Labor shoots down same-sex marriage plebiscite 10



View Profile

Labor has thrown a spanner into the works of the same-sex marriage plebiscite plans by announcing that it will introduce a private member’s bill into parliament.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten has revealed that the proposed plebiscite is the “second best option” after a parliamentary conscience vote. However, Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has accused Labor of not wanting to consult Australians on the issue.

“The worst argument, the absolutely worst argument against a plebiscite is to say that it wouldn’t be passed,” the prime minister told Barrie Cassidy on ABC’s Insiders program.

“If Labor is seriously saying that, they are saying, ‘Don’t consult the Australian people because they won’t give you the answer you want.”

The Government’s position is to have a plebiscite before changing marriage laws. In fact, you’ll remember it became a key election promise by the Coalition in the lead up to July 2.

Turnbull says he is confident same-sex marriage would be introduced, and reiterated that he and his wife, Lucy, would vote in favour of the legislation.

One of the arguments against the plebiscite is the amount of money it is expected to cost you, as the taxpayer. Reports suggest that a public vote could cost between $160 million and $250 million.

Labor’s Ed Husic says the responsibility of voting on same-sex marriage should not be ‘pushed’ onto the public and that it is parliament’s job to make the decision.

What do you think? Do you support a plebiscite for same-sex marriage or would you prefer the Government make a final decision on behalf of the public? Do you know which way you will vote if the opportunity arises?

Starts at 60 Writers

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

  1. Just change the laws and allow people to marry whoever they want and live happily ever after. No one has the right to say who you can or can’t love or marry

  2. The government exists to make decisions like this one on behalf of Australians all the time. John Howard understood that when he changed the Marriage Act to specify marriage is between a man and a woman, and he did it without consulting the public or launching an expensive plebiscite. Democracy is not a mob rule where majority decides and minorities’ voices are silenced. Democracy is when we elect official we think will best represent ALL of us, not just the people who voted them in.

    I say change Marriage now to allow any consenting adults to marry eachother. Not just those of the same sex, but allow the Intersex and transgender people to marry too. Take care of it now, and use that time and resources you would have wasted on a plebiscite on other issues.

  3. My understanding is that Labour wants to save us taxpayers $1.5 million by not having a plebiscite but rather have our elected officials do a paramilitary vote that is open for all to know which way they voted

  4. If Howard changed the definition of marriage by saying it can only be man and women then the government can reverse that by making non gender specific. Easy and no waste of taxpayers money as we already know that majority is happy for same sex people to marry.

  5. Richard wants to marry Charles. Nothing wrong with that. He also wants to marry Charlene at the same time. Can’t deny him that right. Charlene also wants to marry Charles. Fair enough. Naturally, they all want to marry Henry. Good thinking, savings all around. Henrietta wants to marry everybody named, at the same time. Why not? Oh dear, Henry is not too sure about that.As for Rover?

  6. Absolutely no need for a plebiscite when we already know the answer. Just wasting money. I thought this government was supposed to be about fixing the deficit not adding to it

  7. This should be decided by the people! A plebiscite was one of the issues on which our Liberal Govt was elected so it should be followed through. That this has become a major Parliamentary debate caused by Labour is a disgrace.

  8. The earlier comment from Bruce “Absolutely no need for a plebiscite when we already know the answer” I believe is quite incorrect. We do not know what the silent majority of Australian want on this matter, as it has never been tested, and was not a major item in the last federal election.
    Leaving it to the politicians for a conscience vote will have a number feeling they were compelled to vote along party lines and others may vote based on their own personal beliefs and wishes, and neither of these activities would necessarily put forward the beliefs and wishes of the constituents they were elected to represent.
    I’d prefer a referendum, with a number of other isses to also be considered. e.g Republic/monarchy. If a referendum was not possible, then a plebiscite is the answer to get the true feelings of the Australian people on same-sex marriage. There could be the option for the plebiscite to be non-compulsory, but if you choose not to vote and don’t like the result, you have to learn to live with it. Shades of Brexit
    As for my views, well I’m in favour of same-sex marriage, but I believe all Australians should be given the opportunity to state their opinion on this important manner, and then Parliament be bound to comply with the vote of the people.

  9. What do straight people know about gay anything?….let alone marriage for same sex people. We need our own laws, we don<t change or vote on their straight marriage laws as gay people.

Leave a Reply

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