The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? Will that become the question? > Comments

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? Will that become the question? : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 31/8/2016

Whilst there has been only three federal plebiscites (as distinct to referenda), they have been used by our states to gauge public opinion on a range of issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
My understanding is that in some countries the words plebiscite and referendum are interchangeable and basically mean the same thing.

Except in Australia, where the constitution says that a referendum must be undertaken to change the constitution.

So this has been interpreted as meaning that a referendum can only be used for constitutional matters, and cannot be used for anything else.

That is nonsense, and a plebiscite and a referendum are one and the same, because they are a national vote by the people, and both should be binding.

We now see panic by politicians because they could be displaced by people carrying out a direct vote on issues.

Politicians should be more honest, and state that they don't want direct democracy, because they like the pay packet and easy life of a politician.

Representational government is a farce, and time to try something else.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:06:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Heartily sick of it is right". The biggest "embarrassment" to the government and the country is that we are involved in such nonsense in the first place. I don't know where the 3.1% (of homosexuals) comes from, but the 2011 Cenus revealed the figure as 1%; and we haven't had the results from a Census since then, and we will not for some time, given that the Census is another one of many "embarrassments" for the Turnbull apology for a government.

But, 3.1% or 1.00%, the whole charade is just too absurd for so few people who don't know whether they are Arthur or Martha.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have thought supporters of SSM would welcome a plebiscite on the issue as this would be be the only way to truly legitimise the decision.
A parliamentary vote would always leave the result open to question and those who are against will always be able to claim the decision was forced onto the country by a minority group and as such, does not represent the wishes of the majority.
If the mental health of young gay people is of such concern to supporters I would think a national affirmation would be in their best interests.
Posted by Big Nana, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn

' don't know where the 3.1% (of homosexuals) comes from, but the 2011 Cenus revealed the figure as 1%;'

unfortunately as the deviants use means such as ' safe' schools to brainwash kids the numbers will only increase. They will then point the finger at those defending decency for increase suicide and drug usage. The left/secular anti God ideology is very sick.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yesterday a friend suggested they wanted the satisfaction of recording a vote whatever the outcome. That is if they voted 'no' and the 'yes' vote prevailed they would know their stance had been given some weight. It's interesting to note the politicians who claim to champion individual liberty seem to have a healthy authoritarian streak on some matters.

If the plebiscite stalls perhaps we could have a petition in favour of holding one plus a whip round to cover the costs. Sign the petition and donate $5 or $10.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:29:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian

The Labor party and others have said that they would reject a plebiscite.

But as yet, no one knows what the question on the plebiscite will be, so how can they reject something when they don't know what it is?

The political system in Australia is completely corrupted by political parties, and no one has a clear idea of what is occurring anymore.

This is different to how a law is drafted in Switzerland.

"All federal laws are subject to a three to four step process:
1) A first draft is prepared by experts in the federal administration.
2) This draft is presented to a large number of people in a formalized kind of opinion poll: Cantonal governments, political parties as well as many non-governmental organisations and associations of the civil society may comment on the draft and propose changes.
3) The result is presented to dedicated parliamentary commissions of both chambers of the federal parliament, discussed in detail behind closed doors and finally debated in public sessions of both chambers of parliament. Members of parliament do take into account the results of step 2, because if the fail to do so, step 4 will be inevitable.
4) The electorate has a veto-right on laws: If anybody is able to find 50,000 citizens signing a form demanding for a referendum within 3 months, a referendum must be held. Laws do only need to find a majority of the national electorate to pass a referendum, not a majority of cantons. Referendums on more than a dozen laws per year are not unusual in Switzerland."

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

So before a law is formalized, it goes through a process of review by many people, and if a political party attempts to corrupt the process and enforce what it wants on the public (and they will), then the public still has a veto-right and can demand a referendum, where "step 4 will be inevitable"

Note that they do not talk of plebiscites in Switzerland, but referendums only.

