Into The Long Grass - Conservative Treachery

On a major social issue, Australia is now in the grip of the worst joke since the White Australia policy, and it’s just about as funny. Gay people are not equal before the law and are still not allowed to marry our partners in this country, despite many of us having gone to the expense and inconvenience of leaving these shores, travelling overseas and getting married in other more enlightened jurisdictions where marriage equality is a reality. Australia ostentatiously lags behind the rest of the Western world on this issue. And what is the cause of all this? Two words: the conservatives.

Prior to 2004, the wording of our Marriage Act did not specify gender at all. Stand up John Howard. He changed the wording to specify man and woman solely, after seeing marriage equality slowly but surely becoming a reality around various states in the US world and in Europe, and so, rushed the legislation through the Parliament, thereby blocking any possibility that same-gender marriage could evolve in this country. He didn’t take it to a plebiscite, just to the Parliament. Interestingly, unlike his present-day descendants, he had this remarkable thing to say.

“We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation. (It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.'' Oops, it looks like the present crop didn’t get that memo. Interesting, don’t you think?

Fast forward a decade or so and the infamous love-child of Howard and Bronwyn Bishop, Tony Abbott, an even more conservative backward looking monarchist 50s man than Howard, is in office as Prime Minister. Apart from rusted on arch-conservatives, he is near universally disliked and by many, despised. He was only voted in because he wasn’t Gillard or Rudd; hardly a ringing endorsement. There were no palm fronds cast onto the road in front of Abbott’s entourage as he slipped into Canberra.

This is a man who on 7 March 2010 told a 60 Minutes interviewer in response to a question about homosexual people that, despite having a gay sister himself, he "probably [felt] a bit threatened ... as most people do." He defended the assertion on the ABC’s 7.30 two nights later as a “spontaneous answer” and went on to say, "there is no doubt that it [homosexuality] challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things." This is the guy who subsequently becomes Prime Minister of Australia; a man who has not the first idea about LGBT people and our lives and who is implacably, rigidly and unwaveringly opposed to marriage equality. If gay marriage were ever to get up during his term of office, it would be over his dead body.

Just before he lost power due to the relentless abysmal polling he received in over thirty consecutive polls, and with the Government looking more and more like a one-term government because of him, the marriage equality issue came once again to the fore due to the submission of a suggested bill put up by one of his own, Warren Entsch. Abbott had already pronounced only a week or so before, that no party would own marriage equality and that if it were to become reality in this country, it would do so as a result of the whole Parliament. Sounds a lot like John Howard’s stated position, doesn’t it? But don’t be fooled. It’s all smoke and mirrors. There are a lot of them in this debate. Instead, because of the Entsch bill, a hastily called party room meeting was announced and all party members had to stop their work to attend the Tony Abbott Marriage Equality workshop for the day. At the end of it, the Parliament was superseded and forgotten and Australia was to have a plebiscite on the issue instead; a non-binding poll. And not at the next election, but sometime after the next election; say six to twelve months after. Abbott’s conservative mates like Abetz, Andrews, Bernardi and Fierravanti-Wells, to name a few, were enough to carry the day. Abbot got his way and fudged the whole the thing, proudly rejoicing in democracy because now, everyone would have a say.

Conservative religious folk, also implacably opposed to marriage equality, thought all their Christmases had come at once. The issue had been kicked down the road, off into the misty future, and reframed by marriage quality public enemy number 1 as a vox populi democratic issue. The Australian Christian Lobby’s President Lyle Shelton wrote on an American blog: “Instead, a people’s vote known as a plebiscite would be held sometime after the 2016 election, kicking the issue into the long grass (putting the issue off) and blunting the momentum of same-sex marriage lobbyists” (my italics).

No doubt embarrassed that these words have found the light of day, they have belled the cat and tolled the truth of this plebiscite. It is nothing but a ruse, a tactic, a way to delay, to obfuscate, to impede and to push the issue off the front pages. Abbott knew it. The ACL knows it. Turnbull knows it. All of Australia knows it, given that over two-thirds of us are supportive of a change to the Marriage Act already and have been for some time. It is a transparent tactic; worthy of Lao-Tzu.

Now, a human rights issue was going to be voted on. In any domain of Western jurisprudence, that is a no no. It is an absolute. You don't vote on human rights. They are not for the vote. Human rights are never to be given. They are only to be recognised. They belong to us all; as human beings. They do not lay in the purview of any man to give. And they do not lay in the voting intentions of an entire nation. Human rights are of a different order than say, education policy or health policy. They are over and above such quotidian issues, important though they may be. In a Western representative democracy like Australia’s, it is Justice 101 that all are equal under the law. Human rights are to be respected. And where we are found wanting occasionally or could do better, we adjust and change our ways to conform to the higher good, that of human rights.

Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission wrote in an opinion piece in The Age. “Under article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights all people ‘are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law’. The Australian Human Rights Commission considers that this principle of equality means that civil marriage should be available, without discrimination, to all couples, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. - - - Of immediate relevance to Australia's proposed plebiscite, is the [US] Supreme Court's view that fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote. Rather, ‘they depend on the outcome of no elections’. In principle, why should the right to equality in marriage depend upon a plebiscite”? Indeed, it shouldn’t.

