The results of the survey were published on 15 November 2017. The survey returned 7,817,247 (61.6%) "Yes" responses and 4,873,987 (38.4%) "No" responses. An additional 36,686 (0.3%) responses were unclear and the total turnout was 12,727,920 (79.5%).[2]
A survey form, instructions, and a reply-paid envelope were mailed out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to every person on the federal electoral roll, asking the question "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" The ABS established processes to ensure eligible Australians lacking access to post could participate.[3]
The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, which legalised same-sex marriage, was debated in and passed by Parliament following publication of the survey results.[4] The Coalition government allowed its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the legislation. The opposition Australian Labor Party supported the legislation, but exceptionally, also granted its parliamentarians a conscience vote.
Many same-sex marriage proponents were critical of the postal survey, viewing it as a costly delaying tactic and an unnecessary hurdle to a conscience vote on same-sex marriage in the parliament.[5] The survey was subject to two legal challenges questioning the authority of the ABS to conduct the survey and the government's right to fund the cost of the survey from funds designated by law for "urgent" and "unforeseen" circumstances. Both legal challenges failed and the High Court of Australia found that the survey was lawful.
Marriage in Australia is the constitutional province of the federal parliament. Its original legal definition was established by common law as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."[6] This definition was codified by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, which inserted it verbatim into the Marriage Act 1961.[7]
At the time of the survey, same-sex unions in Australia were treated as de facto unions under federal law. These unions provide couples with most, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage, although those rights may be difficult to assert and are not always recognised in practice.[8][9] Aside from the legal aspects, de facto relationships do not have the same symbolic significance as marriage.[10] Before the July 2016 federal election, the Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalitiongovernment promised to hold a national vote on same-sex marriage in the form of a compulsory attendance plebiscite.[11] Opposition to this idea centred on its criticism as an expensive delaying tactic and that it was the duty of the parliament, rather than a matter related to the Australian Constitution.[12]
While the Coalition won 76 of the 150 seats in the lower house in the 2016 election and managed to form a majority government by one seat, they failed to pass the necessary legislation for a (compulsory attendance) referendum/plebiscite. The legislation passed the House of Representatives on 20 October 2016 by a vote of 76–67, but was rejected by the Senate on 7 November 2016 by a vote of 33–29.[13][14] The idea of a postal plebiscite was originally proposed by Liberal MPWarren Entsch and later endorsed by government ministers Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann.[15] Dutton pointed out that a postal vote would not need legislation to operate.[16] A staffer of Attorney-General George Brandis came up with the idea of a survey as an alternative way to fulfil the government's commitment in mid-July.[17] In August 2017, following an attempt by five Liberal Party MPs to change party policy and have a free vote in the parliament on same-sex marriage legislation,[18] the government announced it would move for a voluntary postal survey to be held later that year.[19] It stated that the postal vote would only occur in the event the government's (compulsory) referendum/plebiscite legislation was again rejected by the Senate. That occurred on 9 August 2017, when a government-initiated motion in the Senate to debate the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 was tied at 31–31; resulting in the motion being defeated.[20]
Following the result in the Senate, the government directed the Australian Statistician (head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics) to begin the process of surveying the views on same-sex marriage of all Australians on the electoral roll.[21] The government asserted that this proposal did not require legislative approval from the parliament, arguing that the provisions of the Appropriations Act and the law governing the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) enabled it to use the ABS for such a purpose.[22] This was argued by the government to be similar to the process by which God Save the Queen was replaced by Advance Australia Fair as the Australian national anthem.[23] The government announced the ABS would be assisted by having staff seconded from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the organisation responsible for elections in Australia and managing the electoral roll.[24] The cost of the survey to the Australian taxpayer was forecast to be $122million, however the total amount spent ended up being $80.5million.[1][19] This expense, as well as the notion that the debate would activate ideological extremists and that normal electoral rules would not apply, were criticised in Parliament.[25] By 7 September, the date the high court challenges against the survey were heard, a total of $14.1million had already been spent by the ABS on the postal survey – $8million on advertising for the survey, $5.3million on printing costs, and $600,000 for staff.[26]
The AEC reported that about 68,000 enrolment transactions were completed on 10 August, compared with an average of 4,000 per day.[27] In the period 8–14 August over 16,000 people had enrolled, and over 200,000 had updated their details.[28] By 20 August, over 36,000 had enrolled, and over 434,000 had updated their enrolment details.[29] By 22 August, over 54,000 had enrolled.[30] By 25 August the roll achieved a record high with over 16 million Australians on the roll (an additional 90,000 people had joined with a further 165,000 transactions still to be processed).[31] 65,000 of these new voters are between the ages of 18 and 24.[32] With 933,592 enrolment transactions completed by the AEC at the end of processing, more than 98,000 people were added to the roll, and the total number of Australians eligible to participate in the survey was 16,005,998.[33] However, after the results of the survey were released, the ABS revealed that in fact 16,006,180 surveys were mailed out to eligible Australians.[34]
The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee opened a Public Inquiry into the arrangements around the postal survey on 14 August[35] with a submission made and evidence given by the ABS at hearings on 17 August. Further hearings involving the ABS, AEC, Australia Post, Department of Finance and Department of Human Services occurred on 7 September and 15 September 2017. The committee handed down the final report on 13 February 2018. The report recommended that the survey process should not be used again for matters of human rights, encouraged the government to further fund mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to mitigate the impact of the postal survey, and recommended that the Australian Electoral Commission increase its voter registration and education efforts in remote communities and work with Indigenous peak bodies to achieve greater participation.[36][35]
24 August 2017: The final day for citizens to update or add their name and details to the electoral roll to receive a survey form
12 September 2017: Survey forms began to be mailed out to all Australian voters over a two-week period
25 September 2017: The date all survey forms were expected to have arrived, and eligible Australians could commence ordering replacement materials (for those lost or spoilt). The paperless options (online form and IVR telephony survey option) opened.
