The case will come down to constitutional questions about the power of the executive branch of government in relation to parliament. That may seem pretty weak, but we should not assume the court will rule against the government. The government’s defence to these points is essentially that it decides what is urgent and unforeseen because it is the government. There’s also nothing unforeseen about a postal vote because cabinet ministers have been discussing it since the beginning of the year. It’s true that marriage equality is urgent, but there’s nothing urgent about surveying the community on it. Our case broadly argues that the postal vote is an unconstitutional overreach by the government because it is spending money without parliament’s approval.īoth cases argue the specific point that the power the government has used – a law allowing the finance minister to spend money on things urgent and unforeseen – is not appropriate because a postal vote is neither urgent nor unforeseen. The second case is from Australian Marriage Equality and the Greens LGBTI spokesperson, senator Janet Rice. This case also involves the Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie, who has a history of challenging government overreach. They are concerned about the platform a postal vote will give to hate.
The first, which I helped organise, is from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and lesbian mum of three, Felicity Marlowe.
