I hold the view that Parliament is there to govern. If you can muster the votes you do the deal. That the use of referenda/plebiscite (call it what you will) to determine matters of the moment should be limited to a quite narrow range of what may be broadly characterised as constitutional issues.
In Oz the Turnbull government is pressing ahead with its determination to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Just why they wouldn't allow parliamentarians to determine the matter on a conscience vote quite beats me ... actually it doesn't. Certainly the coalition is split on the matter and having it determined by plebiscite is a convenient way to wash their hands of the issue.
I guess they will argue it was in their election manifesto but the counter would be that few electors would have determined their vote solely on that question.
I see that Shorten is opposing the move on the basis that public debate on the matter may cause 'closet' gays to commit suicide. Shorten is as doppy as Turnbull in running that line.
I declare my hand. I am neutral on the question of same-sex marriage tending opposed. I guess that's me reflective of my generation. I'm unsure how I would react if one of my children/grandchildren were to involve themselves that in that sort of relationship but, in the end, it's their decision and I'm not going to play God. They would have my support.
I also believe in parliamentary democracy. I elect my MP to make decisions and in a conscience vote decision to do would he/she thinks right having consulted widely in the electorate.
Not sure that across the ditch they have reached that level of maturity.