20 October 2017 (6pm local time): Requests for replacement material closed
27 October 2017: The date all eligible Australians were strongly encouraged to return their form by
7 November 2017 (6pm local time): Responses received after this date were not processed
15 November 2017 (10am AEDT): Statistics, and quality and integrity report released to the public
The results of the survey (including participation rates) were released at a national level, at a state and territory level and at an electorate level.[3]
Two legal challenges were lodged contesting the legality of the survey with the High Court of Australia, both on the grounds of unlawful funding from legally-specified funds and unlawful operation by the ABS. The first was by same-sex marriage advocates Shelley Argent (national spokeswoman of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and Felicity Marlowe (member of Rainbow Families), along with independent MP Andrew Wilkie. They announced they would challenge the postal survey in the High Court on 9 August 2017 and seek a temporary injunction.[39][40] The second challenge was by Australian Marriage Equality and Greens Senator Janet Rice.[41][42]
An additional complaint was lodged by a 17-year-old boy with the Australian Human Rights Commission in August 2017, on the basis that the rules did not allow provisionally enrolled 16- and 17-year-old Australians the right to participate in the survey.[43][44] The complaint could have led to a federal court case to argue for the right of about 50,000 Australians aged 16 and 17 on the electoral roll to vote, however the boy dropped his complaint on 22 September, after a Greens amendment to the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017 was rejected by the Parliament earlier in the month.[45] Legal counsel to the boy advised that the rejected amendment would make the age discrimination complaint much more difficult to argue, because parliament had considered and rejected extending the vote to enrolled 16- and 17-year-olds.[45]
High Court ruling
The High Court pronounced its orders in both cases on 7 September 2017. The court determined that the survey was lawful, allowing it to proceed as scheduled.[46][47] The challengers were ordered to pay costs.[48] The High Court handed down its unanimous reasons on 28 September 2017, finding that $295million had been appropriated by parliament, and that whether the expenditure was unforeseen was a matter for the Minister's satisfaction and there was no error of law in either his reasoning or his conclusion. The information to be collected was "statistical information" of matters prescribed in the Census and Statistics Regulation 2016 (Cth). As the court had considered and rejected the grounds of the application, there was no need to decide whether the plaintiffs had standing.[49][50]
Survey process
The survey was conducted on a voluntary basis, with no requirement on the part of the eligible Australian to mail back the survey form. This led to concerns over a potentially low voter turnout/response rate and the prospect of Indigenous Australians in remote communities being unable to complete a survey.[51][52] Concern had been expressed regarding: electors whose addresses were not visible on the electoral roll (known as silent electors);[53]disenfranchisement in remote communities;[54] Australians overseas;[55] prisoners;[56] non-English speakers;[57] and young people.[58][59] Early criticism was also levelled at issues of privacy, with the recent census problems of 2016 being cited.[60] The ABS advised that survey responses would be anonymous and protected under the secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905.[61] Prior to the survey commencing, former Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton independently reviewed the ABS's privacy approaches and mitigations and announced he was suitably satisfied.[62] The ABS also worked to address concerns with special strategies like paperless options (telephony and online form) and form drop off and pick up points in remote and capital city locations.[63] Additionally, the bureau noted that Australians could also authorise a "trusted person" to complete the survey on their behalf.[3] While any person could be appointed a "trusted person", the Chief Minister of the ACT, Andrew Barr offered to fulfil the role for any citizen.[64][65] Auditors and an external observer process were established to assure the integrity of the process, though the observers are subject to a lifetime confidentiality agreement.[66] A quality and integrity report was published by the ABS alongside the release of the survey results.[3] During the survey period, online sellers were contacted by the ABS asking them to remove ads by people offering to sell their postal survey or answer. The ABS advised that such an action would likely constitute an offence under the Census and Statistics Act 1905, the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the survey safeguards legislation passed by Parliament.[67][68] The Digital Transformation Agency assisted the ABS with the paperless options for the survey, though due to the compressed timescale of the survey, concerns were anonymously raised by staff that the normal processes were not completed, such as sufficient user testing.[69]AWS was brought in on a tender process to assist in the security measures for the online survey.[70] A telephone information hotline was established, and received 206,828 calls between 14 August 2017 and 7 November 2017.[71]
Unlike elections or referendums, there were no automatic special regulations relating to advertising requirements or prohibited content for the survey of the kind found in the Electoral Act.[72] Consequently, the Government and Opposition engaged in negotiations to introduce legislation designed to replicate these types of regulations, as well as create measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period.[73] On 13 September, the government introduced the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 for these purposes in the Senate.[74] The bill passed the Senate, after an amendment moved by Greens leader Richard Di Natale to allow 16- and 17-year-olds the right to participate in the survey was defeated. The bill immediately proceeded to and was passed by the House of Representatives.[74] The bill received royal assent on 13 September and went into effect the following day.[74][75] The Act's provisions automatically expired on 15 November 2017.[75] Neither the "Yes" or "No" campaign received public funding in the survey, as was envisioned for a compulsory attendance plebiscite.[76] Prime Minister Turnbull also ruled out a ban on foreign donations for the survey.[77]
