Same-sex marriage survey: 61.6 yes, 38.4 no

And the winner is …

So there you have it. Below is a tool for exploring the results at divisional level according to a range of electoral and demographic criteria. Take your pick from the drop down menu, and you will get divisional “yes” votes recorded on the vertical axis, and their results for the relevant indicator on the vertical axis. Most of these are self-explanatory, with the exception of “One Nation support index”. This equals the division’s 2016 Senate vote for One Nation divided by the party’s overall Senate vote in that state, multiplied by 100. So an electorate will score 100 if its One Nation vote is exactly equal to the state average; it will score 200 if it’s double; 50 if it’s half; and so forth. This is to prevent the party’s across-the-board high results in Queensland from spoiling the effect. “Finished school” is measured as a percent of the 15-plus population.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,326 comments on “Same-sex marriage survey: 61.6 yes, 38.4 no”

  1. The Liberals formally have great freedom to cross the floor outside Cabinet Solidarity. It’s just that practically it usually ends your career. This seems to either be a deliberate test of Turnbull’s power or demonstrating that he doesn’t have any.

  2. So is Jim Molan the end of the ticket?

    Nah. The way it’s going the Nats might get Nash’s seat back though. Wonder where the info on Libs above the next Nat on the list might be coming from?

  3. meher baba says:
    Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Protecting a baker’s supposed “right to refuse” is doing no more than legally entrenching prejudice. Discussing this in terms of baking is really to trivialise the serious. If it’s good enough for bakers to apply their prejudices, it will also be good enough for inn-keepers, for banks, for insurance companies, for airlines, for the lessors of property, for telcos and for anyone else to also act from prejudice.

    It’s also mistaken to suppose that adherents of the various religions will not change their minds – that they are incapable of releasing themselves from the discipline of the clerics. There are Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus – just as there are Catholics and Jews – who support SSM. They are not yet numerous, but they have a voice and are an example to their co-religionists.

  4. What the SSM opponents fighting a rearguard action over ‘defending freedom of speech/religion’ forget is that it is fair enough to hold people to account for things they can control, but completely unfair to impose harmful consequences on people for things over which they have no control. That is why discrimination on grounds of who you were born to, where you were born, or with what sexuality you have, is rightly disallowed in our society. However, it is completely right for a society to disallow the expression of views which cause unjustified harm to others, since they do cause harm, and the speaker has perfect control over whether or not they indulge in such expression, and so can fairly be held accountable for it.

    Take defamation as an example. It may be my sincere belief that a certain public figure slept with a colleague’s wife, so an unfettered right to ‘freedom of expression’ would demand I be allowed to publish that belief without any negative consequence to me whatsoever. However, our law rightly demands that I suffer consequences in such cases, to deter me from indulging in speculation that harms others.

    Summary offences laws which prohibit ‘offensive language’ are another example. Rarely do we see conservatives pushing to have such laws repealed, since they defend the right of little old ladies to walk the streets free from having their ears assailed by profanities. So much for their insistence that ‘offence’ taken by others is insufficient grounds for curbing free speech!

    Right now, before SSM takes effect, it is against the law for a hotel owner to refuse a room to a gay couple, for no other reason than that they are a gay couple and that he believes it is wrong to be in a gay relationship. That is because it is wrong to treat some people worse than you treat others, because of their sexuality. What the urgers of a broad ‘freedom to discriminate’ provision want to do, is to oblige gay people to suffer discrimination that they presently aren’t obliged to suffer, as the price they are forced to pay in return for allowing them to be included in the definition of ‘marriage’. That is unacceptable.

  5. E

    Dutton is not exactly a champion of the hard right. Yet he is going to vote yes on the ME bill and has been silent since the result came down on immigration.

    What is going to be interesting is to see if there is any shifting of that hard right stance.

    The vote on ME and its results by electorate are a political earthquake in the understanding we have long had of our politics.

    Wide bay Mr Right Wing Christensen’s seat had amongst the highest progressive vote if you regard equality as a progressive politically correct keep the children safe and all the stuff the hard right threw.

