Originally Posted by
psycho joe
Alan Joyce is trying to use his influence as CEO to stop the people from having a say by public vote. That's not appropriate, and it's undemocratic.
Every other assertion that you've made has already been covered and are mostly non sequitur.
As stated above, a plebiscite is not a binding 'vote'. The Parliament is not bound by the outcome. If there is a vote to change the Marriage Act, it will be held in Parliament as a part of the normal process of passing a bill.
Australia has held two national plebiscites, in 1916 and 1917, regarding conscription. The Parliament has managed to develop policy and enact legislation for the intervening 100 years without reliance on a plebiscite. That is not to say that plebiscites are not a feature of democratic representative government, just that a plebiscite is not a requirement for a democratic outcome to the issue of same sex marriage, or any other issue for that matter. The Howard Government changed the Marriage Act without reference to a plebiscite, as it was entitled to under the powers of s51(xxii) of the Constitution. There is nothing 'undemocratic' about government making or changing laws through the normal parliamentary process of responsible government.
I do not agree that someone expressing a view that a plebiscite is not the most appropriate way of deciding the issue is 'undemocratic'. If you were to look at Joyce's argument, he believes that the public debate that will unfold will be harmful to those who are vulnerable. As I have stated previously, the Constitution gives people the right to express this view. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. CEOs have responsibilities under the Corporations Act. Joyce has not acted outside of these responsibilities. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. Just because your views do not align with established legal and political concepts does not make them 'non-sequitur'.