Английская Википедия:Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Good article Шаблон:Use Australian English Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Infobox referendum Шаблон:Infobox event Шаблон:Malcolm Turnbull sidebar

The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey was a national survey designed to gauge support for legalising same-sex marriage in Australia. The survey was held via the postal service between 12 September and 7 November 2017. Unlike voting in elections and referendums, which is compulsory in Australia, responding to the survey was voluntary.

A survey form, instructions, and a reply-paid envelope were mailed out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to every person on the federal electoral roll, asking the question "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" The ABS outlined processes to ensure eligible Australians lacking access to post could participate.[1]

The survey returned 7,817,247 (61.6%) "Yes" responses and 4,873,987 (38.4%) "No" responses. An additional 36,686 (0.3%) responses were unclear and the total turnout was 12,727,920 (79.5%).[2]

Prior to the survey, the Liberal–National Coalition government had pledged to facilitate a private member's bill to legalise same-sex marriage in the Parliament in the event of a "Yes" outcome. This allowed parliamentary debate and a vote eventually leading to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.[3] Both the Coalition and the opposition Labor Party allowed their parliamentarians a conscience vote on the relevant legislation. Had the survey returned a majority "No" result, the government said it would not allow a parliamentary debate or vote on legalising same-sex marriage.

Many same-sex marriage proponents were critical of the postal survey, viewing it as a costly delaying tactic and an unnecessary hurdle to a conscience vote on same-sex marriage in the parliament.[4] The survey was subject to two legal challenges questioning the authority of the ABS to conduct the survey and the government's right to fund the cost of the survey from funds designated by law for "urgent" and "unforeseen" circumstances. Both legal challenges failed; the High Court of Australia found that the survey was lawful.

Adults on the electoral roll in Australia as of 24 August 2017 were eligible to participate. By this date, 98,000 new voters had added themselves to the roll, which was a record high enrolment drive prior to a national vote. Survey forms were distributed from 12 September 2017 with the ABS encouraging returns promptly (preferably to be received before 27 October to ensure sufficient processing time). The survey closed on 7 November 2017 and the results were released on 15 November 2017. The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, which legalised same-sex marriage, came into effect on 9 December 2017. Шаблон:TOC limit

Background

History

Шаблон:See also Marriage in Australia is the constitutional province of the federal parliament. Its original legal definition was established by common law as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."[5] This definition was codified by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, which inserted it verbatim into the Marriage Act 1961.[6]

At the time of the survey, same-sex unions in Australia were treated as de facto unions under federal law. These unions provide couples with most, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage, although those rights may be difficult to assert and are not always recognised in practice.[7][8] Aside from the legal aspects, de facto relationships do not have the same symbolic significance as marriage.[9] Before the July 2016 federal election, the Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalition government promised to hold a national vote on same-sex marriage in the form of a compulsory attendance plebiscite.[10] Opposition to this idea centred on its criticism as an expensive delaying tactic and that it was the duty of the parliament, rather than a matter related to the Australian Constitution.[11]

While the Coalition won 76 of the 150 seats in the lower house in the 2016 election and managed to form a majority government by one seat, they failed to pass the necessary legislation for a (compulsory attendance) referendum/plebiscite. The legislation passed the House of Representatives on 20 October 2016 by a vote of 76–67, but was rejected by the Senate on 7 November 2016 by a vote of 33–29.[12][13] The idea of a postal plebiscite was originally proposed by Liberal MP Warren Entsch and later endorsed by government ministers Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann.[14] Dutton pointed out that a postal vote would not need legislation to operate.[15] A staffer of Attorney-General George Brandis came up with the idea of a survey as an alternative way to fulfil the government's commitment in mid-July.[16] In August 2017, following an attempt by five Liberal Party MPs to change party policy and have a free vote in the parliament on same-sex marriage legislation,[17] the government announced it would move for a voluntary postal survey to be held later that year.[18] It stated that the postal vote would only occur in the event the government's (compulsory) referendum/plebiscite legislation was again rejected by the Senate. That occurred on 9 August 2017, when a government-initiated motion in the Senate to debate the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 was tied at 31–31; resulting in the motion being defeated.[19]

Following the result in the Senate, the government directed the Australian Statistician (head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics) to begin the process of surveying the views on same-sex marriage of all Australians on the electoral roll.[20] The government asserted that this proposal did not require legislative approval from the parliament, arguing that the provisions of the Appropriations Act and the law governing the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) enabled it to use the ABS for such a purpose.[21] This was argued by the government to be similar to the process by which God Save the Queen was replaced by Advance Australia Fair as the Australian national anthem.[22] The government announced the ABS would be assisted by having staff seconded from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the organisation responsible for elections in Australia and managing the electoral roll.[23] The cost of the survey to the Australian taxpayer was forecast to be $122 million, however the total amount spent ended up being $80.5 million.[24][18] This expense, as well as the notion that the debate would activate ideological extremists and that normal electoral rules would not apply, were criticised in Parliament.[25] By 7 September, the date the high court challenges against the survey were heard, a total of $14.1 million had already been spent by the ABS on the postal survey – $8 million on advertising for the survey, $5.3 million on printing costs, and $600,000 for staff.[26]

The AEC reported that about 68,000 enrolment transactions were completed on 10 August, compared with an average of 4,000 per day.[27] In the period 8–14 August over 16,000 people had enrolled, and over 200,000 had updated their details.[28] By 20 August, over 36,000 had enrolled, and over 434,000 had updated their enrolment details.[29] By 22 August, over 54,000 had enrolled.[30] By 25 August the roll achieved a record high with over 16 million Australians on the roll (an additional 90,000 people had joined with a further 165,000 transactions still to be processed).[31] 65,000 of these new voters are between the ages of 18 and 24.[32] With 933,592 enrolment transactions completed by the AEC at the end of processing, more than 98,000 people were added to the roll, and the total number of Australians eligible to participate in the survey was 16,005,998.[33] However, after the results of the survey were released, the ABS revealed that in fact 16,006,180 surveys were mailed out to eligible Australians.[34]