All Australians whose names are on the electoral roll or had applied to be put on the roll before 24 August 2017 were mailed a survey form and enrolled Australians living overseas along with those in certain special categories were entitled to complete a survey using paperless methods.[78][79] The AEC made a statement that provisionally-enrolled 16- and 17-year-olds would not be posted a survey form[80] and an amended direction was later issued by the Government to the Australian Statistician making this clear.[81] This direction was subject to a Human Rights Commission complaint by a 17-year-old boy, which was later withdrawn.[82][45]
More than 16 million letters were sent from 12 September over almost two weeks (with all delivered by 25 September) and silent electors' packages were sent by the AEC and delivered by the end of September.[83][84] After several "Yes" respondents posted images of their complete forms on social media, the ABS cautioned participants to not photograph their form barcodes, so as to prevent any fraudulent conduct. Additionally, survey forms could be invalidated in the event the question was rephrased by the participant or the barcode was obscured or removed.[85] The ABS issued several examples of what constituted a valid and invalid response (such as marking both boxes "Yes" and "No" or crossing out one of the words on the form).[86] The ABS advised Australians who received extra survey forms, addressed to the previous occupant who failed to update their electoral details, to write on the front of the envelope "return to sender" and send it back.[87] In Australia, it is illegal to open mail addressed to another person.[88] In the rare instance of multiple responses being received from an individual, the ABS noted that only the last valid response could expect to be counted.[89] On 25 September, the ABS confirmed that all survey forms had been mailed to eligible voters and outlined the process for additional forms to be sent to people who did not receive, lost or spoilt their form.[90] The ABS also confirmed that a change of mind was not a valid reason for requesting a new form.[91] Both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns provided 60 observers to the ABS counting process,[92] who examined 606,991 survey results. Fewer than 500 survey forms were reported as issues to the ABS during the survey.[93]
Weekly estimate of responses
On 28 September, the ABS announced that it would release weekly national estimates of the total number of survey responses received, beginning from 3 October 2017 and ending 7 November. The primary input to the first three weekly estimates, issued at the National level only, was Australia Post's assessment of the number of containers of sorted envelopes rather than counts of individual forms. Adjustments were made based on factors such as responses received through other channels and an allowance for forms that are damaged or invalid. From the fourth estimate, released on 24 October 2017, the ABS changed the estimation method to use the counts of processed forms. This led to an increase in estimated turnout to 74.5% of the population, up 7.0% on the previous week, despite only 300,000 new responses, or 1.9% of the total, being received during that timeframe.[94]
The survey form asked respondents: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?". The survey offered two one-word responses: "yes" or "no".[3]
Legislation proposed
The government did not release a draft bill legalising same-sex marriage prior to the survey, which led to uncertainty over what form legislation would take in the event of a "Yes" verdict.[96] The wording of an exposure draft of a same-sex marriage bill from early 2017, released by the Attorney-General's office, proposed to amend the definition of "marriage" and replace the terms "man" and "woman" with the gender neutral phrase "two people".[97] The proposed wording "two people"[98] differed from the wording of the survey question, which referred explicitly to "same-sex couples".[99][100]
Liberal Senator Dean Smith, who drafted a same-sex marriage bill in August 2017, argued his bill struck a "fair balance" in protecting the rights of same-sex couples and the religious freedoms of celebrants.[101] The bill allows current civil celebrants to become religious celebrants and refuse to perform same sex marriages, and incorporates parts of the Sex Discrimination Act, to allow religious organisations to refuse their services for same-sex marriages.[102] Smith's bill was formally backed by the Labor Party parliamentary caucus on 17 October 2017.[103] However, conservative MPs in the government responded by suggesting up to 100 amendments to the bill may be needed if the "Yes" vote carried.[101]
A rival bill was released on 13 November by Liberal Senator James Paterson, a conservative supporter of same-sex marriage.[104] The bill contained various protections allowing the refusal of same-sex weddings by anyone who holds a religious or "conscientious belief" against same-sex marriage, including private service providers such as florists and bakers.[105][106] Prime Minister Turnbull reacted negatively to Paterson's bill, saying the government "would not countenance" supporting a bill which discriminated against same-sex weddings and that the bill would have "virtually no prospect of getting through the Parliament".[107] It was dropped by Senator Paterson within hours of the "Yes" vote being released.[108]
Each of the political parties represented in the Australian Parliament held formalised positions on same-sex marriage and on the merits of the survey. The Australian Labor Party formally supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage, though offered its MPs a conscience vote on same-sex marriage legislation until 2019.[109] The Liberal Party pledged to hold a national vote of some kind before any change to the law, though the party had no official position on the survey question, hence MPs (including Cabinet members) were to free to campaign for either side.[110][111] All politicians were entitled to use their electoral printing and communications budgets in the campaign.[112]
A "Yes" campaign rally in Melbourne in August 2017.