    They lost the war not just the battle and the numbers men know it.

  6. Briefly
    “Protecting a baker’s supposed “right to refuse” is doing no more than legally entrenching prejudice. ”

    I agree. And as you say it gets a lot worse. We already have religious doctors refusing to give women access to abortion based on their private beliefs, despite taking an oath to treat all to the best of their ability, and working in a publicly funded system.

    There is a slippery slope in this argument, but it is about legitimising prejudice, not religious equality. You can practice any religion you like, as long as you do not force others to adhere to your beleifs.

  7. GuardianAus: Michaelia Cash to face new Senate hearing over tip-off about police raid on AWU – politics live trib.al/00gT2NZ pic.twitter.com/8Yr6rCZGSW

  8. Yeah. Wide Bay surprises me. I’ve lived there and it’s solid National country especially Gympie and surrounds. My only explanation is that it’s an effect of the countercultural aspects in the Noosa Hinterlands. There’s a lot more open acknowledgment of counter accepted position than in say Maranoa.

  9. It all makes sense if you bear two things in mind. The Right is flexing is muscles to find relevance again.

    Those Ministers that crossed the floor know that an election is imminent due to S44 cases on December 1

  10. I think you’re all reading too much into this Bernardi stunt.

    It’s abortion related, and while I have no idea if any special dispensation was given for this vote (unlikely given it was a stunt that was never going to go anywhere), there’s a tradition of Libs having conscience votes on any matters related to abortion, so I doubt there’s anything particularly controversial in these loons deciding to vote for this motion.

  11. One reading from the Guardian Live Parliment blog is that the right wing government is imploding today ..

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/nov/16/government-steps-up-the-pace-on-same-sex-marriage-bill-politics-live

    Poor Mal can’t win if reacts & tries to pull them into line & can’t win if he ignores them.
    What a mess he has made by wimping out on the SSM vote he should have supported.

    On top of that Cash is in more trouble over AWU raid tip off.

    I guess Mal will be checking his overseas itinerary to see how long he as to hold on for.

  12. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the age group information seems to have only been correlated with participation rate? (Note the actual vote)

    Obviously at some stage the forms were sorted into electorate piles.

  13. Burke’s comments earlier that the debate on Smith’s bill should be in the Senate and any amendments debated and move there and not in the house are significant.

    We could get a scenario where the bill passes the Senate, effectively unchanged with no additional ‘protections’. And is sent to the house.

    What does Turnbull do? Try to move more amendments and be seen as blocking the bill or let it pass, despite yesterday saying wtte ‘some additional protection were needed ‘.

    He will be completely wedged between the left and the right.

    Rather than Labor being seen as blocking the bill because of discriminatory clauses, it might be Turnbull.

  14. Re section 44: the judgement yesterday has made me look into the history of its drafting and the subsequent case law in some detail.

    My conclusion is that I think the current High Court is spot on re the intent of the authors of the constitution re section 44 (iv). The intention truly was that public servants and other people living off the public teat (except, rather inequitably IMO, retired defence service personnel) should not only not be allowed to serve in parliament, but should not be allowed to stand for parliament.

    It makes me wonder whether even the longstanding convention that allows public servants to “resign” their jobs to run for parliament, with a gentleman’s agreement to be re-engaged if they are unsuccessful, would actually stand up in the High Court if someone chose to challenge it. Like it or not, the authors of the Constitution had a view that people (other than defence personnel) who derive their income from the government (including through business other than as shareholders of a relatively large company) should not be allowed to run for parliament unless and until they completely sever those ties. Full stop, no ambiguity. If we don’t like it, then we need to have a referendum to change it.

    On the other hand, I think the accumulated case law from the High Court on Section 44 (a) defies commonsense. This was drafted when there was no such thing as an Australian citizen, and the concept of dual citizenship was little known. Blind Freddy can see that the way it is being interpreted now is not what the authors of the Constitution intended, nor does it achieve anything good in terms of public policy. The High Court’s most recent judgement stated pretty clearly that they considered that the wording was unambiguous: which it is as long as you pay no intention to what was intended by it.

