Centre for Applied Political Psychology finds 40.4% in favour but support erodes as voters are given more information

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

More people support a plebiscite on marriage equality than oppose it but nearly one in three are undecided and support erodes as voters are given more information, a new poll has found.

The national survey of 3,000 voting-age Australians found 40.4% supported a plebiscite – significantly fewer than a smaller poll, which reportedly found 70% in favour.

The new poll, conducted by the Centre for Applied Political Psychology (CAPP), found 29.5% of people were “broadly against” but 30.1% were undecided.

When researchers told respondents the poll was not binding on parliament and some politicians said they would not abide by the outcome, 52.1% reported being less likely to support the plebiscite.

Last week Malcolm Turnbull confirmed that the result of a plebiscite would not bind Coalition MPs’ vote in parliament.

Marriage equality: Shorten says Turnbull held hostage by conservatives on plebiscite Read more

When respondents were told that the Australian Psychological Society and some religious leaders opposed the plebiscite, a minority said that made them less likely to support it.

Matt Farrugia, a research director at CAPP, said the poll showed lower support for a plebiscite than other recent research because of the high percentage of undecided respondents – almost a third.

“It’s clear from our research that the proportion of Australians who are undecided on their support or opposition for a plebiscite on marriage equality is greater than previous research indicates.”

Shelley Argent, the national spokeswoman for Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays, said the poll undermined the idea that a plebiscite had popular appeal.

“This national survey found that support for a plebiscite is lower than politicians assume and collapses once voters understand it will be a burden on taxpayers, won’t bind politicians and will damage the mental health of vulnerable people,” she said.

“This matter needs to be dealt with sensibly in the federal parliament and not reduced to a slanging match in the public square with our children used as political punching bags.

“As parents, we call on Mr Turnbull to show leadership and have a free vote so our LGBTI children and their families are protected from the abuse and indignity of an ugly public debate over their right to equality under the law.”

The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, said a plebiscite would “dredge up prejudice”.

“In Australia, no one should have to justify their relationships and their sexuality to anyone else – it’s no one’s business but theirs,” he said. “And, under the Labor party, the parliament will do its job. We will legislate to make marriage equality a reality within the first hundred days of a new Labor government.”

On Sunday the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said MPs had to make their own judgment but he would respect a majority vote in favour even though he was not a supporter of same-sex marriage.

He rejected Labor criticism a plebiscite would unleash a torrent of gay hate speech.

“There is a diversity of strongly held views, which are all legitimate from people’s perspective,” Cormann told Sky News.

His ministerial colleague Dan Tehan refused to say whether he would abide by a plebiscite result.

Tehan, who opposes same-sex marriage, was asked about suggestions Coalition MPs, including ministers, would be free to oppose the result if their electorates voted against.



Asked what he would do if constituents in his Victorian regional seat of Wannon said no to same-sex marriage, Tehan told ABC TV: “I don’t know what they will say.”



The independent senator Glenn Lazarus said he would vote against a plebiscite if he was returned to the Senate.

Lazarus was once a supporter of a plebiscite but changed his mind after chairing the legal and constitutional affairs references committee.

“I’m against the same-sex plebiscite,” he said. “There was some very good evidence that would indicate that we shouldn’t have a plebiscite because the anti-marriage equality people could get very nasty for one.

“We should just change the Marriage Act but at the very least we should have a conscience vote.”