The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee opened a Public Inquiry into the arrangements around the postal survey on 14 August[35] with a submission made and evidence given by the ABS at hearings on 17 August. Further hearings involving the ABS, AEC, Australia Post, Department of Finance and Department of Human Services occurred on 7 September and 15 September 2017. The committee handed down the final report on 13 February 2018. The report recommended that the survey process should not be used again for matters of human rights, encouraged the government to further fund mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to mitigate the impact of the postal survey, and recommended that the Australian Electoral Commission increase its voter registration and education efforts in remote communities and work with Indigenous peak bodies to achieve greater participation.[36][35]

Key dates

Key dates relating to the survey were:[37][38]

  • 24 August 2017: The final day for citizens to update or add their name and details to the electoral roll to receive a survey form
  • 12 September 2017: Survey forms began to be mailed out to all Australian voters over a two-week period
  • 25 September 2017: The date all survey forms were expected to have arrived, and eligible Australians could commence ordering replacement materials (for those lost or spoilt). The paperless options (online form and IVR telephony survey option) opened.
  • 20 October 2017 (6Шаблон:Nbsppm local time): Requests for replacement material closed
  • 27 October 2017: The date all eligible Australians were strongly encouraged to return their form by
  • 7 November 2017 (6Шаблон:Nbsppm local time): Responses received after this date were not processed
  • 15 November 2017 (10Шаблон:Nbspam AEDT): Statistics, and quality and integrity report released to the public

The results of the survey (including participation rates) were released at a national level, at a state and territory level and at an electorate level.[1]

Legal challenges

Шаблон:Main

Two legal challenges were lodged contesting the legality of the survey with the High Court of Australia, both on the grounds of unlawful funding from legally-specified funds and unlawful operation by the ABS. The first was by same-sex marriage advocates Shelley Argent (national spokeswoman of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and Felicity Marlowe (member of Rainbow Families), along with independent MP Andrew Wilkie. They announced they would challenge the postal survey in the High Court on 9 August 2017 and seek a temporary injunction.[39][40] The second challenge was by Australian Marriage Equality and Greens Senator Janet Rice.[41][42]

An additional complaint was lodged by a 17-year-old boy with the Australian Human Rights Commission in August 2017, on the basis that the rules did not allow provisionally enrolled 16- and 17-year-old Australians the right to participate in the survey.[43][44] The complaint could have led to a federal court case to argue for the right of about 50,000 Australians aged 16 and 17 on the electoral roll to vote, however the boy dropped his complaint on 22 September, after a Greens amendment to the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017 was rejected by the Parliament earlier in the month.[45] Legal counsel to the boy advised that the rejected amendment would make the age discrimination complaint much more difficult to argue, because parliament had considered and rejected extending the vote to enrolled 16- and 17-year-olds.[45]

High Court ruling

The High Court pronounced its orders in both cases on 7 September 2017. The court determined that the survey was lawful, allowing it to proceed as scheduled.[46][47] The challengers were ordered to pay costs.[48] The High Court handed down its unanimous reasons on 28 September 2017, finding that $295 million had been appropriated by parliament, and that whether the expenditure was unforeseen was a matter for the Minister's satisfaction and there was no error of law in either his reasoning or his conclusion. The information to be collected was "statistical information" of matters prescribed in the Census and Statistics Regulation 2016 (Cth). As the court had considered and rejected the grounds of the application, there was no need to decide whether the plaintiffs had standing.[49][50]

Survey process

The survey was conducted on a voluntary basis, with no requirement on the part of the eligible Australian to mail back the survey form. This led to concerns over a potentially low voter turnout/response rate and the prospect of Indigenous Australians in remote communities being unable to complete a survey.[51][52] Concern had been expressed regarding: electors whose addresses were not visible on the electoral roll (known as silent electors);[53] disenfranchisement in remote communities;[54] Australians overseas;[55] prisoners;[56] non-English speakers;[57] and young people.[58][59] Early criticism was also levelled at issues of privacy, with the recent census problems of 2016 being cited.[60] The ABS advised that survey responses would be anonymous and protected under the secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905.[61] Prior to the survey commencing, former Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton independently reviewed the ABS's privacy approaches and mitigations and announced he was suitably satisfied.[62] The ABS also worked to address concerns with special strategies like paperless options (telephony and online form) and form drop off and pick up points in remote and capital city locations.[63] Additionally, the bureau noted that Australians could also authorise a "trusted person" to complete the survey on their behalf.[1] While any person could be appointed a "trusted person", the Chief Minister of the ACT, Andrew Barr offered to fulfil the role for any citizen.[64][65] Auditors and an external observer process were established to assure the integrity of the process, though the observers are subject to a lifetime confidentiality agreement.[66] A quality and integrity report was published by the ABS alongside the release of the survey results.[1] During the survey period, online sellers were contacted by the ABS asking them to remove ads by people offering to sell their postal survey or answer. The ABS advised that such an action would likely constitute an offence under the Census and Statistics Act 1905, the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the survey safeguards legislation passed by Parliament.[67][68] The Digital Transformation Agency assisted the ABS with the paperless options for the survey, though due to the compressed timescale of the survey, concerns were anonymously raised by staff that the normal processes were not completed, such as sufficient user testing.[69] AWS was brought in on a tender process to assist in the security measures for the online survey.[70] A telephone information hotline was established, and received 206,828 calls between 14 August 2017 and 7 November 2017.[71]

Unlike elections or referendums, there were no automatic special regulations relating to advertising requirements or prohibited content for the survey of the kind found in the Electoral Act.[72] Consequently, the Government and Opposition engaged in negotiations to introduce legislation designed to replicate these types of regulations, as well as create measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period.[73] On 13 September, the government introduced the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 for these purposes in the Senate.[74] The bill passed the Senate, after an amendment moved by Greens leader Richard Di Natale to allow 16- and 17-year-olds the right to participate in the survey was defeated. The bill immediately proceeded to and was passed by the House of Representatives.[74] The bill received royal assent on 13 September and went into effect the following day.[74][75] The Act's provisions automatically expired on 15 November 2017.[75] Neither the "Yes" or "No" campaign received public funding in the survey, as was envisioned for a compulsory attendance plebiscite.[76] Prime Minister Turnbull also ruled out a ban on foreign donations for the survey.[77]

