This interesting article points out a basic principle of democracy - the role of an elected representative to make and enact policy of behalf of the electors. For that is what a member of parliament is - a representative.
Representing what?
Representing the wide group of people who have charged that person with speaking for them.
Not instead of them; for them.
That is a strong reason why politicians must be sensitive to public opinion. They are there to represent a vast number of attitudes in a manageable averaging smaller quantity, but never to dominate or influence them.
This is where the ability to sense overall opinion and wishes marks a good politician, not necessarily the ability to cajole electors into accepting a party's policy planning.

Sorry, but this has been made into such a divisive issue by those fighting a rearguard action against the end of the last vestiges of discrimination; that it can only be addressed by a binding plebiscite.

Which is the only way those against will actually accept as the expressed will of the people, given they seriously believe their view is the majority one, and if not defended to the last breath, will lead to beastiality and poligamy, and indeed child abandonment and abuse?

Not that these things happen today or are the principal provence of some of the most vociferous and oft hypocritical opponents of same sex marriage?

My skin fairly crawls at the sight of two men in a passionate embrace, yet when asked to vote my answer will be yes.

Some of my best mates are homosexuals.
I've played some extremely rugged footy with some, served in the military with others, and shared a quiet beer with all the above, none of whom came on to me, given I am and always have been straight.

They bleed just like anyone else and even die in service, if their wounds are severe.

To reiterate I will vote yes, as indeed so will the great silent fair minded majority, the religious right always tries to speak for or otherwise use!?
Rhrosty.

Has the recent hiding the homosexual lobby got in referendum in Slovenia got the lobby here nervous? I mean for years they have been distorting support for 'gay'marriage at 70% plus.

btw I wonder why the balanced abc made such a big deal about an island of about 50 people supporting perverting the definition of marriage and were completely silent on Slovenia. Oh well that is journalism today and Max shows how academia has even perverted what democracy means.

Max - your argument relies on it being definitely the case that elected members can somehow accurately discern what is in the "the best interests of the community".

How do you know that is true?

What is it about being elected to public office that suddenly enables a person to become an accurate arbiter of the community's best interest?

Who really knows what the best interests of the community are anyway and how can it possibly be established that they have been discerned?

Unless you can give meaningful answers to these questions then you are expressing nothing but wishful thinking. Well, you are also demonstrating that while demacracy may be the least worst form of government, it is also fatally flawed.

This argument is largely irrelevant and hypothetical unless a situation arises whereby there seems a need for a people’s vote. It is a waste of time debating it again until such time as it needs to be debated and now is not one of those times.

The pre-supposition is that same-sex marriage is an issue which should be of concern to the government. Just because the government maintains legislation concerning marriage does not mean that it should do so. There are no good reasons why the government needs to have a marriage act nor why it should officially endorse a couple’s relationship as a marriage.

Governments do not need to facilitate or endorse marriages and same-sex couples do not need their relationship facilitated or endorsed by the government. Both groups should be held accountable for any waste of tax-payers money because there is no need for this complete circus to go on.

Whether the politicians or the people decide does not matter. What matters is whether or not the question should even be considered. Any politician or any voter who gets involved in this particular debacle of democracy should hang their head in shame. They have failed to analyse the whole issue and let themselves be manipulated by a minority group with a personal agenda and they have failed to demand rational thinking of their politicians.

This is a genuinely delicate issue for both labor and liberal MPs. A plebiscite allows people to have their say and takes it out of the hands of career politicians.

'This is a genuinely delicate issue for both labor and liberal MPs. A plebiscite allows people to have their say and takes it out of the hands of career politicians.'

rare agreement with SM. If the people of Australia have been brainwashed to the extent that we pervert the definition of marriage we reap what we sow. If Pollies decide we reap what they sow and it ain't pretty. Many of them trashed their own marriages and now want to rule on whats best for others.

Whatever our private opinions it really should
be left to the people of this country to
decide what kind of society they want to live
in and be allowed to vote on the matter.
That would be the democratic way.

Foxy:
"Whatever our private opinions it really should
be left to the people of this country to
decide what kind of society they want to live
in and be allowed to vote on the matter.
That would be the democratic way."

Aren't we people of this country? Which people should it be left to - the politicians through the parliament or a plebiscite? Aren't both ways democratic?

Of course we should have a popular vote. This clears everything with no room to whine about a wrong verdict.
I must say I am not surprised all the usual subjects want to stop us having a democratic say of course.
To the writer of this tawdry piece I offer the following advice "Get your hand off it!"

' "Whatever our private opinions it really should
be left to the people of this country to
decide what kind of society they want to live
in and be allowed to vote on the matter.
That would be the democratic way."

while we are at it Foxy why not let the people decide on further Islamic immigration. Ironically many who vote for ' gay' marriage would vote to allow more Muslims here. Very strange logic.

