Dig a little deeper though, and you’ll realise as I did that a postal plebiscite is just about the furthest thing from an ideal solution the Government could’ve gone done and thought up.

As it turns out, most people aren’t happy with the whole shebang, except perhaps the more right-leaning members of the Coalition. Former Justice of the High Court Michael Kirby has initially publicly stated his intention to boycott the vote, saying it sets a “dangerous precedent”. He joins countless others who rejected the idea of a SSM postal plebiscite on principle. Former Justice Kirby has, however, subsequently indicated that if there is no High Court challenge, or if there is no successful High Court challenge, he will be voting in the postal survey. And while I’ll still be voting, in spite of the Charlie Foxtrot that this has become, I think it’s important that people are informed before they decide whether or not to vote. So here goes my attempt to guide you through the minefield that is the SSM postal plebiscite.

A ‘novel’ approach (and a dangerous precedent)

A vote of this nature is unheard of in the Australian context.

By definition, it’s not even a plebiscite – it’s a national, non-binding, voluntary survey (which is reflected in its formal name: The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey). This is a totally novel approach and one that bypasses parliamentary process. Legislation does not need to be passed to hold a national survey of this nature – that’s why it can happen in spite of opposition from the other major parties in Parliament.

Whoever came up with this is a pretty smart cookie, albeit one who perhaps lacks an appreciation for ethics and human rights.

Symbolically, the SSM postal plebiscite subjects the rights of a minority group to the will of the majority, despite the fact that such rights are typically considered to be fundamental and inalienable.

This is a backwards step in terms of social progress, and that’s without even mentioning the vilification that a vote of this nature is likely to expose LGBTI people to. In fact, what Malcolm Turnbull maintained would be a respectful debate has already turned very nasty, and the postal plebiscite isn’t even guaranteed to happen yet (more on that later).

Anti-LGBTI posters featuring the slogan “stop the fags” (not to mention some horrendously inaccurate statistics) appeared in Melbourne last week, prompting Malcs to come out and plead with both sides of the debate to be respectful.

There’s even bigger issues at stake here. The SSM postal plebiscite sets a dangerous precedent that may see other minority rights subjected to a voluntary postal vote in the future. Being in Government is not supposed to be all smooth sailing – if our politicians can’t make the decisions they are elected to make, what is the basis for the social contract between citizen and government?

Show me the money

Under normal circumstances, the Government can only spend money if it has been authorised to do so by statute or where such spending is incidental to the executive power of the Commonwealth. Since the postal plebiscite has no legislative underpinning and does not satisfy the ‘incidental to the executive power of the Commonwealth’ provision, the Government had to find another way to fund the plebiscite.

Enter Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

The Government is planning to fund the postal plebiscite under the Finance Minister’s Advance, which is provided for in the Appropriation Act and allows the Finance Minister to make $295 million available under certain circumstances. Still with me? Okay, good.

Constitutional challenges

That brings us to the Constitutional challenges that have been brought against the postal vote, which will be heard by the High Court in early September. The postal plebiscite is being challenged on two grounds, the first being whether the Government has the authority to spend money on an ABS-run postal survey. It appears that Minister Cormann may not have saved the day just yet.

The second challenge centres on the constitutionality of directing the ABS to run the survey, and in particular the meaning of ‘statistical information’. Even though ‘statistical information’ is not defined in the Census & Statistics Act, the ABS can’t just conduct surveys willy-nilly. The Bureau can only collect statistical information by means other than the Census on a list of topics, which is contained in the regulations that the ABS is administered under. Even when directed to do so by Government, the ABS cannot stray from this exhaustive list of topics. And while ‘marriage’ is on the list, some experts are questioning whether voters’ opinions can be classed as ‘statistical information’.

This already doesn’t bode well for the Government’s stroke of genius.

For something to be ‘statistical’, it must be weighted to counteract any skewing. This ensures that the views of all demographics are accurately and proportionately represented in the result. The Government is yet to reveal any plans it has to correct the results of the postal plebiscite for the likelihood that it will over-represent the opinions of baby boomers, and under-represent those of the homeless, silent electors, rural populations, and people overseas. Further, the only way to ensure the integrity of the voting process would be to issue voting papers with personal identifiers, which flies right in the face of privacy laws that dictate how the ABS can use the data they collect about us.

This is a recipe for High Court failure if I ever heard one.

What exactly are we to make of all this?

If either (or both) of the High Court challenges are successful, we’ll be back to a Parliamentary deadlock on same-sex marriage. This deadlock would likely persist until the next change of Government.

Even if the postal plebiscite does go ahead, the result will not be binding on the Government, and we could end up back where we were before the phrase ‘postal plebiscite’ was even so much as uttered.

This is an undemocratic, unjust, and downright backwards proposal. I’m living in New Zealand at the moment and, to be honest, I’ve been trying to avoid telling people where I’m from. The accent is a bit of a giveaway but, fortunately, I lived in the UK for 12 years so it’s passable for British (although then I have to answer questions about Brexit so it’s a bit of a Catch-22). New Zealand politics is much more sensible, even with an election fast approaching. Trying to explain how Australia got where it is regarding SSM as if it’s anything but an absurd reality has been painful, to say the least.

In an ideal world, we’d settle this with a fight to the death between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turn- I mean, uh, a conscience vote on the floor of Parliament. Jokes aside, this is a sad moment for Australian politics and democracy. But, ultimately, any shot at legalising same-sex marriage is better than nothing.