The campaign for supporting voting in favour of same-sex marriage in the survey received support from Labor,[122] the Liberals for yes campaign,[123] and four minor political parties represented in the Federal parliament, and from prominent lobby groups including Australian Marriage Equality and GetUp!.[124][125]
"No" campaign
The campaign advocating voting against changing the marriage laws in the survey was supported by the Nationals[110] and three minor parties represented in the Federal parliament. Several groups opposed to same-sex marriage, including the Australian Christian Lobby and the Marriage Alliance, formed the Coalition for Marriage to co-ordinate the "No" campaign.[126][127][128]
Opinion polls in Australia over several years in the lead-up to the survey indicated a comfortable majority of Australians supported same-sex marriage.[129][130][131][132] A GuardianEssential poll conducted just prior to the announcement of the postal survey indicated that 43% approved of a postal vote and 38% disapproved,[133] whereas a week later, 39% approved of the postal survey and 47% disapproved of it.[134] A small boycott movement existed, although most same sex marriage campaigners who were against a national vote on same-sex marriage urged participation in the postal survey.[135] Some informal responses to the survey were intended as a protest vote.[136]
A Canberra bus with rainbow wrap advertising as support from the ACT Government for the city's LGBTIQ community during the survey period.Sydney Town Hall illuminated in pride colours and flying a rainbow flag in support of the "Yes" vote.
The Government of the Australian Capital Territory and several local governments such as the City of Sydney took official positions supporting the "Yes" campaign.[175][176] Public servants in the ACT were warned against campaigning in the survey while in official uniform.[177][178] The move to offer official support was criticised by the Liberal Party opposition in the ACT, and similar criticisms lead to the City of Darebin backing down on plans to restrict "No" campaigners from using council facilities.[179][180]
Debate over freedom of religion
Several figures and institutions supporting a "No" vote raised the issue of religious freedom during the survey period. Former Prime Minister John Howard rejected the assurances of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and requested that the government explicitly detail proposed religious freedom provisions to potentially be included in same-sex marriage legislation.[181][182][183] Likewise several leaders in the Catholic Church raised freedom of religion concerns, citing the case of a Tasmanianarchbishop, who was requested to appear at an anti-discrimination commission after having disseminated material supporting a Christian view of marriage.[184] The veracity of the concerns over religious freedom was disputed heavily in the community. Some groups, such as the National Catholic Education Commission said they were unsure if Catholic schools could continue to teach the Catholic view of marriage in the event same-sex marriage was legalised, however academicsMarion Maddox and Carol Johnson challenged this by arguing that religious organisations would continue to be able to access exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and, consequently, remain free to refuse same-sex marriage if it is eventually introduced.[185][186] The divisions extended to the governing Liberal Party, whose president rejected claims that religious freedom could be under threat, in direct contradiction to the party's vice-president, who said that same-sex marriage would have consequences for freedom of speech, religion and association.[187][188]
Both Prime Minister Turnbull and Bill Shorten, leader of the Opposition, spoke in favour of religious freedom protections, with Turnbull stating he was an even "stronger believer" in freedom of religion than same-sex marriage.[189] Shorten said the Labor Party would "make sure that concerns about religious freedom are met with and dealt with and are treated with respect".[190] The prospect of additional religious freedom exemptions being added to existing Australian anti-discrimination law troubled some "Yes" advocates, who feared such provisions could allow service providers to discriminate on any basis, not just limited to couples' sex. Tiernan Brady described the campaign for religious freedom exemptions as "a blatant attempt to unravel existing anti-discrimination laws which serve everyone in Australia well, not just LGBTI people".[191]
In response to a Newspoll question on the subject; "Do you think parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage?", 62% responded Yes, 18% responded No and 20% said they were "uncommitted".[170] A poll conducted by Galaxy later in the survey found 78% of respondents said Yes in response to the question; "If the majority vote 'yes' in the postal survey, should same-sex couples be treated the same under the law compared with other couples?"[192]
An inquiry into religious freedoms, headed by Philip Ruddock, was announced in November 2017. This has been interpreted as a way to allow the speedy passage of the Dean Smith bill and postpone discussions of religious freedom.[193] It completed a report on 18 May 2018,[194] which was not publicly released until 13 December 2018,[195] although the recommendations were leaked to Fairfax Media in October 2018.[196] The government responded by proposing a religious discrimination act.[195]
Advertising and media
A shop wall in Redfern, New South Wales, with the signage "Yes" painted in the colours of the LGBT flag, designed to demonstrate the support for the survey.
Advertising by both sides was extensive for much of the survey period. The first television ad for the "No" campaign, revealed shortly after the campaign began, featured three women and focused on the Safe Schools education program.[197] The "Yes" campaign promptly aired a rebuttal by Dr. Kerryn Phelps.[198] A "No" supporter funded the skywritten message "Vote No" over Sydney in September, which was defended by Turnbull as an expression of free speech.[199] In Melbourne, a giant "NO" was written in the sky in response to the survey.[200]
Subsequent "Yes" ads focused heavily on a concerted "get out the vote" effort, and featured high-profile figures such as Ian Thorpe and others posting their surveys, as well as a themed ad screened during the finale of popular television show The Bachelor.[201][202] The "Yes" campaign were also responsible for a widespread SMS message to many Australian mobile phones which lead to some complaints over how people's numbers were obtained, however the campaign advised the numbers were generated through random dialling technology previously used in elections.[203]
Both of the "No" campaign's next most prominent advertisements concentrated mostly on the notion of gender theory in school curriculum, one such ad focusing on the book The Gender Fairy and featuring two of the mothers from the original advertisement.[204][205] The other advertisement included archive footage of one of the founders of the Safe Schools program and included material alleged to have been available for viewing by year seven students which was subsequently deemed inappropriate for unrestricted viewing by the Australian Commercial Television Code of Practice.[206][207] As of mid-September, prominent "No" campaigner Lyle Shelton was mentioned across news outlets more times than the leading three "Yes" campaigners, Alex Greenwich, Tiernan Brady and Sally Rugg, combined.[208]
Rainbow flag-patterned stickers on mail boxes asking for no anti-equality or hate mail. Similar stickers were promoted as a way to show support for same-sex marriage and reduce the amount of unwanted materials received.
