Search
Recent comments
- UK-israhell.....
2 hours 24 min ago - albania.....
2 hours 32 min ago - israhell crap.....
2 hours 50 min ago - waste of cash....
5 hours 28 min ago - marles' bluster....
5 hours 49 min ago - fascism français....
5 hours 54 min ago - russian subs in swedish waters....
6 hours 32 min ago - more polling....
6 hours 1 min ago - they know....
10 hours 49 min ago - past readings....
11 hours 49 min ago
Democracy Links
Member's Off-site Blogs
this issue is a live issue all the way up to the next election...
Abbott knew it was daft because he had said so just three months earlier. After the Irish vote, he rejected the idea for Australia because “questions of marriage are the preserve of the Commonwealth parliament”.
Malcolm Turnbull knew it because he said so very clearly in the days after the party room meeting. “The reason I have not advocated a plebiscite ... after the next election is that ... it will mean, that this issue is a live issue all the way up to the next election,” he said.
He also helpfully presented the former prime minister with a way the policy could be made less daft.
“Recognising a plebiscite would just be a piece of advice from the public ... what I think you would need to do is pass a bill which legalised same-sex marriage, to go through the legislative process, and then have a provision in the bill which said it is not going to be law until a majority of Australians have voted in favour of it at a plebiscite.”
The idea circumvented the most obvious flaw in the plebiscite plan – that the people could speak and the parliament could then ignore them.
- By Gus Leonisky at 30 Jan 2016 - 7:54am
- Gus Leonisky's blog
- Login or register to post comments
sisterly love...
Forster told Guardian Australia that given the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, had said he would have preferred a free vote on same-sex marriage to the plebiscite announced under Abbott, the party should “have another look” at the best way to vote on the issue.
“It would be great if the party room would reconsider, and go back and have another debate,” Forster said.
“There has been a change of leadership and you know, it would be a really good thing if they could have another look at this. I would love to see them go and have another discussion.”
Forster said she shared the concerns of many people in same-sex relationships that they would be confronted with harmful messages from groups opposed to marriage equality in the lead-up to a plebiscite.
She was also concerned that children of same-sex couples would be exposed to “divisive and negative” advertising campaigns. This could be avoided by placing the vote in the hands of parliament, she said.
Forster said while she disagreed with Abbott’s speech to the Alliance Defending Freedom in New York, she was not hurt by his comments that people should “not ignore” the erosion of society he said would occur if same-sex marriage was allowed.
“Tony is not expressing anything different to what he’s said in the past, his views on the matter are well known, as are mine,” Forster said.
read more: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/29/christine-forster-asks-malcolm-turnbull-to-avoid-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite