Bill Shorten thinks Malcolm’s plebiscite will ‘stuff it up’ 18



View Profile

It seems that “block it” is on the mind of Australian Opposition leader Bill Shorten when it comes to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s planned same-sex marriage plebiscite. Bill has even gone as far as telling Fairfax Media “I’m worried Malcolm Turnbull will just stuff it up”.

Continuing on Bill said, “He stuffed up the republic referendum, he stuffed up the NBN, and he stuffed up Senate reforms when he promised to fix it.” The same-sex marriage discussion has been polarising members of both parties as well the Australian public.

The major fear behind the campaign is that the Government will put no effort into a supportive campaign for the plebiscite which could see the issue get set back a long way. Especially when consider that if even the plebiscite is successful in getting the support of the Australian people the government doesn’t have to adhere to the decision almost making it a moot point from the start.

According to Bill, Malcolm doesn’t even support his own plebiscite plan. Bill stated, “He’s only doing it because he is too weak to stand up to the radicals in his own party”. Continuing with “Why should everyone else have to pay for his weakness?”

With a $160 million price tag, it could be a costly exercise as well. Bill stated “The plebiscite is unnecessary, expensive and divisive. There’s a better, faster way to make much marriage equality a reality. The Parliament should do its job and deal with a marriage equality bill, with all parties afforded a free vote.”

There are also concerns that the plebiscite could stretch the Australian Electoral Commission to a breaking point as they already have a resourcing issue and are still recovering from the last Federal Election while continuing to work with State Elections.

Do you think that Australia needs a plebiscite on same-sex marriage or does your local MP already share your thoughts on the topic? Do you think that a plebiscite is a good thing, and Bill is only concerned that it won’t turn out how he wants it?

Starts at 60 Writers

The Starts at 60 writers team seek out interesting topics and write them especially for you.

  1. The Coalition gave an undertaking to have a plebiscite on the issue, the people expect that there will be one and it is not up to Labor to go against the will of the people. Politicians need to stop thinking of their careers and start being a servant of the people.

    3 REPLY
    • So you think it’s OK to spend /throw away $160 mill of our money on something that will fail and cause tremendous heartache in the process??

      1 REPLY
      • Why do you think it will fail? Surely if it got up in Canada and Ireland it will get up in Australia too.

    • I put Labor last because I want the plebicite. I want the government to know what the people want

    • Then maybe the vote should be binding? But it it isnt so abbott and crew will still vote against.

  2. Fair comment Annette,they are not interested in what happened at election or the Australian people, it’s all about , self interest ,ego .greed and power. They use what ever they can to try and get one up on each other and bugger who it effects.

  3. Couldnt agree more Roy, they will say anything to get into power, Malcolm knew that if he didnt make some statement on equal marriage rights, it would affect the Liberal vote, but he had to be careful about WHAT he actually promised so that would alienate the ultra-conservative Liberals in and out of Parliament if it came to a straight-out Parliamentary vote. He has done nothing but sit on the fence on a myriad of issues, he needs to remember the old saying “You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time”. The fact that he pumped so much of his own money into campaign funds for the last election is an indication of the strength of his ego. If the plebiscite is worded simply ie: Do you agree with equal marriage rights for gays, LGBT, transgender etc etc, two boxes to tick YES or NO, then it may have a change of being a fair thing, but they won’t make it that easy.The wording will be confusing and ambiguous, politicians never say what they actually mean…

    1 REPLY
    • Government is even part of the monkey communities as they chastise their own rebellious members. That the human species need to be governed goes back a long way. The Prophet Isaiah wrote “for to us a child is born and the Government will be on his shoulders ” And this 800 years B.C. This means the people will be represented by people elected to govern us. We the public are who choose what we need, not that we are forced to tolerate the unacceptable. As long as righteousness is upheld as our societs default value, not anything goes CHAOS.We the people must have the final say on any issue. If the less than 10 % of the population dictate to the other 90%, is that government? This WILL lead to chaos if inflicted on us. That is clearly not government and we are not a dictatorship here in Australia

  4. Turnbulls stuffed everything including his principles. He is prisoner of the delcon right. He shouldnt be allowed a chookraffle call never mind anything else. On this Shorten is right.

    1 REPLY
    • So electric bill reckons everything is a stuff up? He’s nothing but a commie stooge trying to do socialist engineering.
      I say stuff you Bill!!! You will not deprive me of my democratic right to have my say.

  5. If Labor ever get their hands on Govt this will turn out like the referenda that a few EU countries had prior to the recent Brexit vote – reject the outcome and make them do it again until they get the right answer.

    1 REPLY
    • So correct Gays and lefties never take no for an answer. They will protest and cry and scream til we vote again and again and cry a river of tears and throw tantrums until people give in to them. Hey people no means no.

  6. It’s not Malcolm’s plebiscite; it’s the Australian people’s plebiscite!

    Shorten was all for it when he thought SSM would pass; now figures show most Australians don’t want it, he refuses to support the plebiscite.

    The republic referendum was a success, not failure!

    And the senate is in a much better position than previously.

    I am not a Malcolm fan, but well done on these issues!

    1 REPLY
    • The plebiscite result will show if we as electors think is is a worthwhile change.
      If like the Britex vote the result is not what pressure groups and political parties wanted is in word “Tough”.

  7. I want a plebiscite. I want to know what the Australian people think on this issue. The fact that the result is not binding is irrelevant. True democracy costs and $160M is just the price we have to pay so that the people can have their say.
    I want my say and although I don’t agree with “marriage” between two men, I will go along with the will of the people.
    Those opposed to the plebiscite are afraid that the result will not be in their favor.

    1 REPLY
    • In that case why not a referendum on it rather than this plebiscite, so the government cannot go back on it if that’s what the people truly want rather than wasting $160MIL of tax payers money. Better yet let’s take it out of their pay packets since they can’t seem to just do their damn jobs and pass a bloody bill on and get on with their jobs on other important issues rather than ssm!! I don’t see the point in wasting all this money on something they can just go you know what even though the people want it were still not going to do it.

  8. The rights of a child created by donor eggs or donor sperm has not been addressed in this whole marriage equality issue. My comments apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I believe a child has the absolute right to know and have a relationship with their biological parents and that right should be written into law and be included in any change to the marriage act. The homosexual community state correctly that everyone has to right to love whoever they chose to love, then logically the homosexual community should support the absolute right of children to know and love their biological parents and therefore should be opposed to anonymise donors.
    Secondly I believe if 3 people are involved in the creation of a child then those 3 people should ge legally and financially responsible for the child they participated in the creation of.

    1 REPLY
    • How is that any different to a heterosexual couple that use donor eggs or sperm?? There’s no current law for them either. Or if it was a drunken one night stand or holiday fling with only a first name to go off and you have no idea who the hell he was and choose to keep the baby. Good luck with that law

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *