By Peter Dutton
Almost 13 million Australians can't be wrong. They took a decision to register their vote in the same-sex marriage postal survey. But, while an 80 per cent turnout was exceptionally high and the result clear, we shouldn't use the postal vote process again.
This is not because the process lacked integrity – there can be no such claim. Not because the critics picked holes in the non-binding nature of the outcome or their declaration that the whole thing was an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility. Not even because of overhyped claims about people self-harming or advocates for or against same-sex marriage in a sophisticated country like ours being able to conduct themselves in a civil way as they took part in a public debate. No, the reason is the nature of this issue and the significance of a proposal to fundamentally change a social foundation stone that dictated the break-glass option of the postal plebiscite. The postal plebiscite is not a tool for garden variety issues of public policy.
For many of us, we live and breathe politics and enjoy public debates, but for the vast majority of Australians the three-yearly trudge to the polling booth is driven only by its compulsion. The turnout rate indicates Australians were motivated by the significance of this issue.
And while the debate was largely respectful, some of the most vocal on both sides of the debate failed to appreciate the passion and the emotion of the other side. The religious influence (particularly in many ethnic communities), or the emotion of watching a gay child or grandchild in a committed relationship – that is what stands this issue out from almost any other decision a government might make term to term.
People gathering at Prince Alfred Park wait for the verdict of the postal vote.Credit: Jessica Hromas
Public pressure had built significantly and in 2014 the Abbott government faced a dilemma on the issue of the definition of marriage. From the time a decision was made (for good reasons) to adopt a plebiscite as the means of dealing with the issue, change was inevitable. For many the adherence to a traditional view of marriage was based around religious belief. With several notable exceptions, church leaders in Australia were silent or advocated a "yes" vote, including Jesuit priests in Sydney! Coupled with low church attendance rates the "no" case was never going to be won on the basis of adherence to religious belief.
The plebiscite policy was taken to the 2016 election and still Labor would not support the plebiscite bill through the Senate. It was particularly galling given Labor had six years under Rudd and Gillard to legislate and didn't.
In a one-seat majority Parliament every member is empowered and becomes "the one" crucial vote. The reality was people were prepared to cross the floor to force a vote on same-sex marriage given we could not deliver on our commitment to deliver the plebiscite.
Malcolm Turnbull, cabinet and, ultimately, the party room had the courage to back the next-best option, the postal plebiscite that, because of its non-compulsory nature, did not require legislation. Other options, including a free vote, would have killed the government at the next election because this was an issue of significant interest to Liberal and National voters across the country as evidenced by 5 million Australians voting "no", many of them members and supporters of the Coalition.
Magda Szubanski voting "yes".Credit: AAP
People who claim we should have proceeded straight to a free vote fail to recognise our election commitment on an issue of this nature could not be broken.
The significant legal issues and funding of the postal vote were properly managed by Mathias Cormann, making the option possible and the rest is history.
Crowds march down Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, to celebrate the "yes" vote.Credit: James Brickwood
People will be critical saying legislation should have been passed months ago. But given the voluntary expression of view by 8 million people and the emphatic "yes" vote that followed in the Parliament, the legitimacy given to this significant social change was infinitely greater than a shabby vote in the Parliament with people crossing the floor. The 5 million who hold a legitimate "no" view would have felt cheated and would not have accepted the process and outcome.
Coalition supporters are patriotic and respect our rule of law. Even those of us who voted "no" in the plebiscite, accept the "yes" outcome because a fair and respectful postal vote delivered a democratic result. The postal vote means same-sex couples have received a legitimacy to their marriage that could not have been delivered through a parliamentary vote alone.
Next year, away from the shadow of the marriage debate, there is a legitimate discussion to be had around religious protections. There will be many people who voted "yes" or "no" to same-sex marriage who will support sensible measures around religious and parental choice. It, too, should be a respectful debate.
Peter Dutton is the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.