Same-sex marriage plebiscite to cost half a billion

Malcolm Turnbull has promised to conduct a plebiscite on same-sex marriage to let the people decide whether or not gay
Australia

Malcolm Turnbull has promised to conduct a plebiscite on same-sex marriage to let the people decide whether or not gay and lesbian Australians should be able to legally marry.

Polls have shown that the majority of Australians support the change in law, so it is thought that the plebiscite will conclude with a resounding ‘yes’.

However, new figure published by accounting firm PwC say the cost to the Australian economy and people is millions more than the government had previously predicted.

PwC says the plebiscite will cost $525 million – a figure that has outraged some voters.

In light of the real costs involved with the vote, some people have called for the plebiscite to be scrapped in favour of a debate and vote in parliament instead.

This would allow our pollies to decide whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal and would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Others, however, point out that the debate has never got very far in parliament before because the majority of politicians have turned down the idea.

Even pollies who have come out publicly in support of same-sex marriage have refused to take the issue any further once elected for fear it will hurt them later at the polling booth.

This leads us to ask: do we have a moral obligation to vote in a plebiscite on same-sex marriage no matter what the cost?

PwC economics and policy partner Jeremy Thorpe said they analysed the impact of similar votes overseas.

“Overseas examples show that spending on the ‘for’ and ‘against’ campaigns alone can reach over $6 per voter, as happened in California,” Mr Thorpe told ABC.

“That’s a huge waste of money that could be better allocated in our low-growth economy.”

What’s your stance on this issue?

Should gay and lesbian people be allowed to marry? Should be cover the costs of a plebiscite, or should we let politicians decide in parliament instead?

  1. This plebiscite is ridiculous, not only is there the high cost involved but Politicians Like Eric Abetez have come out and said they are not legally obliged to abide by the plebiscite because it is not legally binding !!! This is a way of delaying the issue with the inevitable goal of putting it off,. We elect Politicians to make the decisions.. so get on with job and do what taxpayers are paying you for.

  2. This plebiscite is ridiculous, not only is there the high cost involved but Politicians Like Eric Abetez have come out and said they are not legally obliged to abide by the plebiscite because it is not legally binding !!! This is a way of delaying the issue with the inevitable goal of putting it off,. We elect Politicians to make the decisions.. so get on with job and do what taxpayers are paying you for.

  3. Total waste of money when the majority opinion is clear and many incombant politicians have already stated they will not change thier stance irrrespective of the outcome of a plebicite. Just get on with it – change the dam law and get human rights in Australia back on track. Oh and while they are at it, politicians should also be adjusting the Australian consititution in recognition of Australia’s First People. So, so tired of self-ritious paternalism and waste in government.

    • I am just sick and tired of governments… period! they are a waste we cannot afford, get rid of this present system and get something better in place, with technology we need no one to tell us what to do we can vote instantly by an app on the phone, that will save trips overseas, waste in travel for pollies etc!

    • Liz Deakin : what majority opinion. there’s not been a referendum or a plebiscite on the issue yet, so how can you know. A poll of 500 people is not a majority.

    • Noel Hawes that is true – we would in fact be better off spending five hundred million dollars on a legally binding vote which, unlike the plebicite, hard nosed politicians cannot ignore, as some have already said they will. They are just too ready to waste money – our money.

  4. Total waste of money when the majority opinion is clear and many incombant politicians have already stated they will not change thier stance irrrespective of the outcome of a plebicite. Just get on with it – change the dam law and get human rights in Australia back on track. Oh and while they are at it, politicians should also be adjusting the Australian consititution in recognition of Australia’s First People. So, so tired of self-ritious paternalism and waste in government.

    • I am just sick and tired of governments… period! they are a waste we cannot afford, get rid of this present system and get something better in place, with technology we need no one to tell us what to do we can vote instantly by an app on the phone, that will save trips overseas, waste in travel for pollies etc!

    • Liz Deakin : what majority opinion. there’s not been a referendum or a plebiscite on the issue yet, so how can you know. A poll of 500 people is not a majority.

    • Noel Hawes that is true – we would in fact be better off spending five hundred million dollars on a legally binding vote which, unlike the plebicite, hard nosed politicians cannot ignore, as some have already said they will. They are just too ready to waste money – our money.

  5. Even the famous gays Dolce & Gabbana support traditional marriage. Keep marriage as it had been since time began. Between a man and a woman! Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of society.

    • What have they got to do with it?..some people agree with marriage & some don’t, gay or straight, it has nothing to do with anyone else except the two people involved

    • Lyn Bradford Marriage affects more than just two people. It is the foundation to raise a family. Every child deserves a mother and a father. I’m not against gays having full civil rights and protection of the law and freedom to love each other, but this issue endangers our wider society. There is a very powerful minority pushing gay marriage under the guise of ‘equality’. This is not about equality, it’s about preservation of the very fabric of our civilisation which is the family. What they are demanding has never happened generally in history of mankind except for a few isolated exceptions.

    • Heterosexual couples marry and have no children, single women have children and do not marry..marriage is about love

    • Rosalind Battles Well said. In no way would gay marriage effect the fabric of our society. It would allow gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. If people don’t agree that is up to them but it should be a basic right for anyone to officially commit to the one they love. Whether people like it or not that is a marriage.

    • John Mellor every child deserves to have people in their lives who care about & enhance the child’s life, male & female parent is no guarantee of safety or love or even food, not even a biological necessity any more.

    • Because no marriages ever end with divorce. Cornerstone of our society, what nonsense

    • Marriage the cornerstone of society…lol.. i think not. with divorce rates at around 50% and huge numbers never getting married in the first place, you really cannot say that anymore.

      • Queer? Are you living under a rock? A person’s sexuality is determined in the development of the foetus not by choice and when a person is born then they should accorded the same rights as everyone else!!!

  6. Even the famous gays Dolce & Gabbana support traditional marriage. Keep marriage as it had been since time began. Between a man and a woman! Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of society.

    • What have they got to do with it?..some people agree with marriage & some don’t, gay or straight, it has nothing to do with anyone else except the two people involved

    • Lyn Bradford Marriage affects more than just two people. It is the foundation to raise a family. Every child deserves a mother and a father. I’m not against gays having full civil rights and protection of the law and freedom to love each other, but this issue endangers our wider society. There is a very powerful minority pushing gay marriage under the guise of ‘equality’. This is not about equality, it’s about preservation of the very fabric of our civilisation which is the family. What they are demanding has never happened generally in history of mankind except for a few isolated exceptions.

    • Heterosexual couples marry and have no children, single women have children and do not marry..marriage is about love

    • Rosalind Battles Well said. In no way would gay marriage effect the fabric of our society. It would allow gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. If people don’t agree that is up to them but it should be a basic right for anyone to officially commit to the one they love. Whether people like it or not that is a marriage.

    • John Mellor every child deserves to have people in their lives who care about & enhance the child’s life, male & female parent is no guarantee of safety or love or even food, not even a biological necessity any more.

    • Because no marriages ever end with divorce. Cornerstone of our society, what nonsense

    • Marriage the cornerstone of society…lol.. i think not. with divorce rates at around 50% and huge numbers never getting married in the first place, you really cannot say that anymore.

Leave a Reply

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