All Australians whose names are on the electoral roll or had applied to be put on the roll before 24 August 2017 were mailed a survey form and enrolled Australians living overseas along with those in certain special categories were entitled to complete a survey using paperless methods.[78][79] The AEC made a statement that provisionally-enrolled 16- and 17-year-olds would not be posted a survey form[80] and an amended direction was later issued by the Government to the Australian Statistician making this clear.[81] This direction was subject to a Human Rights Commission complaint by a 17-year-old boy, which was later withdrawn.[82][45]

More than 16 million letters were sent from 12 September over almost two weeks (with all delivered by 25 September) and silent electors' packages were sent by the AEC and delivered by the end of September.[83][84] After several "Yes" respondents posted images of their complete forms on social media, the ABS cautioned participants to not photograph their form barcodes, so as to prevent any fraudulent conduct. Additionally, survey forms could be invalidated in the event the question was rephrased by the participant or the barcode was obscured or removed.[85] The ABS issued several examples of what constituted a valid and invalid response (such as marking both boxes "Yes" and "No" or crossing out one of the words on the form).[86] The ABS advised Australians who received extra survey forms, addressed to the previous occupant who failed to update their electoral details, to write on the front of the envelope "return to sender" and send it back.[87] In Australia, it is illegal to open mail addressed to another person.[88] In the rare instance of multiple responses being received from an individual, the ABS noted that only the last valid response could expect to be counted.[89] On 25 September, the ABS confirmed that all survey forms had been mailed to eligible voters and outlined the process for additional forms to be sent to people who did not receive, lost or spoilt their form.[90] The ABS also confirmed that a change of mind was not a valid reason for requesting a new form.[91] Both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns provided 60 observers to the ABS counting process,[92] who examined 606,991 survey results. Fewer than 500 survey forms were reported as issues to the ABS during the survey.[93]

Weekly estimate of responses

On 28 September, the ABS announced that it would release weekly national estimates of the total number of survey responses received, beginning from 3 October 2017 and ending 7 November. The primary input to the first three weekly estimates, issued at the National level only, was Australia Post's assessment of the number of containers of sorted envelopes rather than counts of individual forms. Adjustments were made based on factors such as responses received through other channels and an allowance for forms that are damaged or invalid. From the fourth estimate, released on 24 October 2017, the ABS changed the estimation method to use the counts of processed forms. This led to an increase in estimated turnout to 74.5% of the population, up 7.0% on the previous week, despite only 300,000 new responses, or 1.9% of the total, being received during that timeframe.[94]

Week[95] Estimated responses Estimated rate of response
3 October 9 200 000 57.5%
10 October 10 000 000 62.5%
17 October 10 800 000 67.5%
24 October 11 900 000 74.5%
31 October 12 300 000 77.0%
7 November 12,600,000 78.5%

Question

Файл:Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey form.png
Sample image of the survey form

The survey form asked respondents: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?". The survey offered two one-word responses: "yes" or "no".[1]

Legislation proposed

The government did not release a draft bill legalising same-sex marriage prior to the survey, which led to uncertainty over what form legislation would take in the event of a "Yes" verdict.[96] The wording of an exposure draft of a same-sex marriage bill from early 2017, released by the Attorney-General's office, proposed to amend the definition of "marriage" and replace the terms "man" and "woman" with the gender neutral phrase "two people".[97] The proposed wording "two people"[98] differed from the wording of the survey question, which referred explicitly to "same-sex couples".[99][100]

Liberal Senator Dean Smith, who drafted a same-sex marriage bill in August 2017, argued his bill struck a "fair balance" in protecting the rights of same-sex couples and the religious freedoms of celebrants.[101] The bill allows current civil celebrants to become religious celebrants and refuse to perform same sex marriages, and incorporates parts of the Sex Discrimination Act, to allow religious organisations to refuse their services for same-sex marriages.[102] Smith's bill was formally backed by the Labor Party parliamentary caucus on 17 October 2017.[103] However, conservative MPs in the government responded by suggesting up to 100 amendments to the bill may be needed if the "Yes" vote carried.[101]

A rival bill was released on 13 November by Liberal Senator James Paterson, a conservative supporter of same-sex marriage.[104] The bill contained various protections allowing the refusal of same-sex weddings by anyone who holds a religious or "conscientious belief" against same-sex marriage, including private service providers such as florists and bakers.[105][106] Prime Minister Turnbull reacted negatively to Paterson's bill, saying the government "would not countenance" supporting a bill which discriminated against same-sex weddings and that the bill would have "virtually no prospect of getting through the Parliament".[107] It was dropped by Senator Paterson within hours of the "Yes" vote being released.[108]

Support and opposition

Шаблон:Main

Party positions in a parliamentary vote

Each of the political parties represented in the Australian Parliament held formalised positions on same-sex marriage and on the merits of the survey. The Australian Labor Party formally supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage, though offered its MPs a conscience vote on same-sex marriage legislation until 2019.[109] The Liberal Party pledged to hold a national vote of some kind before any change to the law, though the party had no official position on the survey question, hence MPs (including Cabinet members) were to free to campaign for either side.[110][111] All politicians were entitled to use their electoral printing and communications budgets in the campaign.[112]

Position Political parties Ref
Yes style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Labor* [113]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Greens [114]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Xenophon Team [115]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Liberal Democrats [116]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Hinch's Justice [117]
No style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | National [110]
Conservatives [118]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Katter's Australia [119]
Subject to public vote style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Liberal [110]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | One Nation* [120]
style="background-color: Шаблон:Party color" | Lambie Network [121]
*Conscience vote allowed for MPs.

