Is the Australian Postal Vote on Marriage Equality Representative or for Other Interests?
From the beginning of this discussion I have been astounded at the waste of taxpayers money to the tune of $122 million spent on a postal vote asking if homosexual people should have the right to marriage – YES/NO. It is an extraordinary question in a democracy which is supposed to be about equality, fairness, rights etc. How is it possible that this issue became one of plebiscite? How is it possible when other countries have passed legislation indicating a clear trend of yes. So how is it contestable? Who is contesting this in reality and driving this expenditure of public money?
I am a former market analyst and I can say unequivocally that a postal vote is not representative of the Australian people. The rule of thumb is that approximately 10% of respondents will answer this type of ballot. Those who do typically respond to postal ballots or surveys will hold strong opinions. So it is reflective of strong biases and vested interests. They have the vote as most Australians will not care about this issue as it does not affect them. So it is not relevant to them in my view. Therefore given the strong biases in religion and its ability to organise, it is possible that views that are extreme in Australian society could have a say, thus supplanting Australian values. What may turn this in the Yes direction is if other Australians are stirred by the media campaign.
UPDATE NOTE: The vote came in Yes, and it is a high postal vote which is representative given the numbers. It could be due to it being the first of its kind and a simple question. The issue above is really about the intention behind having it in the first place given the trend with postal votes. So I am pleased many voted and it was a yes.
Issues to consider
I wonder about the infiltration of religious values and beliefs in politics. This to my way of thinking is a decision that should be made by leadership in the party room in reflection of Australian values. Perhaps it is clearly revealing the biases in the political arena. Are those biases reflective of the Australian people and the culture?
The gay lobby are also concerned about this process and have sought to mount legal challenges to this process as clearly they see it as unfair. Place yourself in their shoes. Their right to marry who they love is being decided by others who don’t know them nor what it is like to be homosexual and the reality of this. I think many of them are very brave and it is a radical act to hold hands with the same sex in a worldview that sees that as abnormal. I recall being on a beach recently and saw two men holding hands. I went up to them and asked them about the headland as houses were built right on the edge. I treated them as I would any other couple and I know they felt this sense of social equality from my presence. I smiled at them and thanked for their input. They walked off. This for me is akin to the aboriginal issue of ‘sorry’. I went up to a Aboriginal elder in a sacred circle and I said I was sorry for what had happened to her people. We hugged. This is social action and social change. It comes from values of equality and embracing of diversity.
This conflict from my perspectives reflects traditional conservative views of what is deemed normal and natural in religious spheres. Those of a religious belief believe homosexuality is an abomination before God. My own family member had this view until she ran a soup kitchen and actually met them. She even had a couple stay in our caravan. I so love how God works the miracle. Today she is tolerant. She still doesn’t believe in it but she accepts it. This is how love works on understanding and acceptance of diversity.
The idea of marriage between women and men is seen as the natural order. Yet nature is what happens naturally within yourself. Love is the critical point here. Love is natural. I regard love as sactifying any union whether it be officiated by churches, religious ceremonies or celebrants. That is the only value that sustains any coupling whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Many heterosexual marriages don’t last and there are issues about whether they understand the real reason for their marriage and what it takes to work on relationships for harmony.
Religious people will say that God is love well if love is the reason why they are marrying where is the argument? Perhaps it is the church as an insitution that has an issue with homosexuality and sexuality. Is the church sanctified to speak about what is appropriate and what is not given the recent Royal Commission into child abuse (refer https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/). This raises issues of the distortions from repressed sexuality, lack of love (empathy) and power issues of priests and others in the church. How is hidden child abuse acceptable before God but loving homesexuals who want to be in the open are not? Where is the shame? This is a theological and values based question. I make that point that the churches who knew about what happened to children suppressed this and kept it hidden. Inquiries bring issues out into the open. This is what democracy is about, facing what is dark within us and showing compassion and I would also add – forgiveness.
Do politicians have the moral authority to make this decision given their various scandals and reported dishonesty. Again negative behaviours were hidden. Even this postal vote is not representative of the Australian people yet it is being stated as so. This is not true.
