Abbott’s thinking was that it was going to happen anyway, the next time we had a Labor government, so he’d rather have it happen by a decision of the Australian people as a whole, than something simply imposed on them by a socialist government. He knew the way the vote would go - and he was enough of a true democrat to respect the will of the people if that is what happened.
The Liberal Party has always been the party of democracy in Australia - of the right of the people as a whole to have their say. Labor is the party that believes in the imposition of their agenda on the people ‘for their own good’ whether they agree with it or not.
The Liberal Party hasn’t always lived up to this. But it has done so fairly consistently.
A major decision at the core of society should only be taken by the express will of the people. Our system allows that will to be expressed in one of two ways - by a party seeking a mandate at an election, or by a separate vote.
Would anybody have really wanted an election where this was the major issue? Leaving aside the electoral mathematics, this is not an issue that should define who is in government for the next three years.
Only liberal-minded politicians will presume that Labor would take over, with all due respect. Do a good job and Labor would not have a chance.
Also, referendum votes can be skewed. They do not represent the will of the people, but a quieter form of mob rule.
While you are no doubt correct I would have taken it to an election. Labor managed to convince a lot of people to withhold their vote over the cost of the plebiscite. I still believe the actual figures are closer than came out in the vote.