"Yes" campaign

Файл:Melbourne Rally for Marriage Equality 2017 (35976256214).jpg
A "Yes" campaign rally in Melbourne in August 2017.

The campaign for supporting voting in favour of same-sex marriage in the survey received support from Labor,[122] the Liberals for yes campaign,[123] and four minor political parties represented in the Federal parliament, and from prominent lobby groups including Australian Marriage Equality and GetUp!.[124][125]

"No" campaign

The campaign advocating voting against changing the marriage laws in the survey was supported by the Nationals[110] and three minor parties represented in the Federal parliament. Several groups opposed to same-sex marriage, including the Australian Christian Lobby and the Marriage Alliance, formed the Coalition for Marriage to co-ordinate the "No" campaign.[126][127][128]

Neutral

The Liberal Party of Australia did not hold a position either way in the survey.[110]

Public opinion

Шаблон:Main

Opinion polls in Australia over several years in the lead-up to the survey indicated a comfortable majority of Australians supported same-sex marriage.[129][130][131][132] A Guardian Essential poll conducted just prior to the announcement of the postal survey indicated that 43% approved of a postal vote and 38% disapproved,[133] whereas a week later, 39% approved of the postal survey and 47% disapproved of it.[134] A small boycott movement existed, although most same sex marriage campaigners who were against a national vote on same-sex marriage urged participation in the postal survey.[135] Some informal responses to the survey were intended as a protest vote.[136]

Voting intentions

Date Firm Yes No Undecided Sample size Notes
9–12 November 2017 Newspoll[137] Шаблон:Won 37% – 1,625 Шаблон:Refn
3–6 November 2017 Essential[138][139] Шаблон:Won 31% 5% 1,792 Шаблон:Refn
26–30 October 2017 Galaxy Research[140][141] Шаблон:Won 34% Шаблон:N/A 1,000 Шаблон:Refn
26–29 October 2017 EMRS[142] Шаблон:Won 28% Шаблон:N/A 1,000
26–29 October 2017 Newspoll[143][144] Шаблон:Won 35% 3% 1,623 Шаблон:Refn
Шаблон:Won 35% 6% Шаблон:Refn
12–22 October 2017 Essential[145][146] Шаблон:Won 34% 5% 1,859 Шаблон:Refn
Шаблон:Won 33% 28% Шаблон:Refn
12–16 October 2017 YouGov[147][148] Шаблон:Won 35% 3% 1,067 Шаблон:Refn
Шаблон:Won 28% 18% Шаблон:Refn
12–15 October 2017 Newspoll[149] Шаблон:Won 37% 7% 1,583
6–8 October 2017 Roy Morgan Research[150] Шаблон:Won 17.5% Шаблон:N/A 1,554 Шаблон:Refn
2 October 2017 ReachTEL[151][152] Шаблон:Won 21.1% Шаблон:N/A 4,888 Шаблон:Refn
28 September – 1 October 2017 Essential[153][154] Шаблон:Won 30% 6% 1,841 Шаблон:Refn
Шаблон:Won 36% 14% Шаблон:Refn
22–25 September 2017 Essential[155][156] Шаблон:Won 33% 9% 1,803
21–24 September 2017 Newspoll[157] Шаблон:Won 34% 9% 1,695
15–18 September 2017 Essential[158][159] Шаблон:Won 34% 11% 1,808
14–18 September 2017 YouGov[160][161] Шаблон:Won 33% 9% 1,056
6–9 September 2017 Ipsos[162] Шаблон:Won Шаблон:N/A Шаблон:N/A 1,400
28 August – 6 September 2017 Newgate Research[163] Шаблон:Won 31.4% 10.2% 800
1–4 September 2017 Essential[164][165] Шаблон:Won 31% 11% 1,784
17–22 August 2017 Essential[166][167] Шаблон:Won 32% 11% 1,817
17–21 August 2017 YouGov[168][169] Шаблон:Won 33% 8% 1,012
17–20 August 2017 Newspoll[170][171] Шаблон:Won 30% 7% 1,675

Likelihood of voting in the survey

Date Firm Voted already Definitely will Probably will Probably won't Definitely won't Undecided Sample size Notes
9–12 November 2017 Newspoll[137] 79% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA 1,625 Шаблон:Refn
3–6 November 2017 Essential[138][139] 86% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA 1,792 Шаблон:Refn
26–29 October 2017 Newspoll[143] 76% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3% 1,623
12–22 October 2017 Essential[145][146] 75% 8% 4% 3% 3% 4% 1,859
12–16 October 2017 YouGov[147][148] 67% 13% 7% 3% 6% 5% 1,067
12–15 October 2017 Newspoll[149] 65% 19% 6% 2% 3% 5% 1,583
2 October 2017 ReachTEL[151] 79% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA 4,888
2 October 2017 Newgate Research[172] 77% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA
28 September – 1 October 2017 Essential[153][154] 47% 33% 6% 3% 3% 5% 1,841
22–25 September 2017 Essential[155][156] 36% 45% 8% 1% 2% 5% 1,803
21–24 September 2017 Newspoll[157] 15% 67% 7% 2% 2% 7% 1,695 Шаблон:Refn
15–18 September 2017 Essential[158][159] 9% 62% 12% 2% 3% 8% 1,808
6–9 September 2017 Ipsos[162] Шаблон:Endash 65% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA 1,400
1–4 September 2017 Essential[164][165] Шаблон:Endash 62% 16% 4% 3% 10% 1,784
23 August 2017 ReachTEL[173] Шаблон:Endash 78.7% 10% 4.1% 7.2% – 2,382 Шаблон:Refn
17–22 August 2017 Essential[166] Шаблон:Endash 63% 18% 4% 6% 9% 1,817
17–21 August 2017 YouGov[168] Шаблон:Endash 56% 17% Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA Шаблон:NA 1,012
17–20 August 2017 Newspoll[170] Шаблон:Endash 67% 15% 4% 3% 11% 1,675 Шаблон:Refn

Activities during the campaign

Advocacy by territory and local governments

Файл:Rainbow ACTION bus September 2017.jpg
A Canberra bus with rainbow wrap advertising as support from the ACT Government for the city's LGBTIQ community during the survey period.[174]
Файл:Sydney Town Hall illuminated in support of Vote Yes.jpg
Sydney Town Hall illuminated in pride colours and flying a rainbow flag in support of the "Yes" vote.

