This article is a part of Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop’s, ongoing contribution to Mamamia.
Australia has held two national plebiscites, also known as advisory referendums, where the government of the day sought a mandate from the Australian people on a contentious issue, but which did not require changes to the Constitution.
Both these national plebiscites were held during World War I on the emotive and controversial proposal to introduce conscription (both votes failed).
Many other previously contentious issues have been taken to the public through referendums, including an attempt to ban the Communist Party, government control over prices and granting Aborigines the right to vote.
Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott. Image: Getty.There have been 44 attempts to amend the Constitution with eight successful proposals.
Ireland recently decided to hold a referendum on the issue of same sex marriage, which passed with more than 60 per cent support.
This was hailed as a triumph of democratic process, with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon saying that, “The result sends an important message to the world: All people are entitled to enjoy their human rights no matter who they are or whom they love.”
There is a debate within Australia as to how the issue of same sex marriage should be resolved.
Demonstrators in Sydney calling for same sex marriage. Image: Getty.Recognition of same sex marriage does not require a change to our Constitution. Therefore it is not necessary to hold a Constitutional referendum, which requires a national majority in addition to a majority of voters in a majority of states.
The Coalition took a commitment to the 2013 election that there would be no change in this term of Government to the Marriage Act – which defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman.
There have now been calls for the Australian Parliament to decide during this term on changes to the Marriage Act to recognise same sex marriage.
The process by which an outcome is achieved is unquestionably as important as the issue itself – this is why we held a positive and inclusive debate in the party room last week.
While there were very strong views held on both sides of the debate, the majority of Coalition Members and Senators were in favour of honouring the election commitment to the Australian people of no change to the Marriage Act in this term of Parliament.
Protesters in Virginia fighting for same sex marriage. Image: Getty.The Government will respect that view. However we believe that the Australian people should have a direct say on this issue.
Recent polling indicates more than 70 per cent of the Australian public support a plebiscite.
The Prime Minister has stated that the issue will be taken to the Australian people for a vote during the next term of government. We will determine the mechanics and terms shortly.
It is important to note that the Labor party has not adopted any policy of amending the Marriage Act, despite the frantic efforts of some Labor MPs to mislead the public into thinking otherwise.
Labor has only committed to allowing its MPs and Senators a conscience vote, should the matter come before the parliament.
It is evident that some Labor MPs and Senators do not support changes to the Marriage Act and Labor is desperately trying to paper over its internal divisions.
Ireland has now accepted same sex marriage via a referendum. Image: Getty.There are very strongly held views on both sides of the debate. Advocates on either side of the debate can now argue their case before the Australian people.
I believe that this is a fundamental issue that goes to the definition of the family unit. The Australian people should be given the choice to decide how marriage should be defined in 21st century Australia.
More of Julie Bishop’s columns can be found here:
Julia Bishop on why she does not support quotas for women in parliament.
Julie Bishop: “A year on, we continue to grieve for those aboard MH17.”
Top Comments
I think the people should decide this one despite the cost. The result will surprise many no doubt. When given a chance to voice their opinion without the in-your-face torrent of abuse from intolerant haters, there was a very interesting result in the largest poll in a single electorate. In Bowman, QLD 58.42% voted in favour of retaining the natural definition of marriage between a man and a woman (that has existed for millennia). It's worth noting in the Irish Referendum only 60% of the population voted. If the chaos in America and Canada is anything to go by I wonder if the other 40% regret not voting. One thing is for sure the 40% who didn't vote are highly unlikely to be in favour of redefining marriage. Apathy is bad news people voice your opinion please. It's also worth noting that prior to the SCOTUS decision (Supreme Court of the United States) 50 million Americans in 41 states voted to retain the one man one woman definition of marriage. Let's get the UN secretary General's thoughts on democratic process when a 9 member government appointed circus act masquerading as a law court defecated on democratic process AND the USA constitution - which is all about liberty from government tyranny. A court of law operates by examining law and legal precedent and is not a lawmaking body. They outrageously ignored the law, ignored democratic process and violated the constitution by overruling and imposing law on the states which had decided contrary to the government's decision by a marginal of 41-9. Bring on the plebiscite here. Give equal voice to both sides of the debate. Well done media watch yesterday for pointing out the grossly one sided coverage. I think they missed a vital point that not only is media skewed toward giving free airtime to those wanting to redefine marriage (and refusing paid advertisements to those who want to preserve marriage between man and woman) there is also a massive difference in the tone of the interviewers... to those advocating to redefine the interviewer is usually warm and gracious and has a friendly "tell us your story" approach. In contrast to those who want to retain the time honoured definition it is a hostile tone looking to unsettle the interviewee and make it very difficult for them. Fair and balanced journalism please.