Talk of non-binding plebiscites is just an attempt by politicians to water down direct democracy.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The marriage act was changed by parliament in 2004 to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. That being so, parliament could simply revert to the former marriage act, which as memory serves, simply stated two people? That said, there are some folks, who will never ever agree and claim that the majority see things their way!

And will continue to hold their patent puppet Malcolm by the political short and curlies regardless of his previous position? And just not indicative of a bona fide Leader! Who ought to stare down the dividers/invite them to pick up their bat and ball and join another team? Given they seem determined to wreck this one!

That said, their puppet will dance or jump for whomsoever pulls the strings! Asking only, what (back) step or how high?

That being so, the only way to see this matter resolved in the affirmative during this term of parliament, is via a plebiscite? Which Labor needs to agree to, always providing, it happens this year and Parliament is bound by the either way result!

In the interim, no changes to 18C ought to be countenanced, given change would allow hate speech/homophobic rhetoric full rein?

Even then, I believe, we can expect the mother and father of all negative campaigns by the no side, who will try to link in beastiality, poligamy and the rights of the child to a mother and a father etc ad infinitum ad nauseum, with no divisive stone left unturned and no dirty trick left untried?

And sure to polarize the electorate? Turn the electorate against the government? Which could lose power with a single heart attack! Or in a virtual punishing landslide during the very next poll that counts? Bring on the plebiscite!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 31 August 2016 11:27:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two and a half steps for Politicians to avoid responsibility:

1. Parliament needs to pass legislation to enable a plebiscite to be held

2. The compulsory(?) or you'll be fined or gaoled(?) plebiscite is held.

This enables point 1 again, ie.

1. Parliament needs to pass legislation again to enable same-sex marriage.

More details see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-29/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-explainer/7794070
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 1:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

The "safes schools" (safe for whom, we should be asking) nonsense will probably increase the numbers. The left is very good at warping the minds of impressionable kids. Remember the Poms, who used to come here after the U.K started encouraging the queers, saying that they took the opportunity to come to Australia before they made homsexuality compulsory? Perhaps that wasn't the joke we thought it was.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 1:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No plebiscite on gay marriage or any other controversial social measure whatsoever.. why single out same sex relationships? I totally agree with ex high court judge - Michael Kirby's remarks in SMH dated 22-8-16

""We didn't do this for the Aboriginal people when we moved to give equality in law to them, we didn't do it when we dismantled the White Australia policy ... we didn't do it in advances on women's equality, we didn't do it most recently on disability equality."

"Why are we now picking out the LGBT, the gay community? It's simply an instance of hate and dislike, hostility to a small minority in our population. It's unAustralian."

It's executive government's job to make decisions that affect all of Australian society. Why else do we have Federal government? Duh!

Vote in parliament like good 'little' politicians that your are because you were directly elected by the people to do that task... of making decisions into legislation.

Get on with the job! good heavens, I am so chronically sick of this issue... there are MORE important problems to be debated such as creating quality jobs and maintaining our current standards of living before its REALLY too late...
Posted by Rojama, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 2:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rojama

"Get on with the job."

What a joke that is.

Within hours of resuming Parliament, the politicians have returned to their normal form of abuse and vitriol, yelling at each other that they are a "disgrace" and "scum".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-and-the-parliamentary-art-of-talking-through-his-paper-hat-20160831-gr5d64.html

One has to assume that this is true, and politicians are a disgrace and scum.

I would not trust our politicians with any decision, and Australia has to grow up and start the process of direct democracy.

That direct democracy means a direct vote taken by the public on issues, rather than relying on disgraceful scum politicians to vote on issues.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 2:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice Kirby was an "activist" judge, and a very arrogant one who thought it was right for unelected judges to make decisions rightly the province of elected representatives. Not a person to take seriously at all. He is, of course, homosexual himself, which is fine, but it is the homosexual lobby and its leftist urgers who are the ones doing all the bullying in an attempt to make Turnbull's promise of a plebicite, before the election, to go away. Had Turnbull reneged on his promise, these same bullies would have been the first to complain and score points - very, very loudly.

