Image: Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce. (PHOTO: Ann-Marie Calilhanna; Star Observer)
ALAN Joyce, the CEO of Qantas, published a powerful opinion piece in yesterday arguing against a plebiscite on marriage equality. Joyce is one of the only top Australian CEOs to speak out on the issue.
He has given Star Observer permission to republish his opinion piece in full:
From giving women the vote to repealing the White Australia Act, the Australian parliament has an amazing history of taking the transformative decisions that make this country so great today.
On issues like economic reform and gun control, Australia was well ahead of its time and we鈥檙e still seen as a global leader.
That great history makes it all the more bizarre that we’re on the brink of handballing the next big social change – marriage equality – to an expensive and unnecessary plebiscite, rather than dealing with it in parliament like every other decision that doesn鈥檛 need a change to the constitution.
When we elect our MPs, we trust and expect them to make those calls. So why can鈥檛 parliament be empowered to make this decision?
There are two problems with a plebiscite.
The first is the damage it could do in the short term.
We鈥檝e already had claims that gay marriage could lead to bestiality, and accusations that businesses that support it are being 鈥榯otalitarian鈥�. I鈥檝e had people come up to me or write to me saying that they fear worse is to come; their fear is a plebiscite will be open season for most damaging, hurtful language about LGBT people. Given that the rate of depression for gay Australians is much higher than the national average, that鈥檚 a serious concern.
This isn鈥檛 about giving people time and space for a national debate. Australians have been talking about marriage equality seriously since the early 2000s and we already have the forums for people to express their views on both sides, including the media and the parliament itself. The issue is with using taxpayer funds in a way that could give a platform to the worst kind of homophobic rhetoric – without even binding parliament to the result.
There have only been three plebiscites in Australian history and the last one was the vote on whether to change a national anthem 鈥楢dvance Australia Fair鈥�. Nobody has a convincing argument for why we need one now.
The second problem is the message calling a plebiscite sends about Australia鈥檚 ability to make important national decisions.
Parliament鈥檚 where we have to agree on reforms in tax, education, environment, industrial relations and immigration policy, as well as debating foreign affairs and the
economy. It鈥檚 also where we鈥檝e got to come to grips with the social changes that are taking place in Australia just like they are in every other country.
Same-sex marriage isn鈥檛 a niche issue. It鈥檚 about basic rights and equality – the 鈥榝air go鈥� that鈥檚 such a fundamental Australian value.
Undercutting parliament by taking away its ability to decide on marriage equality would set a terrible precedent for the next big change we鈥檙e faced with, whether it鈥檚 an economic choice or a social one.
On the other hand, empowering parliament to vote would solve both the problems of a plebiscite.
It would put a reform that the majority of Australians want to see in the hands of the people we elected to represent us less than three months ago, avoiding a lot of uncertainty and trauma for the LGBT community. And it would send a strong, positive message about Australia鈥檚 ability to show leadership on the big decisions we鈥檙e going need to make in this parliament and future ones.
It would be great to see more business CEO’s speak out about divisive plebiscite..PM should be listening to mates…
鈥� Keith Sutherland (@KeithKaren1)
massive thanks to Alan Joyce for his views on plebiscite! Total waste of money :( in other news, glad to be flying u guys later!
鈥� Shiva R (@Shiva_Raman)
I agree, Alan Joyce, the loud and clear message is ~ our parliament can’t do it’s job
鈥� David Paul Jobling (@DJobling)
The so called Plebiscite doesn’t make much sense, if you’re a secular democracy as Australia professes when it suits then some one else’s religious point of view should have no business in preventing any law abiding citizen from participating in the legal & social institutions of the nation and why aren’t these churches paying taxes on the income they generate from their businesse, people need homes befor they need ridiculous plebiscites how about putting those millions into states fast tracking public housing if they have it to squander, politicians need to get on and do their jobs, make their decision making adhering to Secular Values, Secularist Values should be their political conscience,’ it appears we do need a US style constitution & bill of rights after all
Why did Mr Joyce struck a deal with a Emirates which flies via UAE, which is a country that has inconceivable anti-homosexual laws. Oh that’s right- MR Joyce needed the money for his Mosman penthouse.
John Howard didn’t need a plebiscite to change the original act from between two people to between a man and a woman. Why is Malcolm Turnbull following through with a plebiscite that was Tony Abbott’s idea? Australians were not asked what they thought then!
Bravo to Dean Smith, lets hope he is not the only liberal principled enough to get rid of this toxic plebiscite.