2016-05-15
Arran Morton
The strongest argument for the plebiscite is that it is not only a fundamentally democratic exercise, but also an exercise in direct democracy. Admittedly, this type of public vote has served its purpose well on occasion in Australian history, most notably some 40 years ago, when 7.4 million of the countrys eight million registered voters turned out to cast their vote for which song should be our national anthem. (Advance Australia Fair was, of course, the overwhelming favourite.)
And yet, the success of the 1977 plebiscite does not mean that it represents quality democracy. It can be successful with certain types of proposals, but not with others – say, for instance, when deciding whether or not two people who love one another should be allowed to marry.
A plebiscite on same sex marriage has the obvious potential to be not only deeply destructive of our standard understanding of representative democracy but also to cause huge social damage.
And yet, the Australian Government – first under Abbott and now under Turnbull – continues to neglect its responsibility to implement reform and insist a plebiscite is the best way to establish the nations views. (We already know 71 per cent of Australians support marriage equality.)
A plebiscite will result, inevitably, in groups both for and against, funding campaigns of a scale never seen before. In Ireland in 2015, ahead of the countrys referendum of the issue, public advertising appeared all over cities and towns, ultimately leading to a kind of public one-upmanship between the Yes and No camps and more and more offensive pictures and slogans.
Back home, the Australian Christian Lobby have already sought to temporarily override anti-discrimination laws during their campaign, should a plebiscite take place – so there is no doubt the same thing would happen here.
Allowing this type of free-flowing bigotry will have disastrous consequences for LGBTI Australians and supporters of marriage equality, for it will encourage the coming-out-of-the-woodwork of all manner of bigots and homophobes. This dangerous new level of freedom of speech has the potential to irreversibly turn neighbour against neighbour.
Moreover, people from the LBGTI community already experience greater levels of stress than the general population. Feeling they must hide their sexuality, fear of rejection and experiencing prejudice are some of the well-documented reasons for this.
In the US, research showed there was a 248 per cent rise in anxiety disorders among LGBTI people during the lead-up to the countrys referendum. This included a rise in mood disorders of 37 per cent and a 42 per cent increase in alcohol use disorders.
In Ireland, a report post-referendum report found greater than average rates of stress, anxiety and depression among LGBTI teenagers who, according to the report, were three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.
The recent backlash against the Safe Schools Coaltion here in Australia points to tragically similar outcomes for Australian LGBTI young people, without the added emotional pressure of a plebiscite on marriage equality. The mental health of millions of Australians, of all ages, is at stake if a plebiscite goes ahead.
It is ludicrous to think a Government might put its people – both gay and straight – through such a high profile, national, public debate that will likely last months, unnecessarily. And it is ludicrous to think a Government might spend an estimated $158 million doing this – not to mention the $280 million a plebiscite is expected to cost in lost productivity.
It should be pointed out here that, after all the social and financial costs, the decision made by the public is not necessarily binding. Whether or not it goes ahead rests on the result of the Federal Election with the Turnbull Government having promised a vote will take place before then end of the year and the opposition promising reform without it if they are elected.
And so well wait a little longer….
Photo credit: http://www.cefa.org.au/