Interesting point, Runner.

Down the track, if - hypothetically - our politicians agree on changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals marrying homosexuals, while at the same time, the well-meaning 'left' has pushed for recognition - also hypothetical, I hope - of reactionary Shari'a law (perhaps just for Muslim women for a start, then imposed on all of us), will that require the tossing of gays off tall buildings ?

Just wondering how some people may square that circle.

Joe

Neither a plebiscite no a conscience vote by politicians are satisfactory ways of resolving this issue because there are complexities related to 'homosexuality' that have not yet been publicly considered - see Would A Plebiscite on Same Sex Marriage Abuse Children's Rights?
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#15_9_15

So long as the public and the politicians turn a blind eye to those complexities, neither of the available 'democratic' options can to lead to an informed outcome.

Loudmouth

article in Australian today stating how the senior Islamic army officer is homophobic. What will win out? racism, sexism, victimhood. Quite hysterical to see some nude leftist activist in Germany demanding to have womens rights respected. I am sure all the muslims are nodding their heads. Well in many towns the woman have been told not to go out at night. I am glad Susies blogging skills are improving. More and more women will be staying at home.

Take Howard’s plebiscite on a republic. That did not work, it’s a matter of who sets the rules for what is covered. Just like Abbott’s rules for a royal commission with who and what is covered, plus a stacked investigating Commission. A flawed system of democracy all around. It’s the vote you have when you do not want anybody to know what you are voting for.
The only true system of a public vote is a referendum. One person one vote

Hi 579,

From Wikipedia,

'Australia defines 'referendum' as a vote to change the constitution and 'plebiscite' as a vote that does not affect the constitution.'

Ireland held a plebiscite asking citizens whether or not they wanted to accept or reject a Constitution, as proposed.

The two terms get confused. But clearly, a plebiscite is any question posed for the consideration of the voting population, while a referendum is more specifically a question posed whether or not to change a clause etc., in the existing Constitution.

Each form of voting is on the basis of one-person-one-vote.

Presumably, in Australia, a plebiscite is based on the Australia-wide voting population: a simple majority carries the proposal. But a referendum, as you would be aware, requires majorities in a majority of States.

Joe

Howards pleb; consisted of about 24 people. No doubt hand picked to derail a republic vote. The rest sound reasonable to me.
Howard was a fair PM until he got over enthused and bought in work choices, that was his downfall. Even though he did build a railroad to nowhere. That’s ok. I think he had a dream about cities popping up along the rail road, just like the wild west days of cowboys and Indians.
Turnbull has his head screwed on, and hopefully point us in the direction that needs to be travelled. He needs to get a front bench that is trustworthy and can behave like intelligent human beings for a start. Which is a letdown for our PM. All being considered they are remnants of another era, which sort of makes sense of why their behavior is questionable.

Loudmouth: In addition to what you wrote about plebiscites and referenda: plebiscites are NOT binding. The Government can ignore them if they want.

I would just like to pick up something mentioned in the article that many people use as an argument against any referendum/plebiscite in general: the cost. The $160 million quoted does seem like a lot but when you divide it by about 15million+ enrolled voters it's only about $10 each. Not much to pay to have direct a say in our laws. When you work out the costs per year for our all referendums they're very cheap because there so few and far between.

Personally, if you like to see citizen initiated referenda like Switzerland. We should set aside two days six months apart every year, say on the equinoxes, when voting may be held for any current issues that have been petitioned by more than 2% (or some other small target) of the voters. I'll be willing to pay even $100 extra tax for it: that's about $4 a week- less than an coffee or 1/2 a beer at a pub.

<Much of the discussion arising from Willie Shorten's emergence as party leader is about his ability to control union heavies in the factions and their influence on policy, without a back lash which could threaten his authority and see him knifed and slandered like Kevin Rudd who really did try to reduce the influence of union heavies on Labor policy and leadership. That risk has raised questions about the meaning of democracy and the nature of a politician's duty.

It is seen in the party's dilemma over union influence in the Party and the uncomfortable reality of Party members not having a say in policy at all, being constantly over-ruled by the factions that always have the final say and the rules confirm that. Whereas presently the biggest, most pressing issue affecting Labor (Greens too) is their links with and protection of the very same union bosses that have been found so wanting by the Dyson Royal Commission, Labor and Greens leadership are doing everything possible to avoid the issue.

'Gay' marriage and 'global-warming-causing-bushfires' are diversions. As the election and accountability to an exasperated electorate inches closer, nothing will prevent the festering corpse of union corruption from bobbing to the surface as in Deliverance. Is it democratic that union bosses who are NOT elected by the people and are NOT accountable to anyone let alone in the Parliament, should be the (very fat) tails wagging the Labor and Greens Party dogs?>

There, just a quick fix of that article to help.

