.


Right: A much younger Malcolm Turnbull campaigning for the Yes vote in the 1999 referendum on an Australian republic.

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.



Arguments pointing to the advantages of postal surveys and plebiscites

1. Postal surveys allow the government and the opposition to be informed of the electorate's opinion on divisive issues
Supporters of plebiscites and postal surveys argue that although Australia's is a representative style of government within which the electorate votes for its political leaders to act on the voters' behalf, there are circumstances within which the Parliament needs to be aware of the electorate's views on an issue.
The decisive components of an issue that might be referred to the people directly are that it is one around which there is no clear national consensus and that it is a significant or important issue which affects the electorate directly. 'A quick guide to plebiscites' posted on the Internet site of the Parliament of Australia, on June 30, 2011, states, 'A plebiscite might be used to obtain electors' views on, say, military conscription, or choosing a new Australian flag.'
Justifying the Government's recourse to a postal survey on the question of same-sex marriage, the federal Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, argued for the special circumstances that made such a gauging of the popular view necessary. Dutton stated, ' [T]he reason is the nature of this issue and the significance of a proposal to fundamentally change a social foundation stone that dictated the break-glass option of the postal plebiscite.'
It has further been argued that some highly contentious issues may also require the additional support of a national vote or survey on the issue to back the decision ultimately taken by the Parliament. This view was put by Stephen Chavura, lecturer in politics and history at Macquarie University, Campion College, and the Lachlan Macquarie Institute. Chavura stated, 'It is for times like these that taking the path of direct democracy makes sense, when an issue is unusually contentious, divisive, and vexing, and when no side is prepared to lose graciously to a parliamentary vote.'

2. Postal surveys promote debate and engender public interest
Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, claimed that one of the aims of a postal survey is to promote 'respectful debate' on the contested issue. According to this line of argument, in the lead-up to and during the period within which votes can be lodged, there is likely to be widespread community discussion of the issue. This will occur among interested individuals as well as being embodied in the positions put by lobby groups on both sides of the question.
Shortly after the postal survey regarding the legalisation of same-sex marriage was announced, Malcolm Turnbull stated, ' I encourage all Australians to engage in this debate, as we do in all debates, respectfully.'
The Prime Minister went on to state, ' You cannot expect your side of the argument to be respected unless you respect the other side of the argument and the people who put it.' The Prime Minister argued that the debate was an opportunity to promote mutual understanding around an issue of great social consequence..
Analysis of the traffic on and membership of sites and groups advocating for different sides of the same-sex marriage issue reveals that each gained support over the course of the debate. As other surveys have indicated that the debate does not appear to have affected voter intentions, it seems likely that what it achieved was an activisation of those with a pre-existing opinion. This activisation of the electorate is also suggested by the fact that there were some 90,000 new enrolments added to the electoral roll, entitling these voters to participate in the postal survey.
Supporters of further postal votes, plebiscites and referenda argue that they are a way of involving and energising the electorate. Heath Colton Pickering of the University of Melbourne's Melbourne School of Government has stated, ' People are more motivated about politics when voting on a specific area of public policy. It's more engaging than voting for your local candidate; in fact, some international surveys have shown that only around 25% of people can even name their local federal MP.'
Colton Pickering further noted that regular reference to the voters on particular issues is a feature of some democracies. He stated, ' The idea is commonly used at the state level in the United States. At last year's presidential election, American voters in Massachusetts were also given four additional policy questions. Two issues passed, one of which included support to legalise the recreational use of marijuana - a common 'sticking' point that most politicians choose to avoid.'

3. Postal surveys can break a political impasse on a significant, divisive issue
It has been noted that the postal survey on the legalisation of same-sex marriage served to resolve a political stalemate around a significant, divisive issue. This occurred because there was no clear direction within the government on the same-sex marriage issue.
Plebiscites have been held to resolve similarly divisive issues. There have been three plebiscites in Australia; two were held on the conscription of troops during World War I, in 1916 and 1917 (both defeated), and one on a national song, in 1977. Resort to plebiscites often comes when governing parties are divided. In the Great War, Billy Hughes, leading a divided Labor government, went to the people to try to secure a decision for conscription that he could impose on his own party.
Though plebiscites at a national level are rare, they are not unusual at the state level. Professor Twomey, of the University of Sydney, pointed out that plebiscites have been used to deal with divisive state issues such as prohibition, daylight saving time, Sunday shopping hours and pub closing times. Professor Twomey has noted ' [At a state level] we have a long history of using plebiscites to deal with divisive issues.'
In the case of the same-sex marriage postal survey, the issue was a divisive one within the federal government. There was no policy consensus between the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and the more socially liberal members of the government, who favoured legalising same-sex marriage, and the socially conservative members of the government, who opposed it.
Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, had previously promised a plebiscite on same-sex marriage as a means of forestalling having to formulate a new policy position on this divisive issue. However, a plebiscite could only be held with the support of the Senate as it requires enabling legislation to bring about a plebiscite. The government could not secure a majority in the Senate for its Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. Labor, the Greens and the Xenophon team twice acted together in the Senate to vote it down. The Government used a postal survey rather than a plebiscite to determine popular opinion on the issue as the postal survey did not require an Act of Parliament.
Thus, a postal survey proved of particular use to the government in dealing with the issue of legalising same-sex marriage. In a similar manner to a plebiscite, it allowed the government to refer to the electorate an issue about which it did not have a workable consensus. It also allowed the government to gauge the electorate's view on the issue despite not being able to secure a majority in the Senate to pass an enabling Act for a plebiscite.
The general utility of plebiscites and postal surveys to resolve political deadlocks has been acknowledged by Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of Queensland. In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 15, 2016, Professor Orr stated, 'Representative government, at its best, is holistic. But occasionally there is an issue that it fails to resolve, and which is simple and discreet enough that a plebiscite is a second-best way through the impasse.'

