Right: What, again? Despite endorsing the original proposal for a plebiscite on same-sex marriage made by Warren Entsch, Peter Dutton does not support his leader's suggestion that a postal survey be carried out in the matter of an Australian republic.
Arguments pointing to the disadvantages of postal surveys and plebiscites
1. Postal surveys and plebiscites are often unnecessary and wasteful It has been argued that both postal surveys and plebiscites are generally unnecessary as they do no more than confirm what regular public opinion surveys already demonstrate on particular social issues. Thus, they are often condemned as wasteful, given that they involve what is claimed to be needless government expenditure. These points were made by some critics in relation to the same-sex marriage postal survey and any subsequent postal surveys after Malcolm Turnbull suggested a further survey in 2018 on the question of whether Australia should become a republic. On January 2, 2018, the Blot Report stated, 'The wasteful, divisive postal vote on same-sex marriage... blew over $80 million determining that the proportion of Australians in favour of same sex marriage was precisely the same (within statistical error) as in previous opinion polls. It is highly likely that the same will apply to such a device on the republic question, with another $80 million going up in smoke at the same time. A most recent Australian Electoral Study (2016) gave support for a republic at 53%, while an Essential poll indicated that 44% of the population supported becoming a republic, while 30% of the population opposed it. It also seems that the majority of parliamentarians in both houses are in support of becoming a republic.'  Prior to the same-sex marriage postal survey critics had also claimed that the measure was unnecessary as a large number of previous surveys had already indicated Australians' view on this issue. A poll published in The Guardian shortly after the government announced its intention to have the Australian Bureau of Statistics conduct a postal survey found that 'most support marriage equality and 80% plan to vote in survey'. The poll found that 57% of the sample favoured a change to the law to allow marriage equality, with 32% against and 11% saying they did not know. These figures substantially replicate the results of the postal survey released three months later. A large number of previous polls had produced very similar results. From February to April 2012, the House of Representatives conducted an online survey to provide a simple means for the public to voice their views on same-sex marriage and the two bills in the Parliament which sought to legalise it, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. The survey closed on 20 April, having received approximately 276,000 responses, including about 213,500 comments. Of these responses, 64.3% supported same-sex marriage, or approximately 177,600 of the respondents. In an editorial published on August 9, 2017, The Northern Territory News stated, ' The problem, of course, is that we already know that most Australians support same-sex marriage and just expect our elected officials to get on with the job and pass the laws. Poll after poll, including the NT News's own, show the majority of Australians support same sex marriage, or don't care enough to fight against it. The NT News says all opinions for or against same-sex marriage are valid and worthy to be heard but the pointless waste of taxpayer money is not. The millions spent paying for plebiscites which our pollies wish to use to sidestep their duties in parliament could much better be used to increase pensions, provide free travel for the elderly, lower costs of living or provide bill relief for our nation's most vulnerable.' 2. Postal surveys may not supply an accurate indication of the electorate's views Those who dispute the utility of plebiscites in general and Australia's recent postal survey in particular argue that the measures may not result in an accurate gauge of popular opinion. One of the primary concerns is that under the Australian Constitution referenda are compulsory (that is, all registered voters have to take part). Plebiscites, on the other hand, are not referred to in the Constitution and only have to be compulsory if the enabling legislation that the government puts in place makes them so. Critics maintain that plebiscites that are not compulsory cannot be relied upon to be a true representation of the attitudes of the Australian population. The voter turnout may be too small to give a clear indication or it may be skewed in some way. Perhaps more people favouring one side of the issue than another vote or perhaps electors in one state or in a particular socio-economic group are less represented among those who complete the plebiscite. The postal survey authorised by the Turnbull government is also voluntary which means that critics feared it would not produce an accurate reflection of the views of the electorate. In an opinion piece published in The Monthly in November, 2017, Judith Brett, emeritus professor of politics at La Trobe University, explained why a non-compulsory survey could undermine the public's acceptance of the vote. Professor Brett stated, 'But, even if two thirds of the population "vote" in the survey (a very high number in the context of voluntary voting), and three quarters of respondents support the Yes case, it still won't deliver a clear majority outcome of those eligible to vote, and will give grounds for whichever side loses to query the outcome.' There has also been concern that the circumstances under which the survey is distributed and can be filled in is open to tampering. Professor Brett notes, 'This survey is all postal. Forms are received by post, and filled in anywhere. There is even provision for "a trusted person" to complete the survey for you. The instructions on the ABS website describe this as "a private arrangement between the eligible Australian and the trusted person", adding that "A person cannot self declare or claim themselves to be a trusted person for someone else." But as there is no formal process for nomination, how would the ABS know? In the event the high level of voter response (nearly 80%) went a long way toward allaying fears about the validity of the process. Critics, however, maintain that it remains an intrinsically flawed one. 3. Postal surveys and other forms of direct democracy allow elected governments to avoid fulfilling their function Opponents of the use of postal ballots, plebiscites and other forms of direct democracy as a means of making political decisions argue that they allow governments to sidestep the role for which their members are elected. Those who support this view argue that governments are elected to govern, that is, to make decisions on behalf of the electorate, and that should governments regularly seek a