"Millennia"?
"Chaos"?
Perhaps the 40% who didn't vote figured it would have zero impact on them.
The thing is us gay marriage supporters think the non supporters are misguided and cruel and bigoted in their opinions. It is hard to feel all loving towards people who express what I consider cold, meant and nasty opinions.
I do think less of people that do not support equality. that's the truth. many people feel that way. There is no valid argument that stands up for entrenching bigotry.
1. A lot has changed in the 2-3 years since that survey was held. Like most electorates since then that have swung towards supporting ssm, I think most would not be surprised to learn that it has done a reversal, and then some, for be being in favour of it.
2. Those 40% in Ireland who didn't vote, clearly were not concerned about protecting traditional marriage, therefore they had no problem with the question, and can be added to the supporting tally. And 60% voter support in traditionally Catholic Ireland, that will force an 11 year old to go through a rape pregnancy or refuse a D and C (wrongly termed 'abortion' in this instance) for a mother whose fetus had died inside of her, allowing the mother to die due to blood poisoning of the dead decaying fetus rotting away inside of her? If that is the result in Ireland, imagine the massive support it would get in secular Australia?!? Probably 90% will be achieved here.
3. The SCOTUS exists to prevent corruption and protect liberty, and it did just that. It restored liberty and found the states were in breach of the constitution. The SCOTUS upheld liberty and it was the right result. That is why courts exist. To overturn wrongful decisions by a govt.
Please quit the superlative drippy and emotionally manipulative hyperbole. In a world where 50% of all hetero marriages end in divorce, and Britney Spears can have a vegas marriage lasting 72 hours, there is NOTHING "time 'honoured' " about hetero marriage.
Salem, your comments are wildly inaccurate. (1) The polls most frequently cited by advocates for redefinition have fallen 3% in favour of maintaining natural marriage in the last 2 years. (2) your comments re the Irish referendum are ridiculous. Firstly the people most likely to vote on this issue are the hard core LGBT crowd who are gagging for a chance to vote. So those that didn't vote (40%) are either undecided or pro natural marriage definition but didn't get to the polls. Secondly, why did you go off tangent about abortion? (3) SCOTUS clearly abused the US constitution which at it's heart is freedom for the people to self rule and liberty from (government) tyranny. 41 US states voted in favour of retaining the natural definition of marriage. SCOTUS defecated all over democratic process by blatantly disrespecting the votes of 50 million Americans to define marriage as they saw fit. The government (via its appointed "judges") imposed it's will on the people. That in a nutshell is TYRANNY. It's a gross miscarriage of justice.
"It is important to note that the Labor party has not adopted any policy of amending the Marriage Act"
It is even more important to note that it was the Coalition which amended the Marriage Act (during the Howard era) to explicitly exclude same-sex marriage.
I don't think that's even more important. The Coalition had a position during the Howard era which it retains today; that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Labor and the Greens are now jumping up and down making out that SSM is the most important issue of our current times, and that Tony Abbott should just ignore his party's ideology and just make SSM legal. There was a vote in parliament back in September 2012, where the idea of SSM was crushingly defeated, that was under a Labor government, many of whom voted against SSM. The PM has indicated that a vote will be put to the people in the next term of government, so what's wrong with that? This way everybody gets a say and when it's passed, homosexual couples can marry with the knowledge that a majority of Australians voted to recognise and support their union. Personally I feel that has more weight than if it's just decided in parliament.
I do wonder, what with the SSM debate still taking up so much airtime in the media, what other issues are being kept from the public eye? A Royal Commission perhaps? You don't hear much about that unless it's Labor and the Unions attacking the Commissioner and trying to shut it down. There are obviously many skeletons in their respective closets that they're desperately trying to stop being exposed. They're running scared for some reason.
It takes up so much time because it is a poor reflection and the values and mind set of our country. It is important because it alienates and discriminates against a sector of our population. It is representative of the narrow minded and cruel views of our elected prime minister.
The only way it will go away as an issue is to legalise it and move on. I am embarrassed by the attitudes of out government and am filled with disgust at people who support bigotry.