This week a Senate inquiry warned the Australian government against holding a plebiscite or referendum on same-sex marriage, and instead backed Parliament to hold a conscience vote. The committee, comprised of senators from Labor, the Coalition, and the Greens, reasoned that $158.4 million was too much to pay for a glorified opinion poll. After all, a Current Affair has clearly got it locked down for a fraction of the price.Aside from the price, they were also concerned that a public campaign from the 'no' side could be hurtful to the LGBTI community. Chair of the committee, independent senator Glenn Lazarus said "marriage equality involves people, and people will be attacked through very nasty and very aggressive advertising campaigns."Lararus explained that he initially expected a majority support for a plebiscite, but instead found that "people who are for and against marriage equality would rather have the Parliament decide." The report concluded that making a decision on same-sex marriage is "squarely within the parliament's power," and recommended a bill amending the Marriage Act be "introduced into the Parliament as a matter of urgency, with all parliamentarians being allowed a conscience vote."For anyone getting lost in the plebiscite discussion, let's take a moment to explain. Both are a kind of "people's votes"—but in different ways. A referendum is a formal vote designed to authorise amendment of the Constitution. You can vote 'yes' or 'no' to proposed changes. If a majority of people in a majority of states approve the changes, the Governor-General gives it the ok and the changes are made without parliament needing to step in. Referendums are a pretty big deal, and they don't have a history of success, either – only eight of the 44 we've held have passed.A plebiscite is far less binding: it's basically, one big expensive opinion poll (see our ACA alternative above), designed to indicate the view of the public on a particular question. If a plebiscite was held on same-sex marriage, parliament would still have to legislate changes, and we'd have to presume they'd be made on what we'd voted. So it would still be up to parliament to sort it out, which doesn't get us a whole lot further.The government's approach to same-sex marriage has been scattered this year, beginning when Abbott originally dismissed the idea of a referendum on same-sex marriage in May. His statement came after Ireland became the first country to approve it by a popular vote. At the time, Abbott told reporters, "questions of marriage are the preserve of the Commonwealth Parliament" and that "referendums are held in this country where there's a proposal to change the constitution".
Advertisement