Tony Abbott proposing three national ballots in three years as latest poll predicts Coalition disaster

GET ready to eat a lot of free sausages. If the PM gets his way, we’ll be heading to the polls every year for the next three — assuming he survives that long.

HOPE you like voting, because there could be a lot of it ahead — possibly one national ballot a year for the next three years.

That’s what might be necessary to accommodate Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s demand for a “peoples’ choice” decision on same sex marriage.

The crowded democratic schedule would also include the general election expected late next year, the constitutional referendum on indigenous recognition in 2017, and possibly the marriage ballot in 2018.

The timing and cost of these ballots — around $100 million for a single plebiscite — have split the ministry and an opinion poll released today indicates Australians have already chosen by making clear they are in favour of changing the Marriage Act.

Some 69 per cent of voters support same sex marriage, according to an Ipsos Fairfax poll, with 25 per cent opposed. This is roughly consistent with a range of opinion surveys and could indicate Prime Minister Abbott — who vigorously opposes change — is out of touch with the electorate. The poll found 88 per cent of 18-24 year olds wanted change.

In worse news for Mr Abbott, the poll suggests his government would lose the next election in a 36-seat ‘wipe-out’, capping a horror run for the Coalition in recent months.

If the Coalition does lose in 2016, there would be less congestion. A Labor government would scrap the ballot and introduce legislation for same-sex marriage within its first 100 days.

Another option, which has split the Cabinet before it even formally meets to discuss the issue, is to hold the ballot before the general election. That would require a vote in the next 12 months and would mean three national ballots within two years.

There is a risk of a savage backlash against the Government if the public rejects an overloaded election agenda and a battle within the ministry is looming.

“The public, I think, would be a little weary being taken to the ballot box twice in 12 months,” Attorney-General George Brandis told Sky News on Sunday.

REFERENDUM VS PLEBISCITE: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Cabinet will have to consider the unattractive timing options soon, possibly today. It first has to decide whether it will be a non-bonding plebiscite, or a referendum to change the Constitution’s

reference to marriage — rewriting Clause 21 of Section 51 to stipulate it is only a union of a man with a woman, or allowing same-sex couples.

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison has publicly called for a change to the Constitution and Senator Brandis has been equally vocal in saying it’s not necessary, as Parliament already has all the constitutional authority it needs.

Most ministers have already rejected running the various ballots at the same time. Prime Minister Abbott doesn’t want the same sex marriage vote held with the coming general election.

“Why shouldn’t we be able to debate this and decide this in its own right without being distracted by the sorts of arguments which you inevitably get during an election campaign?” Mr Abbott said in Brisbane yesterday.

Communications Minister and gay marriage advocate Malcolm Turnbull agrees, but he wants the ballot held before the 2016 election.

“An election campaign is about 35 days,” Mr Turnbull wrote on his website yesterday.

“I would rather spend every single one of them talking about economic management, how we ensure Australia’s prosperity, how our free trade agreements will drive prosperity, how we are promoting innovation, technology and science and so on.

“Important though the matter is, every day talking about same sex marriage will distract from the Coalition’s core messages.”

Whatever Cabinet decides, the Government will have to get it through Parliament. One possibility would be for Parliament to present proposals for changes to the Marriage Act and ask voters if they approve or not.

The plebiscite appears to be the only viable option, with Malcolm Turnbull joining Senator Brandis in ruling out a constitutional referendum.

“In 2013 the High Court held, unanimously, that the power given to the Parliament to legislate with respect to marriage does extend to legislating for same sex marriage. In other words the Constitution does not need to be amended to allow same sex marriage,” said Mr Turnbull.

An amendment to provide, for example, that ‘marriage’ can extend to same sex couples would, therefore, involve the expenditure of well over $100 million in an exercise in futility. If the amendment were approved, the Parliament’s current powers would be unchanged. If the

amendment were rejected, the Parliament’s current powers would be unchanged.

“The only constitutional amendment which would have any relevant effect on this matter would be one which expressly stated that Parliament did NOT have the power to describe same sex unions as amarriage. I have not heard any opponents of same sex marriage propose such an amendment.

“The best approach to this in my view therefore is to consult the people openly and honestly, to set out the proposition before them and ask them to approve it or not. I would expect that voting should be compulsory as is our Australian tradition.”

Originally published as Tony Abbott proposing three national ballots in three years as latest poll predicts Coalition disaster