So who actually has the right to take a position of being an authority or being in the position of knowing what is best for homosexual people? How about them? We could default to the notion that democracy is about sharing power, it is supposed to reflect egalitarianism (equality) in the Australian culture where fairness is considered the highest value. Basically how is it fair for a homosexual person to not have access to marriage like everyone else?
It is a non issue from my perspective and if I had a say I would not spent a cent on deciding it.
Clearly 22 other countries have endorsed same sex marriage. Clearly it is a trend worldwide as societies evolve into accepting diversity and not suppressing it. Even our neighbour New Zealand did this in 2013. It raises real questions.
What of the outcome to this postal vote? It won’t represent the Australian people yet this postal vote has been stated as the voice of the people when it is not. It will reflect intense viewpoints. So who really gets a say here?
So what is the real issues about this plebiscite? Are the media deeply investigating this situation? Who is behind this decision in reality? Do they represent the Australian people or the viewpoints of a few? If it turns out to be a NO will that create unity or division? If religion is behind this then should religion be active in politics? Will it move our society towards intolerance? I think so. It could then be used as a test case in other issues where vested interests may want to have a mandate empowered by extreme views. What do you think? Is that democracy? An answer to this would be in the public interest.
A larger debate about real democracy could open up asking how it should work and how it works right now. An important question would be how can the Australian people have a say at a much cheaper cost – what of internet polling through libraries or other computers using electoral rolls ID numbers. People log in and cast a vote. This could then provide census results that reflect Australia as a whole. Much cheaper than $1 per stamp, organising a campaign like this, printing the electoral forms and then all the press that goes with it. Such a waste of money.
How could the money be better spent? That could be a question for the Australian people. I am sure they would not be spending it on this issue.
In my view $122 million could be spent on renewable energy to find ways to replace the coal fire power stations. What about affordable housing for the unemployed? We could invest in universal peace education teaching peace, nonviolence and anti-bullying through values to instil a felt sense of responsibility, empathy, awareness, love, honesty, oneness, peace, enjoyment and service. Imagine if this was the foundation of every Australian. This would mean that decisions would arise out of values not beliefs. As you look at an issue through empathy it changes what you see. If you look through love then you would naturally give to others. Values change what you believe and see. This then becomes the basis of a civilised civilisation that will spent money in ways that serve the greater good, all ways.
Here is an article from the Guardian exploring the postal plebiscite issue and the opposition by marriage equality advocates. This is a media perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/postal-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality-would-cost-up-to-122m
Postal plebiscite on marriage equality would cost ‘up to $122m’
Marriage equality advocates are threatening a legal challenge and not ruling out boycott of plebiscite, which they say will be damaging to the community
Australians could be asked their views on same-sex marriage in a $122m voluntary postal plebiscite to run for two months concluding in November, with the potential for a vote in parliament by year’s end.
At a joint press conference the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the acting special minister of state, Mathias Cormann, set out a timetable for a voluntary plebiscite as a fallback if the preferred compulsory vote is defeated, and brushed aside marriage equality advocates’ claims the voluntary postal vote may be unconstitutional.
After Tuesday’s announcement by the government, marriage equality advocates vowed to press ahead with their legal challenge to the postal vote, and have not ruled out boycotting the whole process in protest.
The prime minister presented the postal plebiscite as an option that would fulfil the Coalition’s 2016 election commitment not to facilitate the introduction of a same-sex marriage bill until the Australian people have had their say.
On Monday the Liberal party room considered demands from a break-away group of MPs calling for the government to change its policy and move immediately to a free vote, but the majority of the party room resolved to stick with the plebiscite position on the basis that it was an election commitment.
Turnbull was asked how he could justify a non-compulsory postal ballot as the government keeping faith with its election promises, given the Coalition had not promised that particular mechanism at the last election.
Turnbull replied: “Strong leaders carry out their promises – weak leaders break them”.
The prime minister stepped around a question about whether as a supporter of marriage equality, he would campaign for a yes vote in the postal ballot.