The Government of the Australian Capital Territory and several local governments such as the City of Sydney took official positions supporting the "Yes" campaign.[175][176] Public servants in the ACT were warned against campaigning in the survey while in official uniform.[177][178] The move to offer official support was criticised by the Liberal Party opposition in the ACT, and similar criticisms lead to the City of Darebin backing down on plans to restrict "No" campaigners from using council facilities.[179][180]

Debate over freedom of religion

Several figures and institutions supporting a "No" vote raised the issue of religious freedom during the survey period. Former Prime Minister John Howard rejected the assurances of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and requested that the government explicitly detail proposed religious freedom provisions to potentially be included in same-sex marriage legislation.[181][182][183] Likewise several leaders in the Catholic Church raised freedom of religion concerns, citing the case of a Tasmanian archbishop, who was requested to appear at an anti-discrimination commission after having disseminated material supporting a Christian view of marriage.[184] The veracity of the concerns over religious freedom was disputed heavily in the community. Some groups, such as the National Catholic Education Commission said they were unsure if Catholic schools could continue to teach the Catholic view of marriage in the event same-sex marriage was legalised, however academics Marion Maddox and Carol Johnson challenged this by arguing that religious organisations would continue to be able to access exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and, consequently, remain free to refuse same-sex marriage if it is eventually introduced.[185][186] The divisions extended to the governing Liberal Party, whose president rejected claims that religious freedom could be under threat, in direct contradiction to the party's vice-president, who said that same-sex marriage would have consequences for freedom of speech, religion and association.[187][188]

Both Prime Minister Turnbull and Bill Shorten, leader of the Opposition, spoke in favour of religious freedom protections, with Turnbull stating he was an even "stronger believer" in freedom of religion than same-sex marriage.[189] Shorten said the Labor Party would "make sure that concerns about religious freedom are met with and dealt with and are treated with respect".[190] The prospect of additional religious freedom exemptions being added to existing Australian anti-discrimination law troubled some "Yes" advocates, who feared such provisions could allow service providers to discriminate on any basis, not just limited to couples' sex. Tiernan Brady described the campaign for religious freedom exemptions as "a blatant attempt to unravel existing anti-discrimination laws which serve everyone in Australia well, not just LGBTI people".[191]

In response to a Newspoll question on the subject; "Do you think parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage?", 62% responded Yes, 18% responded No and 20% said they were "uncommitted".[170] A poll conducted by Galaxy later in the survey found 78% of respondents said Yes in response to the question; "If the majority vote 'yes' in the postal survey, should same-sex couples be treated the same under the law compared with other couples?"[192]

An inquiry into religious freedoms, headed by Philip Ruddock, was announced in November 2017. This has been interpreted as a way to allow the speedy passage of the Dean Smith bill and postpone discussions of religious freedom.[193] It completed a report on 18 May 2018,[194] which was not publicly released until 13 December 2018,[195] although the recommendations were leaked to Fairfax Media in October 2018.[196] The government responded by proposing a religious discrimination act.[195]

Advertising and media

Файл:Pro-marriage equality wall in Redfern, New South Wales.jpg
A shop wall in Redfern, New South Wales, with the signage "Yes" painted in the colours of the LGBT flag, designed to demonstrate the support for the survey.

Advertising by both sides was extensive for much of the survey period. The first television ad for the "No" campaign, revealed shortly after the campaign began, featured three women and focused on the Safe Schools education program.[197] The "Yes" campaign promptly aired a rebuttal by Dr. Kerryn Phelps.[198] A "No" supporter funded the skywritten message "Vote No" over Sydney in September, which was defended by Turnbull as an expression of free speech.[199] In Melbourne, a giant "NO" was written in the sky in response to the survey.[200]

Subsequent "Yes" ads focused heavily on a concerted "get out the vote" effort, and featured high-profile figures such as Ian Thorpe and others posting their surveys, as well as a themed ad screened during the finale of popular television show The Bachelor.[201][202] The "Yes" campaign were also responsible for a widespread SMS message to many Australian mobile phones which lead to some complaints over how people's numbers were obtained, however the campaign advised the numbers were generated through random dialling technology previously used in elections.[203]

Both of the "No" campaign's next most prominent advertisements concentrated mostly on the notion of gender theory in school curriculum, one such ad focusing on the book The Gender Fairy and featuring two of the mothers from the original advertisement.[204][205] The other advertisement included archive footage of one of the founders of the Safe Schools program and included material alleged to have been available for viewing by year seven students which was subsequently deemed inappropriate for unrestricted viewing by the Australian Commercial Television Code of Practice.[206][207] As of mid-September, prominent "No" campaigner Lyle Shelton was mentioned across news outlets more times than the leading three "Yes" campaigners, Alex Greenwich, Tiernan Brady and Sally Rugg, combined.[208]

Файл:Marriage Equality stickers.png
Rainbow flag-patterned stickers on mail boxes asking for no anti-equality or hate mail. Similar stickers were promoted as a way to show support for same-sex marriage and reduce the amount of unwanted materials received.[209]

Legislation in effect for the duration of the survey made it illegal to vilify, intimidate, threaten or harm "on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or religion", with a fine of up to $12,600 for breaches.[210] Furthermore, all campaign material was required to be properly authorised.[211] By 26 September, marketing services group Ebiquity estimated that the lead "No" group (Coalition for Marriage) had spent about $3,975,872 on advertising, a figure higher than their estimate for the two lead "Yes" groups (Australian Marriage Equality and the Equality Campaign), about $2,920,740.[212] Two donations of note were made in the course of the survey; $1 million was personally donated by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce to the "Yes" campaign, and $1 million was donated by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to the "No" campaign.[213][214] Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in November that the "No" campaign had 20,000 donors who donated around $6 million to the campaign.[215]