As for Kirby's knocking a plebicite on SSM because we didn't have one on aboriginal matters and the White Australia police: well we should have had a plebicite on those those things, too. Instead, they were were changed by emotional, frightened politicians, who gave no thought to the consequences of their actions.

Turnbull has yet to show strength and state that it is the plebicite or nothing to knock the whinging and bullying in the head, but other Coalition MPs are saying that's the way it will be; even Warren Ensch, firmly pro SSM, has sad that nobody from the government will crossing the floor. Turnbull seems to have succeeded in unifying the party, in this at least
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 5:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of all the stupid things that Labor and the Greens could do, blocking direct democracy on an issue that many people see as a crucial issue, takes the cake. If anything can convince the electorate that their votes mean little, and that Australian political power rests primarily with a political caste, who really do not care what the majority of Australians want, it is opposing a plebiscite.

My prediction is, that if the Greens, Labor and this Xenophon moron display their true anti democratic colours, they are going to be smashed in the next election. If there is one thing that will really pisss off the public, it is the very idea that the political establishment will not allow them to vote on a very important issue, because the political establishment knows that they will lose.

Despite the predictions of pollsters that Brexit would not happen, Trump would never be a Presidential contender, or that Pauline Hanson was a dead duck, the public surprised them all by voting against an arrogant political establishment that treated them like fools. It is incredible that the Greens, Shorton, and Xenophon can not see that. Apparently, Hinch opposed the plebiscite but was smart enough to see that he was committing electoral suicide, and he now supports it.

All that our idiot PM has to do to win massive support, is to come out and say publically, over and over again, that he supports the right of the public to vote on what so many see as a very important issue. He is in the amazingly fantastic position of supporting democracy against an opposition that the public can plainly see as anti democratic. But he is too politically naïve to take advantage of this heaven sent opportunity. He is so high up his ivory tower that he can't see the people for the clouds. And he will do nothing to deny homosexual "marriage" because he supports it himself.

If the forces of the democracyphobic homosexual class win this battle, and succeed in shutting up the electorate, they are going to lose the war.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 1 September 2016 3:55:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm Turnbull promised a plebiscite on SSM if he won Government.

Liberals won, so we expect the Government to honour their promise – let the people vote.

Labor had several years to address the issue of SSM – they did nothing!

Members of Parliament have no right to “change the goalpost” when the public voted for a plebiscite on the issue of changing the current status quo of The Marriage Act.

Oh, and as for that $160M cost, easily found – I also provide a surplus!

Maybe “those in charge” should have given more thought to the latest round of Australian Research Council grants –

Quote Daily Telegraph 22 August 2016 Editorial – “$105,000 to study ‘a new philosophical vision of what it means to be human’?

$467,997 to ‘investigate warfare in the ancient Tongan state through a study of earthwork fortifications?’ and

$414,000 to explore ‘truth, realism and epistemic justification’ in Tibetan philosophy’?

Grants of this nature do not reflect what the government frequently describes as economic challenges. Instead, they reflect a government that lacks the will to make required spending reduction. These grants are ridiculous.” (End quote)

I totally agree.

It’s time for our Prime Minister to honour his pledge and proceed to a plebiscite on SSM – as announced – for February 2017.
Posted by SAINTS, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:18:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for spending tax payers dollars in funding the "yes" or "no" vote?

No tax payer dollars should be spent!

I believe we all have heard more than enough from all parties already and quite capable of casting our "yes" or "no" vote as our conscience deems appropriate.

Malcolm Turnbull should stand up to Labor and others, who want to deny us - the voting public - our democratic right to vote on SSM.

Malcolm Turnbull should NOT break an election promise he made to the public during his election campaign on SSM.

If all else fails - no problems - it will be Labor - and others - who will have the "people/voters" to answer to at next election.
Posted by SAINTS, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 3:03:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy