Federal

Mar 14, 2016

Abetz says $525m plebiscite cost does not include sad conservatives’ lost productivity

Eric Abetz says gay marriage opponents might be too sad to work if everyone in Australia had equal rights.

Josh Taylor — Journalist

Josh Taylor

Journalist

One of Australian Parliament’s staunchest opponents to marriage equality, disempowered Liberal backbencher Eric Abetz, has described a report estimating the cost of a plebiscite at $525 million as “skewed” and says the cost to productivity due to hurt feelings of gay marriage opponents should the Marriage Act be amended has not been taken into consideration.

11 comments

Leave a comment

11 thoughts on “Abetz says $525m plebiscite cost does not include sad conservatives’ lost productivity

  1. Djbekka

    Here I’ve been expecting that a Coalition win with Mr Turnbull at the helm would just amend the Marriage Act as Howard did a decade or so ago. Are you saying Abetz and co. would insist on the plebiscite even then? Oh no! Also what about the extra lawyer fees for all the divorces for opponents of same sex marriage, so no one would think they were gay from their civil status?

  2. zut alors

    To think this Coalition government had the temerity to accuse the previous Labor govt of “spending money like drunken sailors.”

    Don’t forget that at the conclusion of this plebiscite there’s no guarantee a Turnbull govt would reflect voter opinion and pass the legislation.

  3. David Hand

    All this silly posturing makes this debate look more like the BREXIT campaign every day. Why doesn’t the pro-gay marriage set just start campaigning for it and ensure they win?

    You can talk about the cost of so obscure modelling about the economic value of voting on a Saturday but it’s ridiculous. What about the boost to our GDP through all that petrol we are supposed to spend getting to the vote? How do you assess the economic impact of someone switching off the TV for an hour? Think of all those ads they will miss.

    The plebiscite will pass same sex marriage and the PWC spin is a fatuous joke.

  4. Matters Peter

    It is high time we all used the English language more accurately in clearly stating the very considerable difference between ‘reactionary’ and ‘conservative’.

  5. Jaybuoy

    So half a Billion on an insultingly homophobic sop to Supamals nutjob rump..

  6. klewso

    Why do we pay politicians not to do what they’re elected to do?

  7. AR

    A couple of ‘does not compute’ elements – if the sop of a plebiscite was the issue that finally tipped the party room into getting rid of Abbott, why is Talcum still beholden, given his (alleged) views, to the reactionary rump?
    And “the plebiscite could be held in October, with the change to the law made shortly after.” is a little optimistic given the declared intention of EricA et al to vote against any change, no matter the outcome.

  8. Justin Harding

    Oh, for pity’s sake …

  9. A.Blot

    Abetz told ABC’s AM program this morning that PwC was seeking the outcome it desired by making the economic impact cost so high. Abetz also said that people also had to consider what the cost of democracy should be, and said it “can’t be reduced to bean-counting”.

    This coming from someone that refuses to have it solved by a vote in Parliament and is willing to waste more than $150 million on something that that can ignore. Democracy! he’s got no idea of the meaning.

  10. klewso

    Abetz idea of “work choices”?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...