At the 2017 NRL Grand Final, American rapper Macklemore was booked to perform several songs, including "Same Love".[216] The song topped the Australian charts in 2013, and was regarded as an anthem for same-sex marriage advocates during the campaign in Macklemore's home state of Washington. In the days leading up to the grand final, the single returned to the top of the Australian iTunes charts.[217] Several prominent conservative politicians voiced strong opposition to the scheduled performance of "Same Love", given its high-profile support for the "Yes" campaign during the voting period of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.[218][219] Macklemore acknowledged the controversy several days before the final, but vowed to "go harder" as a result.[220]

A nationwide study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual mental health found that increased exposure to negative, anti-LGBT media messages during the postal survey was related to increased levels of depressions, anxiety, and stress.[221]

Discussion of impact on children

The rights and welfare of children, particularly as it related to same-sex parenting, was occasionally discussed publicly through the survey. Organisations such as the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Presbyterian Church of Australia and the Australian National Imams Council all advocated strongly for nuclear family structures during the survey.[184][222][223] A fact check article published in The Conversation, which was based on a review of the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents, showed equal or better outcomes for children raised by parents of the same gender.[224] Likewise, a review published late in the survey period by the Medical Journal of Australia agreed with The Conversation's findings, but noted that the effects of being exposed to stigma and discrimination could lead to poorer public health outcomes for the children in same-sex parented families.[225]

Counselling for those impacted and mental health

A number of helplines, counselling services and mental health strategies were made available to LGBTIQ people by several organisations, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.[226] Similar services were available for Defence,[227] Victorian local councils[228] and health services such as Alfred Health.[229] State governments in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland all allocated additional funds, ranging from $60,000 to $500,000, to LGBTIQ mental health services.[230][231][232]

Other groups, such as Slater and Gordon, the Australian Psychological Society and Minus 18 unveiled material and mechanisms designed to offer support and relief for those affected by the debate, such as parents of young children and LGBTIQ teenagers who experienced difficulties dealing with the public discussion.[233][234][235]

The survey period was associated with increases in the number of LGBTIQ people requesting assistance for mental health issues. Reach Out Australia, which lead the pro-same-sex marriage campaign by five mental health services, reported increases (variously at) 20,[236] 30[237] and 40[238][239] per cent in clients during the survey period and crisis support service Lifeline noted a spike in calls about the impact of the survey.[240] Mental health surveys conducted during this period showed that increased exposure to the 'no' campaign was related to increased levels of depression, anxiety, and stress amongst same-sex attracted Australians.[221] Shorten wrote to Turnbull about increasing the funding for mental health services during the survey from the federal budget, but did not receive a response.[241]

Vandalism and abuse

The survey was accompanied by a variety of acts of vandalism and abuse by both parties. In September, a banner reading "Burn Churches, Not Queers" was unfurled at a Coalition for Marriage meeting,[242] and in October several churches in Victoria and New South Wales were graffitied with messages criticising "No" voters.[243][244][245] Similarly, a passenger train on the Sydney Trains network was vandalised with messages encouraging "No" votes, including foul language and the Nazi swastika.[246] The ABC created a digital news service designed to track incidents of violence and abuse throughout the survey, with both "Yes" and "No" voters/organisations being targeted on occasions.[247]

Result

National result

Шаблон:Referendum

Шаблон:Referendum bar

State and territory breakdown

The Australian Capital Territory recorded the strongest "Yes" vote at 74% while New South Wales had the lowest level of support at 57.8%.[248] All other jurisdictions had above 60% support, with Victoria the leading state on 64.9% support.[248]

Breakdown of voting by state and territory[2]
State/Territory Yes No Invalid Participation
rate (%)
Votes % Votes %
Шаблон:Yes2 New South Wales 2,374,362 57.8 1,736,838 42.2 11,036 79.5
Шаблон:Yes2 Victoria 2,145,629 64.9 1,161,098 35.1 11,028 81.7
Шаблон:Yes2 Queensland 1,487,060 60.7 961,015 39.3 7,088 77.9
Шаблон:Yes2 Western Australia 801,575 63.7 455,924 36.3 3,188 78.4
Шаблон:Yes2 South Australia 592,528 62.5 356,247 37.5 2,778 79.7
Шаблон:Yes2 Tasmania 191,948 63.6 109,655 36.4 805 79.7
Шаблон:Yes2 Australian Capital Territory 175,459 74.0 61,520 26.0 534 82.5
Шаблон:Yes2 Northern Territory 48,686 60.6 31,690 39.4 229 58.4
Total for country 7,817,247 61.6 4,873,987 38.4 36,686 79.5

Electorate breakdown

Demographic factors

Файл:SSM 2017 demographic data.png
Australia's 150 electorates plotted between survey responses and selected demographic characteristics (derived from 2016 Australian census)

A majority of survey participants returned affirmative responses in 133 electorates. The 17 electorates with majority negative responses were predominantly in Western Sydney (12 electorates), as well as rural Queensland (three electorates) and outer suburban Melbourne (two electorates). Defying a national trend, in New South Wales, country participants were more likely to vote yes than their city counterparts.[249]

Most electorates either swung heavily in favour or against same sex marriage. There were only 25 electorates in which the result was between 45 and 55 per cent. In contrast, 41 electorates at the 2016 Australian federal election had two party preferred results within the same degree of margin (±5 per cent). At the 2013 election, 49 electorates were as approximately close.[250]

The heavy concentration of negative responses in working-class, multicultural Western Sydney led to speculation about the underlying economic and demographic factors leading to the result. The Guardian noted that the portion of persons holding religious beliefs in an electorate was one of the strongest factors, calculating a -0.8 correlation between religion and responding affirmatively. Islam, followed by Oriental Orthodox and Catholicism were the strongest predictors of negative responses. Affirmative responses were correlated to income and education, and to a lesser extent, being born in Australia.[251]