    But I’m not a lawyer, thank goodness.

  15. Allowing JW’s to sit out elections (or even refuse blood transfusions) is completely different to allowing them to discriminate against others for what ever reason in a commercial situation.

    As we are a society that respects religious freedom we legislate in the Electoral Act to allow religious prohibition as a Valid and Sufficient reason for not voting. Whilst we have compulsory voting for valid reasons and it’s pretty widely supported, in the end a person not voting for religious reasons is only really disenfranchising themselves, and they are most certainly not using their religion as a prop to burden someone outside their religion. Also despite the exemption the law encourages compliance and a religious objector must make that case to the AEC.

    It is quite another thing entirely to assert that being legally authorised to discriminate against other citizens in the course of a commercial transaction for any old religious excuse you claim to genuinely hold. Freedom of religion saves you from persecution for your beliefs. It doesn’t provide for you to persecute because of your beliefs.

    In the real world you can think anything you like about bloody poofs or jews or blacks or women or muzzies or whatever outgroup you want to hate on. That’s your business. But when you extend that actually using that to act in a manner that is detrimental to those people, then that becomes a matter of discrimination and oppression (in the widest possible use of the term), and is quite rightly a matter for a free liberal secular society to use it’s powers of legislation and enforcement to constrain.

    No we don’t want nor need thought police going around rounding up the homphobes (and no one sensible has ever asked for such). But we do need our laws to express the standards our society expects us to conform to. If any of us wish to be protected from unfair discrimination in our day to day existence (and I doubt many people don’t) then we must accept and indeed champion laws that prevent others becoming the victims of such unfair discrimination.

    A christian baker should no more be licenced to discriminate against a gay wanting a cake than a muslim kebab shop owner should be licenced to discriminate against a jew looking for Halal Snack Pack.

    And that’s the point. Sure people can come up with creative excuses to not serve a particular customer (out of stock, too busy) and that’s fair enough (so long as it doesn’t become transparent that discrimination is the real reason). I choose my potential clients probably more strictly than they choose me. But there is no way a government should licence discrimination against any particular group. It’s simply the old treat others as you would be treated rule. Discrimination licenced by the state makes us all less free.

  16. The Gentleman’s agreement is questionable at best yes. And I concur they wanted seperation from public money. It’s the notion that such applies from time of nomination throughout the entire parliamentary period that’s absurd. There’s no reasonable ground for that whatsoever.

  17. meher baba @ #1050 Thursday, November 16th, 2017 – 9:28 am

    Barney: “These exemptions do not give the give the Right to any religion or adherent to impose there view on the Society. By refusing a service because of a belief, an adherent is imposing that belief on Society.”

    Ah – and here is one of the most significant challenges of a multicultural society – but what if they see themselves as belonging to a “religious community” which is a subset of “society”, and therefore feel a divided loyalty? It can be very difficult for people in such situations if they find that the rules of wider society impose certain practices on them that conflict with their religious obligations.

    Traditionally, Australia has been pretty tolerant of people in these situations. One example that comes to mind is that the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses (a rather dreadful cult IMO, but that’s another story) prohibit them from voting, and the Australian Electoral Commission has long accepted this.

    I would have thought that, as long as they could show that it was based on a specific religious obligation and not just a general prejudice, a refusal by a business person to provide a service to same sex couples could be seen as belonging to the same category. But apparently not.

    I really hope that we don’t end up seeing a Colorado bakery-style case in Australia. Australians don’t seem to appreciate bullying, and it might undo some of the good work that the SSM campaign has achieved. But I appreciate that my view is not widely shared, and I’m not too happy about the broader political stances of most of those who have a similar view. So over and out from me on this issue.

    As someone who has chosen to assimilate into many different cultures, my starting point is always to not impose yourself. Sit back observe the ground rules in action and let the normal interactions integrate you into it.

