In the House of Commons on 11 November 1947 Winston Churchill famously used the words of an unknown predecessor when he said:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
Churchill perhaps had in mind the original notion of ‘direct democracy’ – a system in which public policy issues, including proposed legislation, are determined by the entire body of the citizens voting on such issues; in effect, government by referendums.
In 1947 one of the arguments against ‘direct democracy’ would no doubt have been its logistical difficulty, sluggishness and cost – some of which would now be reduced by technological developments such as the internet, smart phones and social media.
Government by referendums is at one end of a spectrum of democratic possibilities, at the other end of which would be a system in which voters elect and entrust one person with the task of making decisions for them. (One is reminded of the Whitlam-Barnard Ministry of 1972.)
Towards the elect-and-entrust end of this spectrum is ‘representative democracy’, in which those entitled to vote elect a number of people to positions within an agreed institutional framework. In Australia the centrepiece of that framework is a Westminster system of government.
This framework is fixed and agreed in a Constitution. Such is the fundamental importance of the rules under which representative democracy is played out, that a referendum of those same entitled people is the only way in which the rules can be changed.
To alter those rules and institutions in Australia, a referendum on constitutional change must win the majority of votes nationally and also win in a majority of the states (a ‘double majority’). This is to safeguard the interests of the jurisdictions within the Federation, in particular to safeguard the interests of the States and Territories with smaller populations.
Since Federation there have been 44 proposals for constitutional change put to Australian electors at referendums. Eight have been approved.
These arrangements help explain the difference (in Australian terms) between a referendum and a plebiscite. The latter is a vote by eligible citizens on a matter of national significance that does not affect the Constitution. To pass, plebiscites only require a simple majority of electors’ votes. But whereas the outcome of a referendum is binding on the Government, a plebiscite is not.
What, then, are the sorts of issues on which the Government seeks the people’s advice through a plebiscite, rather than through the normal processes of representative government?
Why is the issue of marriage equality subject to a plebiscite but not the future of the NSW greyhound industry?
The Prime Minister’s rationale for the plebiscite seems to be in two parts. First, because his predecessor said there would be one. Second because marriage equality is an issue “based in faith or conscience”.
The first of these reasons is evidence of what we fear about Malcolm Turnbull: that he is not in command of his own Coalition; that he is willing to place political pragmatism above principle; and that he has lost some of his will to lead.
And what about the second reason: that it is an issue based in faith or conscience?
In Australia there is a strong tradition of state neutrality, or equal treatment, in dealing with issues of faith. Unlike the situation in the United States, Australia does not have a legally entrenched principle of the separation of church and state. But the tradition of church-State separation is strong enough and ubiquitous enough to mean that when there is a transgression, it leads to public notice. These issues of note and contention have included church-run employment agencies, the funding of schools, and matters of sexuality and reproductive science.
For Australia to continue to be seen as a successful multicultural nation, decisions on these matters need to be based on secular ethics and the national interest, not on religious belief.
After faith comes conscience. There is a belief in some quarters that a plebiscite is justified when a decision is one of conscience.
But the idea that there are only very few issues of this kind surely devalues the notion of ‘conscience’. The matter of marriage equality is critical in ensuring that some people in Australia can self-actualise to the greatest extent possible. But would we not say the same for access to meaningful work, home and shelter, and education and health services?
We elect parliamentarians to make decisions on our behalf. The corollary is that we are happy to have laws and policy proposals determined by them through debate and deliberation in the Parliament.
If the system of representative democracy is trusted to determine people’s access to food, education, health and shelter, it is also fit to be trusted on marriage equality.
Or, to use Bill Shorten’s words, we don’t need a non-binding, taxpayer-funded opinion poll on the matter.
——————————————————-
Don’t miss the upcoming Greyhound trilogy at aggravations.org. It’s a series you won’t want to miss, with pieces on greyhounds and marriage equality; greyhounds and leadership; and greyhounds and submarines. Give them a look, doggone it.