That’s why I’ll be voting if the postal plebiscite goes ahead.

*Editor’s note: BucketOrange Magazine supports marriage equality and encourages our readers to vote in the upcoming postal plebiscite.

Further Information

• How To Enrol To Vote In The Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite
• Same-Sex Postal Plebiscite: Where The Circus Is Headed From Here
• Everything You Need To Know About The Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite

In Australia, there are two things that set Gen Y (persons born between 1981 and 2000) apart.

1. They are independent and informed: more than any other generation, access to quality and accurate information on financial matters is never more than a few clicks away.

2. They are forward-thinking and adaptable: imminent changes likely to impact this generation’s future financial security have led young Australians to seek alternative ways to build and retain wealth.

This means that the way Gen Y go about investing money will be vastly different from previous generations.

Here we explore some upcoming government changes to superannuation, the likely impact on young Australians and the smartest investments you can make based on your age and financial situation.

Ch-ch-ch-ch Changes

A serious question that needs to be asked is whether Gen Y will see a cent of its superannuation?

If you think this is radical, insane or just downright silly, recent reports indicate that the government is already starting to make changes – the impact of which will be visible in the not too distant future. Over many years several commentators, including Kris Sayce at Port Phillip Publishing, have been vocal in foreshadowing these developments. You can find some of his work at Money Morning.

Some estimates are that the Australian Super pie currently sits at $2 trillion and that the government currently has a $356 billion debt, growing by around $36 billion every year.

The government has identified abuse of the tax system by some wealthy who have misused super concessions to reduce their tax by channelling money into super that would normally be taxed at the highest marginal rate.

The government is currently gauging public interest in major changes to super, perhaps even a scheme for the nationalisation of superannuation. An example of minimum possible change comes from recent statements by the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, about changing super rules to allow young first home buyers access to their super for a home deposit.

One clear problem for the government is that the very wealthy do not so much take advantage of the tax benefits of super as invest moderately in it. Instead, Australia’s super wealthy place the bulk of their finances into ventures that make big money quickly and that they can use now – not in 20-30 years.  This means that any significant changes to super arrangements will likely leave the lower and middle income earners (the majority of Australians) worse off.

These are the very people who take advantage of the tax benefits of super and who believe it is the best thing for their financial futures.

Turn and face the strain

You can start protecting your hard-earned cash with some simple but effective strategies today.

Be proactive. Prepare for change and invest wisely.

1. Super Contributions

To grow your money quickly, consider only investing the required minimum in your superannuation fund. The tax benefits are not that great and you cannot touch it for 40 years.  This will give you more cash to invest in money-generating products that you can use now!

2. Gold and silver

It is important to diversify your portfolio. As far-fetched as it may sound, one of the best ways to do this is to invest in precious metals.

Most serious and smart investors purchase a percentage of gold and silver to make money but it can also be used as a long term investment strategy. These days, investing in gold or silver is important to protect your financial interests against:

• local economic uncertainty;
• inflation; and
• unstable global economies.

Spend a few weeks saving and buy an ounce of gold or some gold coins. At the end of the day, precious metals are the most reliable asset to have if things go ‘pear-shaped’ economically. When you eventually want or need to cash-up, your gold or silver investment is guaranteed to provide you with a very healthy return.

3. Stock diversification

Investing in the stock market can be a great way to invest but diversification within your stock portfolio is a must.

It is important to remember that whether you are a day trader or a big yield hunter, putting all your eggs in one basket or sector is a sure-fire way to fail on the stock market.

Small Caps

These stocks are high risk, high return. When you hear someone making a fortune on the stock market it is because they picked the right small cap. These stocks can see 100-300% gains on your initial investment but you can just as easily lose all your money.

Bottom line – Only invest what you can afford to lose.

Blue Chip Stocks

These stocks are for large, profitable and national companies.  Blue chip companies have a strong record of stable income and a solid reputation. Generally speaking, the benefit of investing in blue chips stocks is the dividend – investors in these companies are more likely to receive substantial returns on investment in spite of economic fluctuations.

This is why you pay a higher price to acquire these stocks.

Bottom line – Investing in blue chip stock is a long term play that requires a decent chunk of money to get started.

Pretty soon now you’re gonna get older

Stay informed about changes that impact you.

These are just some of the ways you can diversify your portfolio, protect your interests and invest wisely for the future.

In the coming weeks, we will be explore other ways you can invest – such as bonds, starting a business and searching for yields.

Until then, sit down and make a plan. Do your own research and figure out what works for you based on an objective assessment of your financial position.

What are your golden rules for investing? Tell us about your strategies to save and grow your money in the comments section below!

Note: I am not a financial adviser. When it comes to your money, you should always conduct your own research or consult with a financial adviser/planner before making any decision to invest.

Looking for further information?

Before engaging a financial adviser, you should always check their credentials.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) databases will tell you if the adviser is licensed to sell you certain financial products or provide you with financial advice.

To check if your financial advisor is licensed, contact:

• MoneySmart website; or call ASIC’s Infoline on 1300 300 630 (from inside Australia), or
  phone +61 3 5177 3988 (from outside Australia)

Before investing, it is important to check whether the investment company is operating legally.

To check if an investment company or scheme is operating legally, search:

• ASIC’s MoneySmart database; or call ASIC’s Infoline on 1300 300 630.

To make a complaint, contact ASIC’s complaint service.