    There are always behaviours you need change, but there are also some where being different has no negative impact.

    So integrating isn’t about giving yourself completely to the Society, it’s about complying when and where you need to but also staying true to yourself where it has no negative effects. This is one way that new cultural elements can infiltrate a Society over time.

    It’s not dissimilar to starting a new job, many people have encountered a new worker who from the first moment is throwing their opinions around and after half an hour everyone is looking around asking, “Who is this dickhead?”

    As opposed to the person who comes in and is initially quiet and reserved until they start to understand the ground rules.

    The second person is more readily accepted.

  18. It makes me wonder whether even the longstanding convention that allows public servants to “resign” their jobs to run for parliament, with a gentleman’s agreement to be re-engaged if they are unsuccessful, would actually stand up in the High Court if someone chose to challenge it.

    I speculated about that a while back. I though then that the blind eye turned to such things was a support for Keays et al (paperwork filled out, but sitting in someone’s in tray is still ok). But after Hughes I reckon this court would toss em without a second’s consideration. As with my distaste for their decision on the SSM vote my opinion of this court is that they are incapable of looking up from the text and seeing the bigger picture. Howard would have loved these guys in Wik.

  19. The High court are not making section 44 a pile of shit. Section 44 is a pile of shit and should go. Though I think making AGs have second thought about jobs for the boys (and girls) is a good thing.

  20. Some time ago I lost the key to my letter box and also lost a little brush for my vacuum cleaner.

    I posted to Poll Bludger – the lost and found section, and a very helpful person responded with the information that the brush was locked in the letter box with the key.

    Subsequently I bought a couple of new keys, but sadly the missing objects remained missing.

    Today the favourite regimental daughter came to take me shopping and there, in the back of the nearly new, 1999 model Commodore was the missing brush.

    I am, as you will be aware, now in the market for a vacuum cleaner to suit this brush. The original cleaner having gone to the dump long ago.

    I know this information will restore the faith of those depressed with the state of our nation.

    Cheers and good health to all.

    ☮ ☕

  21. The HC are making S44 a bigger pile of shit than it needs to be. The Hughes decision is almost certainly based on an absurd legal fiction about elections not closing until all possible legal challenges are resolved. That’s nuts. And it does nothing about jobs for friends anyway because the Liberals have plenty of private enterprise or arm’s length organisations (like the IPA) for these people and Labor has similar ties really.

    (And the only reason the others don’t is that business hasn’t decided those parties are worth buying influence with yet. )

  22. Though I think making AGs have second thought about jobs for the boys (and girls) is a good thing.

    But that is simply irrelevant. What if our own Zoomster had been in an unwinnable Labor senate position but found herself after a year or so in line to take a spot because another Labor Senator had been found ineligible.

    Should she be also ineligible despite not teaching at any time from nominating to issue of writs, simply because she took a day as a casual teacher in a public school a year after the election?

    That on what we know so far is very much what the HC would find.

    It’s frankly obnoxious.

  23. PaulBongiorno: I wonder if senator Scott Ryan regrets leaving the ministry for senate presidency. He is clearly struggling badly in question time.

  24. “And it does nothing about jobs for friends anyway”

    Note that it also only impacts on Senate candidates, as the ‘cure’ for an improper House election is a by-election, for which the person can just resign their position prior to nominating.

  25. On the floor crossing earlier, Cormann did not cross the floor but 2 other ministers/parliamentary secretaries did (Canavan and Ruston). Nash was sacked from Turnbull’s shadow ministry in Opposition for crossing the floor on a division.

  26. Elaugaufein

    And it does nothing about jobs for friends anyway because the Liberals have plenty of private enterprise or arm’s length organisations (like the IPA) for these people and Labor has similar ties really

    .

    In the US it’s called ‘warehousing’. The RW are usually better at doing it (here as well).

    The Greens do it as well in various ‘save the Earth’ organisations.

Comments are closed.