There was a higher percentage of responses to the survey from 18 and 19 year olds than any other age group under 45, despite concerns during the survey period that this group would be disenfranchised.[252]

Aftermath

Marriage Amendment Act

Шаблон:Main Several hours after the results of the survey were released, Senator Dean Smith introduced the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 into the Australian Senate.[253] The bill amended the definition of "marriage" in the Marriage Act to recognise a "union of 2 people",[254] which would enable same-sex marriage.[253] The bill drafted by Liberal Senator James Paterson, which would have extended further protections and exemptions for people opposed to same-sex marriage was dropped, with the Senator and several conservative MPs instead deciding to offer amendments to the Smith bill during parliamentary debate.[255] There was some unresolved disagreement by politicians who advocated for a "No" result as to whether further religious protections should be added to the Smith bill as an amendment at this time or whether a later bill for this purpose should be considered.[256]

The bill passed the Senate by 43 votes to 12 on 29 November 2017, with none of the amendments providing further protections and exemptions being accepted.[257] Openly gay MP and same-sex marriage advocate Tim Wilson proposed in Parliament to his partner, Ryan Bolger, who was in the public gallery.[258] Bolger accepted Wilson's proposal. It was the first known engagement on the floor of the House of Representatives.[258] The bill passed the House of Representatives without amendment on 7 December 2017.[3] It received royal assent on 8 December 2017 and came into effect the following day.[259] Existing same-sex marriages performed outside Australia were recognized from 9 December, while new marriages required one month's notice, and so began from 9 January 2018.[260][261] Several couples successfully applied for an exemption from the notice period,[262] and the first legal same-sex wedding under Australian law was held on 15 December 2017, with further weddings occurring the following day.[263][264]

Democratic representation

The survey revealed differences between the views of some MPs and the majority of their constituents on this issue. Several Labor MPs in Western Sydney electorates recommitted to voting in favour of same-sex marriage legislation, despite majority "No" votes among their constituents. Labor Senator Sam Dastyari acknowledged this issue, noting there was a "huge disconnect" of views on same-sex marriage within traditionally Labor-held seats in Western Sydney.[265][266] Similarly, several Liberal MPs and Senators said they would vote "No" irrespective of the result in their electorate or state.[267][268][269]

Reactions

Alex Greenwich of the "Yes" campaign stated the survey results represented a level of "unprecedented support and momentum [that] has exceeded the expectations, not just of this campaign, but any campaign in our history".[270] Spokesperson for the "No" campaign and the Coalition for Marriage, Lyle Shelton said it was a disappointing result, but he accepted and respected the verdict of the people. Tony Abbott said the Parliament should "respect the result".[271]

Speaking immediately after the survey results were released, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the outcome "overwhelming" and recommitted to passing same-sex marriage legislation in the Parliament before Christmas.[272] Opposition Leader Bill Shorten shared that commitment and called on conservative MPs in the government to respect the will of the people and not attempt any delaying tactics in the parliament.[273] The verdict announcement was watched and celebrated by tens of thousands of "Yes" supporters in capital cities. In Melbourne, several thousand people gathered outside the State Library of Victoria to watch the results before celebrations began in Melbourne's Lygon Street that evening.[274] The huge "Yes" vote in Victoria prompted Premier Daniel Andrews to label the result reflective of Victoria's reputation as "the most progressive state" in the nation.[275] A large crowd also descended on Prince Alfred Park in Sydney for the announcement, which included high-profile figures Magda Szubanski and Ian Thorpe in attendance.[276] Reflecting on the atmosphere in Sydney, local newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald claimed the results reflected "a momentous civil rights milestone" for Australia.[276] Smaller crowds also gathered in several locations in Canberra, Adelaide and Perth to celebrate the result.[277][278][279] In Canberra (capital city of the Australian Capital Territory, the jurisdiction with the highest "Yes" vote in the country), the results were celebrated festively into the night, as thousands of people forced the closure of Lonsdale Street in the city. Labor Party Senator Penny Wong's appearance onstage at the event "drew thunderous applause from a crowd of thousands".[280]

The results were welcomed by many representatives of Australia's business community. Among the highest profile of them was Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who called it "an amazing outcome and we should all be very proud of this amazing country", an observation shared by leaders of corporate bodies Telstra and ANZ Bank.[281] Businesses related to the wedding industry, such as florists, bakers and others were poised to reap the benefit of what some projected to be a multi-billion dollar boost to the industry over the following 12 months.[282] The social media coverage of the results announcement was so immense that, with more than 4000 tweets sent every second during the peak of the day, the survey results trend was more than 10 times as popular as Australia's "race that stops the nation", the Melbourne Cup.[283]

In celebration of the "Yes" vote, a Sydney-based visual artist painted a large, "light-hearted mural"[284] on the wall of the Botany View Hotel, Newtown, depicting Tony Abbott with his hand down the pants of Cardinal George Pell.[285] The mural was later defaced and painted over in black paint. The visual artist said he planned to leave the defaced mural as it was, stating "when you're making public art, the reaction is important, the reaction is needed".[286]

Archbishop Denis Hart of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne issued a statement on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, saying the results did not change the church's understandings of marriage and noting the 4.8 million Australians who voted "No" should have their concerns recognised by "putting in place strong conscience and religious freedom protections".[287] These sentiments were shared by the leaders of the Anglican Church of Australia.[288] Reflecting on the heavily concentrated "No" vote prominent in Western Sydney electorates, Keysar Trad, former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, labelled it "heartening" and praised the role of faith leaders in both the Muslim and Christian communities in the region.[289] Being born overseas has been noted to correlate with a "No" response and religious belief to correlate even more strongly.[290] Social progressives received criticism for allegedly ignoring the "No" vote among Islamic communities, though a Guardian blog argued that religion was connected with the "No" vote.[291][292]