Legislation in effect for the duration of the survey made it illegal to vilify, intimidate, threaten or harm "on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or religion", with a fine of up to $12,600 for breaches.[210] Furthermore, all campaign material was required to be properly authorised.[211] By 26 September, marketing services group Ebiquity estimated that the lead "No" group (Coalition for Marriage) had spent about $3,975,872 on advertising, a figure higher than their estimate for the two lead "Yes" groups (Australian Marriage Equality and the Equality Campaign), about $2,920,740.[212] Two donations of note were made in the course of the survey; $1million was personally donated by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce to the "Yes" campaign, and $1million was donated by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to the "No" campaign.[213][214] Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in November that the "No" campaign had 20,000 donors who donated around $6million to the campaign.[215]
At the 2017 NRL Grand Final, American rapper Macklemore was booked to perform several songs, including "Same Love".[216] The song topped the Australian chartsin 2013, and was regarded as an anthem for same-sex marriage advocates during the campaign in Macklemore's home state of Washington. In the days leading up to the grand final, the single returned to the top of the Australian iTunes charts.[217] Several prominent conservative politicians voiced strong opposition to the scheduled performance of "Same Love", given its high-profile support for the "Yes" campaign during the voting period of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.[218][219] Macklemore acknowledged the controversy several days before the final, but vowed to "go harder" as a result.[220]
A nationwide study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual mental health found that increased exposure to negative, anti-LGBT media messages during the postal survey was related to increased levels of depressions, anxiety, and stress.[221]
Discussion of impact on children
The rights and welfare of children, particularly as it related to same-sex parenting, was occasionally discussed publicly through the survey. Organisations such as the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Presbyterian Church of Australia and the Australian National Imams Council all advocated strongly for nuclear family structures during the survey.[184][222][223] A fact check article published in The Conversation, which was based on a review of the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents, showed equal or better outcomes for children raised by parents of the same gender.[224] Likewise, a review published late in the survey period by the Medical Journal of Australia agreed with The Conversation's findings, but noted that the effects of being exposed to stigma and discrimination could lead to poorer public health outcomes for the children in same-sex parented families.[225]
Other groups, such as Slater and Gordon, the Australian Psychological Society and Minus 18 unveiled material and mechanisms designed to offer support and relief for those affected by the debate, such as parents of young children and LGBTIQ teenagers who experienced difficulties dealing with the public discussion.[233][234][235]
The survey period was associated with increases in the number of LGBTIQ people requesting assistance for mental health issues. Reach Out Australia, which lead the pro-same-sex marriage campaign by five mental health services, reported increases (variously at) 20,[236] 30[237] and 40[238][239] per cent in clients during the survey period and crisis support service Lifeline noted a spike in calls about the impact of the survey.[240] Mental health surveys conducted during this period showed that increased exposure to the 'no' campaign was related to increased levels of depression, anxiety, and stress among same-sex attracted Australians.[221] Shorten wrote to Turnbull about increasing the funding for mental health services during the survey from the federal budget, but did not receive a response.[241]
Vandalism and abuse
The survey was accompanied by a variety of acts of vandalism and abuse by both parties. In September, a banner reading "Burn Churches, Not Queers" was unfurled at a Coalition for Marriage meeting,[242] and in October several churches in Victoria and New South Wales were graffitied with messages criticising "No" voters.[243][244][245] Similarly, a passenger train on the Sydney Trains network was vandalised with messages encouraging "No" votes, including foul language and the Nazi swastika.[246] The ABC created a digital news service designed to track incidents of violence and abuse throughout the survey, with both "Yes" and "No" voters/organisations being targeted on occasions.[247]
The Australian Capital Territory recorded the strongest "Yes" vote at 74% while New South Wales had the lowest level of support at 57.8%.[248] All other jurisdictions had above 60% support, with Victoria the leading state on 64.9% support.[248]
Australia's 150 electorates plotted between survey responses and selected demographic characteristics (derived from 2016 Australian census)
A majority of survey participants returned affirmative responses in 133 electorates. The 17 electorates with majority negative responses were predominantly in Western Sydney (12 electorates), as well as rural Queensland (three electorates) and outer suburban Melbourne (two electorates). Defying a national trend, in New South Wales, country participants were more likely to vote yes than their city counterparts.[249]
Most electorates either swung heavily in favour or against same sex marriage. There were only 25 electorates in which the result was between 45 and 55 per cent. In contrast, 41 electorates at the 2016 Australian federal election had two party preferred results within the same degree of margin (±5 per cent). At the 2013 election, 49 electorates were as approximately close.[250]
The heavy concentration of negative responses in working-class, multicultural Western Sydney led to speculation about the underlying economic and demographic factors leading to the result. The Guardian noted that the portion of persons holding religious beliefs in an electorate was one of the strongest factors, calculating a −0.8 correlation between religion and responding affirmatively. Islam, followed by Oriental Orthodox and Catholicism were the strongest predictors of negative responses. Affirmative responses were correlated to income and education, and to a lesser extent, being born in Australia.[251]
There was a higher percentage of responses to the survey from 18 and 19-year olds than any other age group under 45, despite concerns during the survey period that this group would be disenfranchised.[252]
Several hours after the results of the survey were released, Senator Dean Smith introduced the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 into the Australian Senate.[253] The bill amended the definition of "marriage" in the Marriage Act to recognise a "union of 2 people",[254] which would enable same-sex marriage.[253] The bill drafted by Liberal Senator James Paterson, which would have extended further protections and exemptions for people opposed to same-sex marriage was dropped, with the Senator and several conservative MPs instead deciding to offer amendments to the Smith bill during parliamentary debate.[255] There was some unresolved disagreement by politicians who advocated for a "No" result as to whether further religious protections should be added to the Smith bill as an amendment at this time or whether a later bill for this purpose should be considered.[256]
The bill passed the Senate by 43 votes to 12 on 29 November 2017, with none of the amendments providing further protections and exemptions being accepted.[257] Openly gay MP and same-sex marriage advocate Tim Wilson proposed in Parliament to his partner, Ryan Bolger, who was in the public gallery.[258] Bolger accepted Wilson's proposal. It was the first known engagement on the floor of the House of Representatives.[258] The bill passed the House of Representatives without amendment on 7 December 2017.[4] It received royal assent on 8 December 2017 and came into effect the following day.[259] Existing same-sex marriages performed outside Australia were recognized from 9 December, while new marriages required one month's notice, and so began from 9 January 2018.[260][261] Several couples successfully applied for an exemption from the notice period,[262] and the first legal same-sex wedding under Australian law was held on 15 December 2017, with further weddings occurring the following day.[263][264]
Democratic representation
The survey revealed differences between the views of some MPs and the majority of their constituents on this issue. Several Labor MPs in Western Sydney electorates recommitted to voting in favour of same-sex marriage legislation, despite majority "No" votes among their constituents. Labor Senator Sam Dastyari acknowledged this issue, noting there was a "huge disconnect" of views on same-sex marriage within traditionally Labor-held seats in Western Sydney.[265][266] Similarly, several Liberal MPs and Senators said they would vote "No" irrespective of the result in their electorate or state.[267][268][269]
Reactions
Alex Greenwich of the "Yes" campaign stated the survey results represented a level of "unprecedented support and momentum [that] has exceeded the expectations, not just of this campaign, but any campaign in our history".[270] Spokesperson for the "No" campaign and the Coalition for Marriage, Lyle Shelton said it was a disappointing result, but he accepted and respected the verdict of the people. Tony Abbott said the Parliament should "respect the result".[271]
Speaking immediately after the survey results were released, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the outcome "overwhelming" and recommitted to passing same-sex marriage legislation in the Parliament before Christmas.[272]Opposition LeaderBill Shorten shared that commitment and called on conservative MPs in the government to respect the will of the people and not attempt any delaying tactics in the parliament.[273] The verdict announcement was watched and celebrated by tens of thousands of "Yes" supporters in capital cities. In Melbourne, several thousand people gathered outside the State Library of Victoria to watch the results before celebrations began in Melbourne's Lygon Street that evening.[274] The huge "Yes" vote in Victoria prompted PremierDaniel Andrews to label the result reflective of Victoria's reputation as "the most progressive state" in the nation.[275] A large crowd also descended on Prince Alfred Park in Sydney for the announcement, which included high-profile figures Magda Szubanski and Ian Thorpe in attendance.[276] Reflecting on the atmosphere in Sydney, local newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald claimed the results reflected "a momentous civil rights milestone" for Australia.[276] Smaller crowds also gathered in several locations in Canberra, Adelaide and Perth to celebrate the result.[277][278][279] In Canberra (capital city of the Australian Capital Territory, the jurisdiction with the highest "Yes" vote in the country), the results were celebrated festively into the night, as thousands of people forced the closure of Lonsdale Street in the city. Labor Party Senator Penny Wong's appearance onstage at the event "drew thunderous applause from a crowd of thousands".[280]
The results were welcomed by many representatives of Australia's business community. Among the highest profile of them was Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who called it "an amazing outcome and we should all be very proud of this amazing country", an observation shared by leaders of corporate bodies Telstra and ANZ Bank.[281] Businesses related to the wedding industry, such as florists, bakers and others were poised to reap the benefit of what some projected to be a multi-billion dollar boost to the industry over the following 12 months.[282] The social media coverage of the results announcement was so immense that, with more than 4000 tweets sent every second during the peak of the day, the survey results trend was more than 10 times as popular as Australia's "race that stops the nation", the Melbourne Cup.[283]
In celebration of the "Yes" vote, a Sydney-based visual artist painted a large, "light-hearted mural"[284] on the wall of the Botany View Hotel, Newtown, depicting Tony Abbott with his hand down the pants of Cardinal George Pell.[285] The mural was later defaced and painted over in black paint. The visual artist said he planned to leave the defaced mural as it was, stating "when you're making public art, the reaction is important, the reaction is needed".[286]
Archbishop Denis Hart of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne issued a statement on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, saying the results did not change the church's understandings of marriage and noting the 4.8million Australians who voted "No" should have their concerns recognised by "putting in place strong conscience and religious freedom protections".[287] These sentiments were shared by the leaders of the Anglican Church of Australia.[288] Reflecting on the heavily concentrated "No" vote prominent in Western Sydney electorates, Keysar Trad, former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, labelled it "heartening" and praised the role of faith leaders in both the Muslim and Christian communities in the region.[289] Being born overseas has been noted to correlate with a "No" response and religious belief to correlate even more strongly.[290] Social progressives received criticism for allegedly ignoring the "No" vote among Islamic communities, though a Guardian blog argued that religion was connected with the "No" vote.[291][292]
The survey ran more than $40million under its projected budget of $122million.[295] Greens leader Richard Di Natale wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that some of the unused funds be redirected to mental health and other support services for LGBT Australians hurt by the campaign.[239] The survey added $26.3million in revenue to Australia Post.[296]
Mental health impact
A 2019 University of Sydney study found that the same-sex marriage debate led to elevated psychological distress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people during the survey period, including increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress.[297][298] The research also found that same-sex attracted Australians benefitted from public displays of support from family and friends, which increased their resilience during the process.[298] Another 2019 study conducted for the Australia Institute similarly found that "the marriage equality debate represented an acute external minority stress event that had measurable negative impacts on mental health of LGBTIQ people and their allies".[299]
↑ 21% of respondents refused to answer the question or declared no intention to vote.
↑ The Yes figure is a combination of people who say they have already voted yes (64.3%) and people who say they still intend to vote yes (6%). The No figure is a combination of people who say they have already voted no (15.5%) and people who say they still intend to vote no (5.7%). An additional 5.7% say that they do not intend to vote and 2.8% say they have not received a survey form.
↑ 17% of respondents said they had not voted and 4% were "uncommitted"
↑ The undecided number included 5% who say they "may or may not" participate and 2% who are "uncommitted".
↑ The poll asked respondents if they were "very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely" to participate in the survey, and did not give an option of being undecided.
↑ The undecided number included 9% who say they "may or may not" participate and 3% who are "uncommitted".
↑ The political party of the electorate's member at the time.
Related Research Articles
GetUp! is an independent progressive Australian political activist group. It was launched in August 2005 to encourage Internet activism in Australia, though it has increasingly engaged in offline community organising.
The Marriage Act 1961(Cth) is an act of the Parliament of Australia which regulates marriage in Australia. Since its passage in 1961, it has been amended on numerous occasions and applies uniformly throughout Australia (including its external territories); and any law made by a state or territory inconsistent with the Act is invalid. The Act was made under the power granted to the federal parliament under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution. Before the passage of the Act, each state and territory had its own marriage laws. The Act only recognises monogamous marriages that comply with the requirements of the Act; other forms of union, including traditional Aboriginal marriages, are not recognised. However, the Family Law Act 1975 treats de facto relationships and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup. Since 2009, the Family Law Act 2009 has also recognised the property rights of each partner of de facto relationships on separation.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) rights in Australia rank among the highest in the world; having significantly advanced over the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century. Opinion polls and the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey indicate widespread popular support for same-sex marriage within the nation. Australia in 2018, in fact was the last of the Five Eyes set of countries - that consisted of namely Canada (2005), New Zealand (2013), United Kingdom (2014) and the United States (2015) to legalize same-sex marriage. A 2013 Pew Research poll found that 79% of Australians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, making it the fifth-most supportive country surveyed in the world. With its long history of LGBTQ activism and annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras festival, Sydney has been named one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Australia since 9 December 2017. Legislation to allow it, the Marriage Amendment Act 2017, passed the Parliament of Australia on 7 December 2017 and received royal assent from Governor-General Peter Cosgrove the following day. The law came into effect on 9 December, immediately recognising overseas same-sex marriages. The first same-sex wedding under Australian law was held on 15 December 2017. The passage of the law followed a voluntary postal survey of all Australians, in which 61.6% of respondents supported legalisation of same-sex marriage.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is a conservative right-wing Christian advocacy organisation based in Canberra.
Christopher Patrick Hayes is a former Australian Labor Party politician who served as the member of parliament for Werriwa from 2005 to 2010 and then as the member for Fowler from 2010 to 2022, when he retired from politics.
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) was an advocacy group driven by volunteers who came together to pursue the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia. AME partnered with a diverse range of organisations and supporters across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex LGBTIQ couples from marriage in Australia. It was the pre-eminent group campaigning for same-sex marriage in Australia.
Michelle Anne Rowland is an Australian politician. She is a member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and has represented the Division of Greenway in the House of Representatives since 2010. She was a member of the shadow ministry from 2013 to 2022, and was elected President of the New South Wales Labor Party in October 2021. She is now the Minister for Communications in the government of Anthony Albanese following the ALP's victory in the 2022 Australian federal election.
Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum conducted in Maine in the United States in 2009 that rejected a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The measure passed 53–47% on November 3, 2009.
Referendum 74 was a Washington state referendum to approve or reject the February 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. On June 12, 2012, state officials announced that enough signatures in favor of the referendum had been submitted and scheduled the referendum to appear on the ballot in the November 6 general election. The law was upheld by voters in the November 6, 2012 election by a final margin of 7.4% and the result was certified on December 5.