Democracy is government by the people, whether it be directly in plebiscite or by elected representatives.

The most democratic would be to hold a plebiscite for every law, but at that is wildly impractical, getting elected representatives to do so is more efficient.

Of course there shouldn’t be a “plebiscite” on the creation of “same-sex marriage”. If we want to make laws by public vote, then the first step is to amend the Constitution to provide for binding referenda on proposed laws, as in Switzerland. There is no reason to select one matter for decision by “plebiscite” while leaving every other matter to Parliament. (I put “plebiscite” in inverted commas because the idea that a “plebiscite” is the name of a popular vote that does not involve changing the Constitution while a referendum is a vote on changing the Constitution is, like “same-sex marriage” itself, a recent invention. The 1916 and 1917 votes on conscription were called referenda at the time.)

The opinion polls show that the brilliant but ruthlessly dishonest campaign to deprive the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman has succeeded, so no “same-sex marriage” advocate should be worried by a plebiscite. A plebiscite is not to stop the creation of “same-sex marriage” but to enable its Coalition opponents to say to their conservative supporters that its creation was not their fault, but the fault of the people. In the unlikely event the plebiscite were to be defeated, the “same-sex marriage” advocates would simply claim that they had been cheated and keep demanding that the issue be “settled” as every vote that “settled” it the other way in Parliament does not count as “settled”.

The fact that people will say nasty things in a campaign is neither here nor there. People say nasty things in every political campaign. We don’t give up on having elections because of it. There is no need for a plebiscite, but the abuse that will accompany it will be directed at the opponents – just as it is now.

Dear Shadow Minister,

<<The most democratic would be to hold a plebiscite for every law, but at that is wildly impractical, getting elected representatives to do so is more efficient.>>

Why impractical?

In ancient times, direct democracy became impractical (or too heavy) once there were more than 5000 ceramic shards to count, but with current technology this should be easy.

Anyone who wants can listen/watch and vote online. Those who, like most of us, have no time, can appoint their default representative, change them at any time, vote directly on specific issues they care most about or assign in advance different representatives for different issues. Anyone could be a representative, such as friends and family-members and small representatives could also appoint bigger ones to vote in their absence. To maintain confidentiality and prevent coercion, representatives should not be able to tell how many votes they represent, either in general or on a particular issue.

It's technically no big deal.

How about this?

I would suggest that a binding plebiscite be taken with the next general election, which we must make time for anyway. to remove the not enough time excuse?

And as such, removes the necessity of representatives needing to defy the expressed unambiguous will of the people or those of their particular electorate.

It is not too surprising that the anti gay lobby and those of the far right, believe it should be left to the parliament, given they believe they control enough of it to defeat the question. if ever put!

Hence the rearguard, mendacious disingenuous propaganda campaign and obfuscation to simply thwart the will of the people!

Bring on a binding plebiscite!
Rhosty.

Hi Rhosty,

Plebiscites are very rare in Australia, and I think that, since they are not binding on any parliament, there would have to be some sort of legislation - perhaps even a change in the Constitution - to bind parliaments to their outcomes.

Would any parliament ever vote to bind itself to the outcomes of any future plebiscites ? That might need some Constitutional change

Maybe, first, there would have to be a Constitutional referendum to insert some clause binding parliaments to the outcomes of plebiscites.

Good luck with all of that :)

Joe

If you're old enough to vote, you're old
enough to have a say on the issue of same-sex
marriage.

Dearest Foxy,

I agree, but so is, and does, your MP.

Of course, if a plebiscite is not binding on parliament, then they also have the discretion of whether or not to have one in the first place. Perhaps we could start a "PLEBISCITES NOW !' campaign.

Of course, any decent plebiscite would have to be about a serious national issue, not the self-indulgent frippery and fluff that is usually suggested.

Bite me :)

Love,

Joe

Mr Howard did not suborn the republic referendum, a large body of Irish-related voters did. The Howard model for a republic submitted to referendum had the President to be appointed by a large majority of parliament rather than by the extremely undemocratic captain's pick that prevails for the Governor-General currently. To the Irish activists nothing short of a publicly elected President would do. Thwarted on that they threw their votes behind the Empire grovellers with a "No" vote which tipped the scales to no republic even though a majority preferred a change to a republic. Blame their stupidity, not Mr Howard's cunning.

Incidentally, Gough Whitlam exercised his captain's pick for John Kerr as Governor-General in February 1974 even though senior members of his party warned that Kerr was a notorious Industrial Grouper not to be trusted from here to the door. It was the Industrial Groupers who split the Labor Party at its 1956 conference leading to the formation of the pro-Menzies DLP. It was later scuttlebutt in some quarters that in the LNP spill vote for Leader of the Opposition on December 01 2009 Mr Abbott got his one vote win over Mr Turnbull with a threat that his mafia were still alive and running and if he wasn't elected leader they would split the LNP the same way that they split the ALP in 1956.