World leaders to congratulate Australia for the result included Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada) and Theresa May (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom).[293][294]

The survey ran more than $40 million under its projected budget of $122 million.[295] Greens leader Richard Di Natale wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that some of the unused funds be redirected to mental health and other support services for LGBT Australians hurt by the campaign.[239] The survey added $26.3 million in revenue to Australia Post.[296]

Mental health impact

A 2019 University of Sydney study found that the same-sex marriage debate led to elevated psychological distress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people during the survey period, including increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress.[297][298] The research also found that same-sex attracted Australians benefitted from public displays of support from family and friends, which increased their resilience during the process.[298] Another 2019 study conducted for the Australia Institute similarly found that "the marriage equality debate represented an acute external minority stress event that had measurable negative impacts on mental health of LGBTIQ people and their allies".[299]

See also

Шаблон:Portal

Other same-sex marriage referendums

Notes

Шаблон:Reflist Шаблон:Notelist

References

Шаблон:Reflist

Further reading

Шаблон:Refbegin

Шаблон:Refend

External links

Шаблон:LGBT in Australia Шаблон:Australian elections

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 Шаблон:Cite web
  2. ↑ 2,0 2,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  3. ↑ 3,0 3,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  4. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  5. ↑ The definition is found in Hyde v Hyde (1866) {L.R.} 1 P. & D. 130
  6. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  7. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  8. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  9. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  10. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  11. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  12. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  13. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  14. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  15. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  16. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  17. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  18. ↑ 18,0 18,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  19. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  20. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  21. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  22. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  23. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  24. ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег <ref>; для сносок OfficialReport не указан текст
  25. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  26. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  27. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  28. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  29. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  30. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  31. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  32. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  33. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  34. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  35. ↑ 35,0 35,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  36. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  37. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  38. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  39. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  40. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  41. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  42. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  43. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  44. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  45. ↑ 45,0 45,1 45,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  46. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  47. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  48. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  49. ↑ Шаблон:Cite AustLII.
  50. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  51. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  52. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  53. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  54. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  55. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  56. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  57. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  58. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  59. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  60. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  61. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  62. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  63. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  64. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  65. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  66. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  67. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  68. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  69. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  70. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  71. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  72. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  73. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  74. ↑ 74,0 74,1 74,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  75. ↑ 75,0 75,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  76. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  77. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  78. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  79. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  80. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  81. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  82. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  83. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  84. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  85. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  86. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  87. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  88. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  89. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  90. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  91. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  92. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  93. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  94. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  95. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  96. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  97. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  98. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  99. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  100. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  101. ↑ 101,0 101,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  102. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  103. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  104. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  105. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  106. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  107. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  108. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  109. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  110. ↑ 110,0 110,1 110,2 110,3 110,4 Шаблон:Cite web
  111. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  112. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  113. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  114. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
    Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
  115. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  116. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  117. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  118. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  119. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  120. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  121. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
    Шаблон:Cite web
  122. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  123. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  124. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  125. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  126. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  127. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  128. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  129. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  130. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  131. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  132. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  133. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  134. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  135. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  136. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  137. ↑ 137,0 137,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  138. ↑ 138,0 138,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  139. ↑ 139,0 139,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  140. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  141. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  142. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  143. ↑ 143,0 143,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  144. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  145. ↑ 145,0 145,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  146. ↑ 146,0 146,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  147. ↑ 147,0 147,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  148. ↑ 148,0 148,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  149. ↑ 149,0 149,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  150. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  151. ↑ 151,0 151,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  152. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  153. ↑ 153,0 153,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  154. ↑ 154,0 154,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  155. ↑ 155,0 155,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  156. ↑ 156,0 156,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  157. ↑ 157,0 157,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  158. ↑ 158,0 158,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  159. ↑ 159,0 159,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  160. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  161. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  162. ↑ 162,0 162,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  163. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  164. ↑ 164,0 164,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  165. ↑ 165,0 165,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  166. ↑ 166,0 166,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  167. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  168. ↑ 168,0 168,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  169. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  170. ↑ 170,0 170,1 170,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  171. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  172. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  173. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  174. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  175. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  176. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  177. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  178. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  179. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  180. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  181. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  182. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  183. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  184. ↑ 184,0 184,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  185. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  186. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  187. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  188. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  189. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  190. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  191. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  192. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  193. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  194. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  195. ↑ 195,0 195,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  196. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  197. ↑ Paul Karp, (29 August 2017), Coalition for Marriage ad blitz links marriage equality to gender education: No campaign ads claim schools will allow boys to wear dresses and compel students to role play same-sex relationships, The Guardian Шаблон:Webarchive. Retrieved 1 September 2017
  198. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  199. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  200. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  201. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  202. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  203. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  204. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  205. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  206. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  207. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  208. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  209. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  210. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  211. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  212. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  213. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  214. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  215. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  216. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  217. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  218. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  219. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  220. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  221. ↑ 221,0 221,1 Шаблон:Cite journal
  222. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  223. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  224. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  225. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  226. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  227. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  228. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  229. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  230. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  231. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  232. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  233. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  234. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  235. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  236. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  237. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  238. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  239. ↑ 239,0 239,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  240. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  241. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  242. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  243. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  244. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  245. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  246. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  247. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  248. ↑ 248,0 248,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  249. ↑ 249,0 249,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  250. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  251. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  252. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  253. ↑ 253,0 253,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  254. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  255. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  256. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  257. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  258. ↑ 258,0 258,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  259. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  260. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  261. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  262. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  263. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  264. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  265. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  266. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  267. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  268. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  269. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  270. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  271. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  272. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  273. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  274. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  275. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  276. ↑ 276,0 276,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  277. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  278. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  279. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  280. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  281. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  282. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  283. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  284. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  285. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  286. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  287. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  288. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  289. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  290. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  291. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  292. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  293. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  294. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  295. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  296. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  297. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  298. ↑ 298,0 298,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  299. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey&oldid=13323428