After the Cronulla riots, I read a rather good article (in the H’un, of all places), analysing why what happened in Sydney seemed relatively unthinkable in Melbourne. Long story short, the main factor was deemed to be a crap transport system that didn’t stir the melting pot as much.
I’d say Sydney’s talkback radio is probably another factor.
Every time that there is a proposal to create a rail line to the beaches, the locals block it because they don’t want to share their prestige location with filthy peasants.
The Cronulla riots happened there, instead of at Bondi/Manly/etc, because:
The surrounding suburbs are packed with middle class white people, and
Cronulla is the only beach that you can reach by train from the ethnically mixed working-class western suburbs.
It was NOT put to a public vote. It was a non-binding survey all to do with the fractious nature and internal politics of the conservative concoction federal government.
Personally, I can’t get enough of postal votes asking me to express an opinion on whether my friends and neighbors should be afforded basic rights, or whether they should be treated as contemptible subhumans whose very existence is offensive to right-thinking people. What could possibly be more democratic?
For fuck’s sake, world, it’s twenty-fucking-seventeen! Why is this still even a question?
And then I remember that in large swathes of the world – probably most of the planet – people would probably have voted overwhelmingly against. Assuming they could find a stamp.
So, baby steps, baby steps.
(weakly) Well done, Australia for passing the lowest possible bar to be considered a civilized nation. These days, that’s actually a bigger achievement than you might think.
Your ‘reason’ is correct but what was just held was a non-binding survey conducted by the Bureau of Statistics because they could get the funds through the Senate for a equally non-binding plebiscite conducted by the Electoral Commission. Federal referendums which are binding can be only be held to change the Constitution and amending the Marriage Act is not constitutional matter.