<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