A barrister challenging the validity of the Australian government’s postal vote on same-sex marriage has told the high court he will demonstrate “how unique and offensive it is that a personal opinion is being asked on a relationship of this kind”. Those challenging the survey over two days of hearings at the high court in Melbourne argued the government acted inappropriately in allocating $122m to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct the vote; that the question of same-sex marriage was not within the scope of statistics collected by the ABS; and that it was wrong to ask people to sign up to the electoral roll for the vote because the issue could not be considered an electoral matter. The fate of the Turnbull government’s postal survey on same-sex marriage hangs in the balance as the high court hears two challenges to its validity in Melbourne on Tuesday and Wednesday. Ron Merkel QC, representing Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie, PFlag (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and Melbourne lesbian mother Felicity Marlowe, said Marlowe’s interest in the case went beyond the fact the outcome would affect her personally. • Barristers challenging survey argue ABS has no authority to hold vote • QC for plaintiff says ballot is ‘putting to the public a vote on her family unit’

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has no authority to hold the Coalition’s “unique and offensive” postal vote on same-sex marriage, lawyers have told the high court on the first day of a landmark legal challenge. Led by led by chief justice Susan Kiefel, the full bench of the High Court sat in Melbourne on Tuesday to hear two challenges to the Government's same-sex marriage postal survey just a week before forms are set to be sent to households across the nation. Asking whether the distinction should be removed doesn’t cast the aspersion being suggested.”

Justice Geoffrey Nettle put it to Donaghue that LGBTI people might be “so offended by receipt of the [postal vote] document by reason that it occurs to them others are being able to pass judgment on their sexuality”. At the heart of the challenge was the claim that Finance Minister Mathias Cormann had inappropriately funded the postal vote through a special contingency pool that sets aside money for matters that are "urgent" and "unforseen". It would be in everyone’s interests to do that: people who want a free vote, would be able to say we’ve tried a plebiscite three times so let’s have a free vote; and those on the no side support our policy which is not to change the Marriage Act without the imprimatur of the Australian people. Wilkie said the high court “clearly understands the urgency of this matter … they know the mailout happens next week … so I’m hopeful that they will decide on the matter very, very quickly, perhaps as early as the middle of this week”.
The High Court of Australia receives a complaint against the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey citing the postal survey as "unique and offensive."