National plebiscite on carbon tax an expensive, bad idea

A popular vote does not work when it is forced by an opposition.
Tony Abbott's call for a national plebiscite on a carbon tax is understandable as a political tactic. It is a means of focusing public attention on what polls have suggested is a lack of majority support for the reform. It also reinforces his argument that the Gillard government lacks a mandate to introduce the tax.
Whatever its political merits, the plebiscite is a bad idea. A popular vote makes sense when a government needs an extra tick of approval to proceed with policies such as on daylight saving. It does not work when forced on a government by an opposition.
If nothing else, plebiscites are non-binding, and so the government would be free to ignore the outcome. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce before the vote that she will proceed with a carbon tax whatever the result.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Julia Gillard could base her position on the representative traditions of our system of government. She could state that her government was elected to make decisions on behalf of the people, and that she would be abdicating her responsibility by acceding to an opinion poll.
Plebiscites are rare in Australia. They go against the grain of a system in which we elect parliamentarians to make decisions on our behalf. By contrast, referendums and plebiscites introduce an element of direct democracy that allows people to have a say.
Referendums and plebiscites are different types of ballot. A referendum is usually taken to be a vote to change the Australian or a state constitution. Such ballots are binding. If the people say yes, the constitution is changed.
The last successful national referendum was in 1977 when Australians voted to, among other things, set a retirement age of 70 for High Court judges. Each national referendum since then has failed.
On the other hand, plebiscites bind no one and make no change to the law. In effect, they are an expensive opinion poll. While plebiscites have no legal effect, they can have a major political impact. They can provide a government with a mandate to proceed with a divisive policy, and can help to resolve a polarised issue when a government is unwilling to make a call. A government lacking the courage to undertake a major reform may decide to do so when backed by the support of the people in a plebiscite.
Many plebiscites have been held at the state level. For example, Western Australia voted yes in 1933 to secede from Australia, and no in 2009 to introduce daylight saving. Many plebiscites have been held in New South Wales, most often on the sale of alcohol. The people were sent to the polls to determine the closing hours of hotels in 1916, 1947, 1954 and 1969, and in 1928 they voted on, and rejected, prohibiting the sale of liquor.
There have been only three national plebiscites. Voting in each was voluntary.
Two were held in 1916 and 1917 during World War I on whether to introduce conscription. Prime minister Billy Hughes was a fierce advocate of a yes vote, stating of those in opposition that ''they cover Australia with the mantle of eternal shame; the glorious name of Anzac becomes a tarnished and dishonoured thing''. Despite this, Hughes suffered a major loss when Australians twice narrowly rejected the idea.
The other plebiscite was put in 1977 by prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who asked Australians to choose their national song. Advance Australia Fair secured 43 per cent of the vote, Waltzing Matilda 28 per cent, God Save the Queen 19 per cent and Song of Australia 10 per cent. As with the plebiscites on conscription, the government was not bound to accept the view of the people, but because the plebiscite had been willingly put by government, it was not practically possible to ignore the result.
Every plebiscite held in Australia has been put by the government of the day. Although such votes have been called for by oppositions, no plebiscite has ever been forced on a government, if only for the futility of holding an expensive vote that the government is free to ignore.
Abbott is unlikely to succeed in getting his plebiscite. He needs the support of both houses of Parliament for a new law to bring on the poll. He is having to proceed in great haste because he has no chance of securing this after July 1, when the make-up of the Senate changes to produce a house controlled by the government and the Greens. Even if Abbott succeeds in having Parliament support a plebiscite before July 1, there is still the problem of funding. It is a dangerous business for the lower house to force the government to spend an estimated $69 million on a plebiscite it does not want.
It is long accepted in our system that the purse-strings are for the government alone. Indeed, a government that loses control of the budget and its finances is normally seen as having lost the confidence of the lower house, and should resign. The risk for the independents is that forcing the appropriation of money could undermine the stability of the government.
Even if Abbott somehow succeeds in bringing on a plebiscite, he may come to rue his achievement. The poll would create an unfortunate new precedent for how governments should deal with contentious, difficult reforms. A future Coalition government would no doubt face the same call, and could find it difficult to resist.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason professor of law at the University of New South Wales.