Our system of governance is derived from the ancient Greeks. Our sciences have advanced somewhat from these beginnings and have changed dramatically. For example every advertisement that you see today has basically been produced with the aid of the very sciences that give us our technology. Another example is the creation of Facebook. Zuckerberg and his cronies created Facebook who are mostly all Harvard graduates, on the basic female need for social connection. This is why it has been so successful. And I'd hazard a guess why mostly females find it so addictive. The use of psychology makes it additive. You have trouble resisting it. This creates huge amounts of money for the owners and for a lot of people it creates huge problems for them. It also creates problems for our society. How many have hundreds of friends on Facebook but have never interacted with any of them outside the digital world?
Our governance is the same. It uses science and dictates to us. It was never designed for that yet today it is. Do we need to redesign our system of governance to protect democracy? What is our definition of democracy today? And perhaps to protect us from our own sciences being used against us without us knowing.
Just a thought...

Emperor Julian,

The Industrial Groupers did not split the Labor Party, the Split was not in 1956, and the DLP was not pro-Menzies.

Dr Evatt split the Labor Party when he launched an attack on the successful Victorian branch in 1954. The left took advantage of Kim Beazleys’s absence from the federal executive to sack the Victorian executive, run a dodgy state conference with non-members as delegates, refuse to let the real Victorian delegates attend the 1955 federal conference and thus deprive Labor of state government for the next 27 years. Robert Murray’s The Split is still the best book on those years.

The DLP was a centre-left social democratic part committed to human rights and social justice. It was the first of our parliamentary parties to oppose the White Australia Policy. It advocated land rights for Aborigines, had a Torres Strait Islander candidate for Parliament four decades ago and welcomed refugees into its organisation. It opposed capital punishment, supported equal pay for women, pioneered environmental concern, sought higher welfare payments and a guaranteed annual income, supported the right of unionists to take industrial action and advocated decent treatment for asylum-seekers.

The credit for establishing the Senate as a genuine house of review goes to the DLP, which collaborated with the ALP in the early 1970s to set up the Senate committee system and which used its balance of power position responsibly to scrutinise Coalition legislation; e.g., voting with the Coalition 48.95 per cent of the time and with Labor 35.79 per cent of the time in the 1965-67 period (Malcolm Mackerras, The Australian Senate1965-1967: Who Held Control, APSA, 1968). The DLP would never have voted for the anti-family, anti-union Workplace Relations Act that the Democrats supported in 1996.

Rather than the DLP being pro-Menzies, Robert Menzies became pro-DLP, voting for it rather than his own Liberal Party in his later years.

One of myths rarely heard is that the Internet ensures democracy is real. If something was wrong, wrong doing would be posted for everyone to see.

I dispute this open freedom of speech Internet concept, by the means of populations repressed thought education, that most people, more so through social media and limited numbers of forums, forums somewhat used as chat rooms.
I also suggest that social media can be used as another story format media forum of establishment propaganda.

My accusation is that people only want to read and hear what they believe is true, everything not wanting to be believed ideas compared with their own beliefs are false. The idea of media and Internet forums that exposes wrong doings are limited to various media scandals, promoting ideas already believed. Limited number of politicians appearing in media, are there to start up old media stories of democracy in progress: falling pole figures; increasing GST fears; Union and police corruption scandals; speculation on the next election.

Repeating past statements that democracy needs to have a well educated population, otherwise democracy is a circus.

Forums have posts that seem to support: unseen; unproven; behind closed doors events, that once carried out, will improve government processes. Malcolm Turnbull will solve all our problems.
Malcolm Turnbull, like past recent prime ministers, spending considerable amounts of time overseas on public appearances. Modern information societies use well thought out email communication rather than hastily made personal appearance hurried, poorly defined verbal statements.

I state supporting politicians and political parties allow government to be believed as independent from various manipulations plotting against the population, democracy was meant to serve.
What should be heard and read over the Internet are the many inactions. As media pick on government for budget problems: medical care; social security, few people want to change. Such issues are media distractions.

Bringing up old ideas that aid nothing new as though something exists, aids reinforcing something that may not exist.

Surely their are many ideas worth debating, worth suggesting to be fixed. How about 13 years of bad education for starters.

Hi Steve,

When you write " .... Surely their are many ideas worth debating, worth suggesting to be fixed. How about 13 years of bad education for starters. .... ", you are spot-on.

In my distant childhood, school classrooms were pretty minimal, no fancy technology like OHPs, teacher out the front, forty or fifty kids sitting at fixed desks, the cane near the blackboard. But somehow we learnt our percentages and parsing. The teachers taught, they never seemed to have any admin work to do, maybe they did, but their focus was us kids.

So what went wrong ?

Joe