Things are moving fast in the Government's attempt to conduct a national voluntary postal vote on same-sex marriage. Although we won't get to the High Court challenge against the "survey" until September 5-6 - meaning we might be a month away from knowing if the thing is on at all - a lot of questions are being raised and in cases answered about how exactly the plebiscite will be conducted, if it does proceed. A major problem with the exercise has been that since it is not an Australian Electoral Commission process authorised by an act of Parliament, normal election requirements (authorisation, fraud and vote-buying protections and challenges) do not exist unless separately provided for. In Thursday's instalment (Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebiscite V2) I mentioned that at least regulation would be needed to get around these problems. However the regulations available under legislation concerning the ABS are very limited concerning penalties.
In a welcome move, acting Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann has flagged the stronger possibility of special legislation to impose AEC-election-like conditions for the, er, whatever it's called. This would create the really strange situation of the Senate approving laws governing a postal vote that the Senate had itself not approved and would have blocked if asked to approve it. Such laws might themselves be subject to challenge. The most important aspect of this debate for me, though, is the incorrect impressions of the impact of such possible laws that we are seeing in the media. The SMH and ABC have referred to them as "ground rules for a fair and respectful debate on same-sex marriage", rules that would "stop hateful advertising material being distributed" and as protections against "malicious publications". It isn't so.
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebsicite V2
An article I wrote about the serious defects of a postal plebiscite (back on the annual day reserved for silly jokes) has for some unfathomable reason more than doubled its hit tally in the last 24 hours. Now that a postal plebiscite (but run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not the Australian Electoral Commission) has been announced by the government, it's time to update certain aspects of my commentary.
What it appears we will have (unless it is disallowed by the courts) is something so bizarre that it was not anticipated in any of the many polls about a plebiscite. Effectively, it is a national vote on whether the government will allow a conscience vote to be brought on in the parliament. (If the plebiscite proceeds and the "no" side wins, then the government will block a conscience vote, presumably ending any prospects for same-sex marriage for so long as the Coalition stays in power. This rather heavy-handed approach appears to be an attempt to prevent a mass boycott from working.)
Is it constitutional?
I don't know, but we'll probably find out soon enough. At least two sets of campaigners against the proposed plebiscite are filing for injunctions against it. Section 83 of the Constitution requires that appropriations must be supported by law, and no law has been passed for this plebiscite. However there are various standing general-purpose appropriations that governments have flexibility to use for the ordinary running of government, and also in emergencies. The question will be whether an appropriation for this purpose is valid.
What it appears we will have (unless it is disallowed by the courts) is something so bizarre that it was not anticipated in any of the many polls about a plebiscite. Effectively, it is a national vote on whether the government will allow a conscience vote to be brought on in the parliament. (If the plebiscite proceeds and the "no" side wins, then the government will block a conscience vote, presumably ending any prospects for same-sex marriage for so long as the Coalition stays in power. This rather heavy-handed approach appears to be an attempt to prevent a mass boycott from working.)
Is it constitutional?
I don't know, but we'll probably find out soon enough. At least two sets of campaigners against the proposed plebiscite are filing for injunctions against it. Section 83 of the Constitution requires that appropriations must be supported by law, and no law has been passed for this plebiscite. However there are various standing general-purpose appropriations that governments have flexibility to use for the ordinary running of government, and also in emergencies. The question will be whether an appropriation for this purpose is valid.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
All Polling On The Plebiscite Has Problems
In the last few weeks we've seen some new polling results concerning the Coalition's proposed plebiscite on legalising same-sex marriage (or as it is more accurately described, marriage equality). It is extremely well-established in polling that a clear majority of voters support legalising same-sex marriage, but whether voters support deciding the matter by plebiscite or parliamentary vote has been less obvious. The very inconsistent results from various polls on this subject are causing a fair degree of interest and confusion.
In this article I suggest that the range of results we are seeing on the question of a plebiscite vs a parliamentary vote is largely a result of differences in design between different polls. Which poll is right and which poll is wrong? My view is that all of them are suspect. The question is a difficult one to poll and none of the polls offered thus far have even got close to a design that accurately reflects the choices the parliament, voters and activists face.
In this article I suggest that the range of results we are seeing on the question of a plebiscite vs a parliamentary vote is largely a result of differences in design between different polls. Which poll is right and which poll is wrong? My view is that all of them are suspect. The question is a difficult one to poll and none of the polls offered thus far have even got close to a design that accurately reflects the choices the parliament, voters and activists face.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Postal Plebiscite: Australia's Biggest Bad Elector Survey
(Note added Aug 2017: This article from April has received much interest lately. For new comments go to Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebiscite V2).
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)