Turnbull told reporters he would be voting yes, and would “certainly support a yes vote” but he added when it came to campaigning, he had “many other calls on my time as prime minister”.
Marriage equality campaigners reacted to that with anger. The co-chair of Australian Marriage Equality, Alex Greenwich, said it was “an absolute disgrace” that the prime minister had suggested he was too busy to actively campaign.
“How can we have confidence in this process when the prime minister himself has said he’s too busy to participate actively in a campaign? How can he expect anyone else to engage in it if he himself is saying he’s not willing to?”
Asked if marriage equality advocates could boycott the entire postal vote campaign, Greenwich said AME was “not ruling anything in or out” as it waited for more detail about it.
Meanwhile, the organisation would continue to campaign for marriage equality by urging parliament to deal with the issue.
The government will activate its preferred process by first seeking to return the original plebiscite legislation to the Senate this week. It will propose the compulsory vote be held on 25 November.
If the Senate rejects the plebiscite bill again, as is expected because Labor, the Greens, Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch have reiterated their opposition to the proposal, the government will default to a voluntary postal vote with ballots to be mailed out on 12 September and returned by 15 November.
Either timetable allows the parliament two sitting weeks from 27 November to 7 December to hold a parliamentary vote by the year’s end.
On Tuesday Turnbull said if a positive vote was returned in the postal ballot, the government would facilitate the introduction of a private member’s bill to legalise same sex marriage. It is unclear which bill would be used in any vote.
If the vote was no, the government would move on.
Marriage equality advocates have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of a postal plebiscite in the high court, arguing that there is no legislation providing power to appropriate funds for the vote.
The government claimed to be on strong legal ground on Tuesday. Cormann said the survey would be conducted as a survey by the Australia Bureau of Statistics, and said there was a legal precedent validating that as a course of action dating from the Whitlam era.
Cormann said the treasurer would direct the Australian statistician to request a voluntary collection of information on Australians’ views on same-sex marriage, allowing the ABS to run the plebiscite using staff seconded from the Australian Electoral Commission. He said the voluntary vote would cost “up to $122m”.
On Tuesday the co-chair of the Equality Campaign, Anna Brown, said she was seeking legal advice about the constitutionality of the ABS conducting the ballot.
She said she was “deeply concerned” it could still be unlawful, particularly considering the contingency fund referred to by the finance minister to pay for the vote was meant for “unforeseen or urgent circumstances”.
The announcement was preceded by another discussion about same sex marriage, in the Coalition party room on Tuesday.
During Tuesday’s discussion, the former prime minister, Tony Abbott, made several interventions arguing the government should produce an exposure draft of the bill it intended to proceed with in the event the postal plebiscite returned a positive result.
Abbott, and fellow conservative Kevin Andrews, are strongly opposed to the postal plebiscite.
The moderate Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who raised substantial concerns in the Liberal party room on Monday about the postal ballot, repeated his concerns on Tuesday.
Broadbent predicted there would be a massive campaign by marriage equality advocates against the legitimacy of the ballot, which would discredit any outcome, which would then become problematic for the government.
Longtime marriage equality campaigner Warren Entsch who is continuing to reserve his right to press ahead with legislation once the plebiscite process runs its course, told colleagues there was now an end date to all the plebiscite preamble – late November.
While marriage equality advocates inside the Coalition are reasonably confident turnout would be respectable in any postal ballot, there is concern about whether young people would vote.
Liberal MP Andrew Laming told Guardian Australia marriage equality advocates should understand that “they will struggle in a voluntary vote, because the young and apathetic are the least likely to show up [and vote]”.
He said the compulsory vote was the government’s preferred option, and warned marriage equality advocates a voluntary vote would be “very damaging for their prospects”, saying they would be “walking into a no verdict”.
Asked if the “Facebook generation” would vote in a postal ballot, Turnbull merely urged them to “have their say”.
Turnbull brushed aside concerns that a voluntary vote would be seen as lacking legitimacy, arguing that all Australians would have the opportunity to vote and compulsory voting was the exception rather than the norm worldwide.
Since you’re here …