Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.
In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?
Well, they do have a habit of ignoring 'em in New Zealand.
Well, it had a very biaised question, too.
Sure, but 88% of the vote on 56% turnout is about as unambiguous as things can get, biased question or no.
"Should parents be allowed to use violence on their children for corrective purposes?" would get much less votes, I'm sure you would agree.
That would be a rather biased question in the other direction - "violence" implies lasting physical harm, or at least no limitations on the degree of violence.
I'm in favor of making referendum questions as clear and non-loaded as possible, so if it were up to me it probably would've been something like "Should it be legal for parents to spank their children with an open palm?"
Which I suspect would have passed with about as large a majority.
