If you were an alien visiting Australia for the first time, you would no doubt be wracking your superior brain, confronted with this furious debate on whether or not to have a plebiscite on marriage equality.

As an evolved form of life, once you got past the fact there was a law preventing two terrestrials who loved each other committing to be together in front of their chosen deity, you’d refer to the data and wonder what all the fuss is about.

As this week’s Essential poll shows, even with a question framed around “approval” rather than rights, by a factor of more than two to one, across all demographics, you would conclude there was popular support for the proposition.

From the gathered data you would also conclude that Australians like the idea of having a direct say in issues that affect them. Yes, the numbers drop to 43% for a national vote versus 41% for a parliamentary vote when you let them know how much it will cost the taxpayer, but that is the debating point not the substantive issue.

Dig even deeper and you would find a general recognition that the plebiscite will pass, particularly among those who support the proposition.



But your comprehensive, state-funded education would have taught you that data only makes sense when put it in context.



You would observe humans, notably the LGBTI community and observe they are the least enthusiastic about a public vote.

You would understand their fears that a taxpayer-funded “No” campaign driven by churches and the conservative right would unleash the sorts of demons they are trying so hard to put to rest.

You would look at teen suicide rates and the ongoing incidents of hate crime and understand why the people who have the most to gain from a change to the marriage laws also fear they have the most to lose.

And you would look at the history of civil rights advances in Australia and understand their sense of indignation, that they – peculiar to all previous minority groups who have fought for equality – are being forced to “prove their value” via a national vote.

Then you would embark on a systems analysis on the way these humans organise themselves, based on the quaint ideas of democracy under the general category of “politics”.

You would recognise the Greens see the plebiscite as an opportunity to prove its relevance after an underwhelming election campaign, determined to seize the high moral ground as the voice of the LGBTI community, getting to market first on its opposition to the plebiscite without having to wear the “spoiler tag” if the whole thing falls over.

You would see the emerging minor parties with progressive social views, like the Xenophon team, not wanting the Greens to steal a march after hoovering up so many of their voters just months ago.

You would see the conservative wing of the Coalition, quite happy for the vote to hold a plebiscite to fail, because they know their stranglehold on the party room means a free vote is impossible. You would understand that the best way of stopping a debate is to make sure it doesn’t even get to the starting line. You would see that that’s been the idea from the start, make the mechanism for marriage equality so complicated that it was sure to fall.

And then you would see an emboldened Labor opposition happy to toy with this weakened prime minister, recognising that the longer the plebiscite debate rolls the more mainstream Australia will see him as captured by his conservative backbench, reinforcing the gap between his stated values and his actions that has eroded his personal reputation since he acquired the leadership 12 short months ago.

Malcolm Turnbull, please don't break the nation's heart over marriage equality | Kristina Keneally Read more

You would deduce that Labor is in no rush to resolve the issue, and you would predict they would demand to see the enabling legislation and then likely block it on the basis that it has been drafted in a way that undermines its chances of success.

And you would see their long game, setting up an issue with majority public support as a key issue in an election that, with a one seat majority government, could well occur sooner rather than later.

And then you would realise there is only one person who really has anything to gain from a plebiscite going ahead, and that is the prime minister, who argued so strongly against it in his own party room.

Because you would realise that the plebiscite is the only way the PM can thread the needle between the demands of his conservative base and the expectations of the Australian public. You would see that by running a process designed by those opposed to change, that he is confident that he alone can deliver for the sceptical masses, even if history suggests it could end in tears.

Then your superior power of reasoning would come to the truth about the marriage equality plebiscite – that this debate is not actually about marriage equality anymore, if it ever was. It’s about one man’s ability to govern and his opponents’ willingness to let him try.

And thus you would end your Antipodean mission somewhat perplexed, assured that there was no immediate prospect of this particular life form developing the capacity to jump the space time continuum and convinced that Tony Abbott was still running the country.