vote in favour of same-sex marriage, will the Australian Christian Lobby stand down on the issue? LS: In a democracy you ve always got the right to argue your case. We obviously will accept the result, but I personally can t believe what I think is a lie in public policy, and I will continue to make the case in it. It might take us many, many years to convince people. I think the issue of marriage, if it is redefined, won t be a settled issue. EC: That was ACL chief Lyle Shelton. Ross Jacobs is the National Clinical Director of QLife, a telephone and web counselling service for LGBTI people. There s been a recent increase in demand for QLife services, which Jacobs says is because topics relevant to the LGBTI community are up for public debate and are being used to score political points. He explains the toll this is taking on the community. Ross Jacobs: It s quite well established that the LGBTI people, there s a lived experience of something that s refereed to, at least in academic literature and in counselling circles, as minority stress. Minority stress is the experience of going about your everyday life and entering into a world in which you don t feel like you belong. Over time, what LGBTI people learned to do and becomes part of the resiliency that a lot of LGBTI people naturally has is to always be on your guard for those moments that you might experience minority stress. For instance, if you re a transgender person, the moment you step on to a bus you re really braced for entering into a space that somewhere deep inside you, you re not sure it s safe for you or not. These public discussions are making things like turning on the television or the radio or picking up the magazine, another moment in which you might have to deal with yourself and the people you love being maligned or being used in a way that just doesn t fit with what your lived experience tells you. EC: Will a plebiscite carry an additional impact? RJ: All we really have to go by as far as data in this respect goes is that in Ireland, they in the last 18 months or so had a referendum instead of a plebiscite. In Ireland there s a service called the LGBT Helpline. We ve been in touch with them. They ve very generously given us some insight into that period of time for them. We re braced for an increased demand. We don t really yet know how we re
going to meet that because, of course, we re just running on the same resources we ve always had. In Ireland, they saw something like a 20 per cent increase in overall demand in the period of time in which the public debate was happening. When you go through that data a bit more closely, that 20 per cent increase while still vast is actually a 20 per cent increase of people that are in quite a lot of distress. It s not just an increase of 20 per cent of the workload, it s an increase of 20 per cent of the workload for the calls or the web chats that are typically the highest burden on your service as well, in terms of just needing to have the resources ready to go to support our own staff to take the kinds of course we re expecting.