We fought to halt the Plebiscite – I never thought it possible for me to be involved in a decision to take the federal government to the high court to get the plebiscite halted. The MP involved was an Independent from Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie, a Mum from Melbourne, and myself.
I was not surprised we lost the case; the solicitor general was quietly enjoying himself as the case went on. Our lawyer was Jonathan Hunyor from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre who was very good. We knew the case could go either way, but we had to try.
The reasons we were against the Plebiscite were:
- It wasn’t compulsory for people to take part.
- There are no rules about how a Plebiscite should be conducted.
- Even if the outcome was Yes, it isn’t compulsory for the government to act.
- There have only been three Plebiscites in Australia: two were held in WW1 about troops, and the third was about changing our national song. The outcome of the third was Yes, but it took several years before any changes were made.
- The expense was unnecessary.
We were wanting a free vote, but the Coalition knew they would lose if it was allowed, so it was their goal to make us the loser, by making things as difficult as possible for us.
This was an issue that divided the Nation. Various Prime Ministers were lobbied by us, including Kevin Rudd, who thought he had done enough by allowing economic equality to pass into law.
Julia Gillard, who lived in a de facto relationship in The Lodge insisted “she had missed the tram on this one”. However, I continually pointed out to her, she could get on another tram whenever it suited her, but my son couldn’t.
Then came Tony Abbott, who had once been a trainee priest and had a lesbian sister. But he was a total mongrel on this issue.
Finally came Malcolm Turnbull, who was always in favour while a general MP but suddenly went with consensus once he became PM. After many Galaxy Polls initiated by PFLAG, he suddenly decided a Postal Vote was needed – the logic was that it took the responsibility away from him.
Eventually, the High Court decided against a Plebiscite and so the Government decided on a Postal Vote, which to me was insulting. The Australian Bureau of Statistics carried it out. It could have been considered just information gathering.
What was worse, they gave people about two months to post back their response. I believe it was done this way with the hope that people would either forget to mail their response back or lose the form.
Fortunately, the vast majority did send their responses back in plenty of time, with a positive response for us, the Yes Campaign.
This was a green light for us. Up until this time the government only thought we had bombarded them with letters, sometimes on a daily basis.
I wrote a booklet for married people wanting to disclose their sexual or gender diversity to loved ones. Around this time, many people decided it was time to be themselves and thought it was time to be honest with the world. So again, I talked with several who went through this trauma, and gave the resource to others to read to ensure I was correct.
Soon after the change to the Marriage Act in 2004 to make sure same-sex couples could not marry, the national advocacy group, Australian Marriage Equality (AME) was formed. I provided my home for some of the early meetings with AME’s original committee members in Queensland.
Polls
PFLAG did many Galaxy Polls, which were very helpful. They were an excellent guide as to what we should say or do. They also kept us ahead of the government at times, who were sitting on their hands and not bothering about what their constituents thought.
Survey Research
PFLAG also funded surveys conducted by universities. In 2010, The University of Queensland released the results of the first survey to find that the vast majority of same-sex attracted Australians wanted the right to marry. This Not So Private Lives report was then used to lobby MPs in Canberra.
Additional Articles
Explainer: The High Court Marriage Equality Postal Survey Case