4. Postal surveys retain Parliament's power to determine legislation as they are not legally binding on the government
Though some critics of the postal survey maintain such instruments are futile as they do not compel the government to act on the wishes of the people, others argue that this is a strength of both postal surveys and plebiscites. Both these measures for gauging popular opinion (postal surveys and plebiscites) are advisory not binding. Once the government has determined the opinion of the electorate on an issue, it may then investigate and debate the question further and propose something different.
One of the main functions of the Parliament of Australia is as 'a forum for debate on national issues'. Thus, supporters of Parliamentary authority argue it is ultimately the function of Parliament, rather than extra-Parliamentary consultative bodies, to debate the issues that concern the nation and to form laws in relation to them. Governments and parliaments have at their disposal a large support apparatus to assist them in the formulation and debate of laws.
The deliberative function of Parliament is a major reason why the Parliament should ultimately be able to form and pass laws independently rather than at the direct instruction of a majority of the electorate. Collectively, parliamentarians have access to information and expertise that allow them to make more appropriate decisions than might be made by a majority of voters. This point was made by Joel Harrison, lecturer at Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney, who has stated, 'Ours is a system in which persons are elected to take part in a deliberative process orientated towards passing laws for the common good. Reinforcing or recovering this traditional sense of deliberation is important.
Legislative authority is not simply the exercise of majority will...Indeed, the hope is that the legislature enacts law for the public good over private interest.'
The ultimate responsibility of the Parliament to make laws with regard to same-sex marriage and other issues was argued by Professor Carolyn Evans, Dean, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, who states, 'The Australian Constitution creates a "representative" form of government. We vote for parliamentarians to represent us and those parliamentarians thrash through the details of what laws should be passed, in what terms, with what trade-offs and consequences. Given the complexity of modern society, any other system would be untenable.'

5. Postal surveys are relatively inexpensive
Some supporters of a postal survey compared to a plebiscite have noted that the postal survey is a relatively inexpensive option.
On August 8, 2017, the Acting Special Minister of State, Mathias Cormann, confirmed that the postal plebiscite would cost $122 million, saving $160m over the amount estimated for the original plebiscite proposal.
Other estimates suggested the cost difference might be greater still. Consultants PwC put the full cost of a plebiscite at $525 million, made up of $160 million for the ballot itself, $66 million to fund the "yes" and "no" cases, and $281 million in lost productivity.
In the event, the postal survey cost even less than was initially predicted. On November 16, 2017, a lower probable expenditure was announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which stated, 'The ABS has also been prudent with taxpayer funds. While the costs are still being tallied, I am confident that the final cost of the survey will be under $100m.'
The final cost of the postal survey was revealed on December 9, 2017, with Acting Special Minister of State, Mathias Cormann, announcing, 'Happy to report that the ABS delivered the Australian Marriage Law Survey for a total cost of $80.5 million. Well below the $122m Budget.'
It has further been noted that the value of any government expenditure it determined by what has been gained from it. In the particular case of the same-sex marriage postal survey, the cost of the survey has been justified as keeping an election pledge. The Coalition went to the election promising it would conduct a plebiscite on legalising same-sex marriage and was returned to office partially on the basis of that pledge. The Senate prevented the government passing the enabling legislation for a plebiscite, which then required the government to use the administrative option of a postal survey.
Malcolm Turnbull justified the postal survey as keeping an election promise. He stated, 'Strong leaders keep their promises, weak leaders break them. I am a strong leader.'
The Treasurer similarly justified the expense of a postal vote as the necessary cost of keeping an election promise. He stated, ' Keeping promises is money well spent.'