public vote to resolve difficult issues the resources of government would not be being used properly. This point was made by Owen Jacques in a comment published by The Fraser Coast Chronicle on January 2, 2018. Jacques was responding to suggestions made by both the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, that each would call for a public vote as part of the process for deciding whether Australia should become a republic. Jacques stated, ' This was always going to be a key danger of Turnbull's same-sex marriage ballot. A decision that ought to have been made by the politicians we pay was foisted on to the people. Now both the Coalition and Labor see public ballots as the best way to make a difficult decision. Rather than risk alienating voters over a strong and considered stance, they can take it to the people and let them blame each other.' Jacques further suggests that the general public does not have the knowledge or expertise to take the major decisions which it is the role of a well-resourced Parliament to make. He states, ' This new trend of politicians throwing their hands up must not become a well-trodden path for Australia. The public doesn't have access to the depth of knowledge that government has -- researchers, experts, experienced policy makers and lawyers ought to be weighing in.' Favourable comparisons have been made between the Victorian government's recent willingness to take difficult decisions regarding euthanasia legislation and the federal government transferring issues to the public through a consultative process. In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on October 22, 2017, Annika Smethurst observed, 'Victorian MPs proved that they were mostly capable of handling a difficult debate and dealing with this decision on their own... Confining this decision to parliamentary chambers has meant that any community debate over voluntary-assisted suicide has been relatively free of the bitterness shown in the same sex marriage campaign... the voluntary assisted dying debate proves that Parliament is the best forum to resolve these issues.' 4. Postal surveys and other forms of direct democracy can lead to division and community distress It is argued that one of the functions of government is to debate issues of public concern in an ordered and controlled manner. Despite the poor behaviour of some members of Parliament during debates, opponents of postal surveys and plebiscites maintain that highly contentious issues are best thrashed out within the confines of parliament as this limits the potential for offence and disorder. Critics of the postal survey claim that the debate it prompted was not always conducted respectfully and that much harm was done within the Australian community as a result. Digital youth service ReachOut noted that there was a 20 per cent surge in people accessing its online advice relating to LGBTIQ issues in the month following the Turnbull government announcing the same-sex marriage postal survey. ReachOut CEO Jono Nicholas claimed that young LGBTIQ Australians are the regular recipients of vilification and that the national debate about their right to marry was 'heightening this level of distress'. Many same-sex marriage advocates wanted a free vote on the issue in federal Parliament and opposed a public vote - whether by plebiscite or postal survey - partly because of fears about the mental health impacts of a broadly-based community debate. National Mental Health Commission co-chair, Allan Fels, said the survey debate had heightened discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians and that those on both sides of the issue were suffering distress. He stated, ' People get very stressed about this topic and debates can get out of hand.' It has been noted that many people opposed to same-sex marriage also claim to have been the victims of discrimination. Federal Liberal Party vice-president Karina Okotel, who openly rejected same-sex marriage noted, ' A culture has developed whereby it's acceptable to vilify, mock, abuse and shame anyone who stands in the way or even raises questions about whether we should legalise same-sex marriage. I have been called a homophobe, a bigot and been told that my views are disgusting.' Liberal senator Dean Smith has condemned the postal survey suggesting that community distress and disharmony are an inevitable consequence of such public debates. Senator Smith stated, 'We have had two binding plebiscites previously in 1916 (and) 1917. They were acrimonious and they divided communities...Postal plebiscites, national plebiscites are corrosive to our representative parliamentary democracy.' 5. Regular postal surveys, plebiscites and referenda could leave the electorate with voter fatigue It has been suggested that Australian voters are already required to exercise their democratic rights quite frequently. Adult voters vote in a minimum of one federal and one state election every three years. In most states they vote for upper and lower house representatives and on the federal level they vote for their lower house representative and half the Senate positions apportioned their state at each election. Residents and ratepayers are also required to vote in council elections every four years. Voting at all these levels is compulsory and failure to do so attracts a fine.Regular additional voting through postal surveys, plebiscites or referenda is likely to be seen by some voters as a burden. Initial voter reluctance is claimed to be indicated by the number of young Australian voters not registered to vote. An ABC 7.30 report telecast on May 12, 2016, noted, 'Half of all 18-year-olds and a quarter of 19-year-old Australians are not yet enrolled to vote in [the next] election. With around 350,000 youth votes that will not be cast in 2016, it makes them the most under-represented voting group. Around 608,000 Australians 25 years and older are also not enrolled, adding up to almost a million missing voters or almost six per cent of eligible voters who won't be going to the polls.' Among registered voters, voter turnout is commonly used to measure political engagement; however, with voting compulsory in Australia a high turnout may still mean voters are weary of the process. A 2015 German study suggested that more frequent voting may exacerbate disaffection. The study found that voters can become demotivated for up to six months after an election. In a comment published in The Daily Telegraph on November 8, 2017, Gary Nunn noted the voter weariness which marked the end of the same-sex marriage voting period. Nunn stated, '[I]f one thing unifies, it's surely the relief that this postal ballot plebiscite finally ends... People in both camps have felt injured or insulted over these six long weeks. Many of the public feel fatigued. They just want it to be over.' |
Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.