Question 6 is a referendum that appeared on the general election ballot for the U.S. state of Maryland to allow voters to approve or reject the Civil Marriage Protection Act—a bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the General Assembly in 2012. The referendum was approved by 52.4% of voters on November 6, 2012, and thereafter went into effect on January 1, 2013.
Tiernan Brady is an Irish-Australian political and LGBT rights campaigner who was involved in the campaigns to allow same-sex marriage in Ireland and Australia. He was the executive director of the Equality Campaign in Australia, the successful national campaign for Australian Marriage Equality. He was the political director of Ireland's successful "Yes Equality" campaign which saw Ireland become the first country in the world to introduce marriage equality by a public vote. He was the Director of Gay HIV Strategies in GLEN – The Irish Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, and is Campaign Director of Equal Future 2018.
The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2015 amended the Constitution of Ireland to permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Prior to the enactment, the Constitution was assumed to contain an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland. It was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%. This was the first time that a state legalised same-sex marriage through a popular vote. Two legal challenges regarding the conduct of the referendum were dismissed on 30 July by the Court of Appeal, and the bill was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 29 August. An amendment to the Marriage Act 2015 provided for marriages permitted by the new constitutional status. The act came into force on 16 November 2015; the first same-sex marriage ceremony was held on 17 November 2015.
The history of same-sex marriage in Australia includes its express prohibition by the Howard government in 2004 and its eventual legalisation by the Parliament in December 2017. Although a same-sex marriage law was passed by the Australian Capital Territory in 2013, it was struck down by the High Court on the basis of inconsistency with federal law. The Court's decision closed the possibility of concurrent state or territory laws that would allow same-sex marriage where federal law did not. A law legalising same-sex marriage passed the Parliament on 7 December 2017 and received royal assent the following day.
The Marriage Alliance is an Australian lobby group based in Sydney, New South Wales which supports the definition of marriage between a man and a woman as found in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. According to the group's website, it "is an independent alliance bringing together individuals and organisations supporting a common cause. We exist to voice the opinion of the silent majority of Australians that respect same-sex attracted people, but do not want to change the current definition of marriage." They campaign against same-sex marriage.
A number of politicians, public figures, media outlets, businesses and other organisations endorsed voting either in favour or against same-sex marriage during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.
The Coalition for Marriage was an Australian lobby group that advocated the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, as found in the now superseded Marriage Amendment Act 2004.
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in Australia has shifted from 38% support in 2004 to majority support of 75% in 2023.
Wilkie v Commonwealth and Australian Marriage Equality v Minister for Finance, were two cases heard simultaneously by the High Court which held that the expenditure for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey had been approved by Parliament and involved the collection of "statistical information" that could be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The case was heard urgently and the Court pronounced its orders on 7 September 2017, and delivered their reasons for judgment on 28 September 2017.
The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which legalises same-sex marriage in Australia by amending the Marriage Act 1961 to allow marriage between two persons of marriageable age, regardless of their gender.
↑ ABS (1 September 2017). "Your postal survey". marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017. Retrieved 26 September 2017.
1 2 Verrelli, Stefano; White, Fiona; Harvey, Lauren; Pulciani, Michael (2019). "Minority stress, social support, and the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Australians during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey". Australian Psychologist. 54 (4): 336–346. doi:10.1111/ap.12380. S2CID151125628.
↑ Knight, Ken W.; Stephenson, Sarah EM; West, Sue; Delatycki, Martin B.; Jones, Cheryl A.; Little, Melissa H.; Patton, George C.; Sawyer, Susan M.; Skinner, S. Rachel; Telfer, Michelle M.; Wake, Melissa; North, Kathryn N.; Oberklaid, Frank (23 October 2017). "The kids are OK: it is discrimination, not same-sex parents, that harms children". The Medical Journal of Australia. 207 (9): 374–375. doi:10.5694/mja17.00943. PMID29092695. S2CID31451807.
1 2 "Results and Publications". marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au. 15 November 2017. Archived from the original on 25 August 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2017. For breakdown of results by electorate download the Response.xls file and refer to table 2
↑ Verrelli, Stefano; White, Fiona A.; Harvey, Lauren J.; Pulciani, Michael R. (23 January 2019). "Minority stress, social support, and the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Australians during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey". Australian Psychologist. 54 (4): 336–346. doi:10.1111/ap.12380. ISSN1742-9544. S2CID151125628.
↑ Ecker, Saan; Riggle, Ellen D.B.; Rostosky, Sharon S.; Byrnes, Joanne M. (5 February 2019). "Impact of the Australian marriage equality postal survey and debate on psychological distress among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer/questioning people and allies". Australian Journal of Psychology. 71 (3): 285–295. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12245. ISSN1742-9536. S2CID150493678.
Eades, Quinn; Vivienne, Son; etal. (2018). Going Postal: More Than 'Yes' or 'No'. Australia: The Lifted Brow (Brow Books). ISBN9781925704112.
Greenwich, Alex; Robinson, Shirleene (2018). Yes Yes Yes: Australia's Journey to Marriage Equality. Australia: NewSouth Books. ISBN9781742235998.
Rugg, Sally (2019). How Powerful We Are: Behind the scenes with one of Australia's leading activists. Australia: Hachette Australia. ISBN9780733642227. OCLC1103918151.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