As a result of this farce, my relationship and tens of thousands like it around the country, will be judged and voted on by bigots and homophobes and the ignorant who despise us. Our status in the nation will be evaluated by other Australians; something I dare say, not one of them would be comfortable with. Conservative politicians and religious folk who confirm our relationships as being of second-class worth see this exercise as something good and noble.

I have already written a piece about the plebiscite and you can read my argument against it here.

Since Malcolm Turnbull unseated Tony Abbott and took the prime ministership, he has been lumbered with almost all of Abbott’s far-right policies, including the plebiscite; the $160 million waste of money that even now, conservative politicians are saying they will not abide by regardless and will still vote against marriage equality though their electorates be supportive. It’s the usual suspects. Abbott should be counted among them. Then there will be Abetz, Andrews, Fierravanti-Wells, as well now as Bridget McKenzie who told the media this week that she will vote against marriage equality no matter what the plebiscite turns up. And oh, it was like getting blood out of a stone for her to admit this publicly. Seems she didn’t want to own her own intentions on the record.

These conservatives and others not so public are said to be voting with their consciences. 

Apparently, their consciences are perfectly okay with inequality before the law (one law for straight people and a different law for gay people), consciences just fine with the hurt and pain caused by relationships deemed second-rate, consciences just peachy with young gay people getting the message from Government that ‘we don’t care what you want’, consciences that sleep well at night knowing that over two-thirds of Australians disagree with them but they don’t give a stuff anyway, consciences that are jim dandy with depriving gay couples the affirmation of acceptance and celebration by society even when society has said it is perfectly happy to offer that affirmation. You gotta love the conservative conscience. These people alone stand in the way of Australian marriage equality.

So what of Turnbull? He is increasingly looking weak. Abbott does not hesitate to prosecute his own case. He’s out and about everywhere. This week, he’s in America telling a right-wing homophobic lobby group that marriage equality will “erode” the family and “damage” marriage. Rubbish I say Mr Abbott. Show us how that is to happen. The burden of proof is on you. Show us the evidence of erosion and damage.

But in all this, where’s our great enlightened moderate Liberal hope Malcolm Turnbull? Silent as the grave. Just mouthing the party line. Inanities about plebiscites and democracy. Repeating the words and policies of his political nemesis. It’s pathetic and he is looking more and more pathetic every day. Turnbull looks and sounds weak; a pusillanimous puppet of the Right. If he truly believes in marriage equality, then let him advocate for it and stop vacating the field to the likes of Bernardi and Abetz and Abbott. Let him use his considerable influence as Prime Minister to do some good for the country on this issue. Let him not be like Gillard who squandered her chance to do something when she had the power to do so. Turnbull really needs to grow a spine. He might be moderate, but if he presides over a far-right government and allows that discourse to fill the conversation, then his moderate credentials amount to zero. He is moderate in name only and will ultimately become a laughing stock. When a leader loses the respect of the nation, he or she is in deep trouble.

What a farce this has turned into. We have a weak pathetic Prime Minister who is scared of his own party and who won’t even advocate the issues he believes in. We’ve got an inordinately expensive unnecessary plebiscite which will be ignored by some conservative politicians anyway. We ‘ve got the unedifying spectacle of Australians being asked to vote on human rights. We’ve given bigots and homophobes equal standing in their views about gay peoples’ lives as us ourselves. We will still have to have a vote in the Parliament. And the whole thing is off in the never never somewhere.

What an utter disgrace! This is how we do social policy in Australia. This is how we treat people in Turnbull’s Australia.

If Turnbull fudges this, it will never be forgotten.

  

A Plebiscite for Marriage Equality is Wrong

Australia has a new Prime Minister, the fifth in five years. He is a moderate of the Right; intelligent, successful, charming, articulate and a very smooth operator. Being a member of the Liberal National Coalition, he does not espouse the same values as I do. He is not of the Left. Don’t be fooled.

At the first hurdle, not 24 hours in the job, he fell. He declared that he would continue on the exact same policies on climate change and marriage equality as his predecessor. Tony Abbott saw that he was losing the battle on marriage equality, so he used the considerable power of his position, and stated to his party room that there would be a plebiscite on marriage equality. Despite one week earlier declaring that the decision belonged to the Parliament, he ‘moved the goal posts’ in a hastily called, and many of his colleagues thought ambushing joint party room meeting, and declared the decision would be delayed until six to twelve months after the next election. At the time, that meant another two years from August 2015. Now, Malcolm Turnbull has stated to the Parliament today that he will continue in this vein, despite his being supportive of marriage equality and having a huge LGBTI population in his own electorate of Wentworth. Pretty silly move, I would have thought.

So let me lay it out again. This plebiscite business. For Abbott, it was a ruse; nothing more. A strategy to forestall progress. For Turnbull, it is a placation of the conservatives in his party; the very ones he is supposed to be pulling into the twenty first century. I am not in favour of a plebiscite. And here’s why.

1. A plebiscite is only a snapshot poll of the electorate; nothing more. We already have polls on marriage equality and over the last years, they have only been going one way, no matter who the pollsters are. Support has been growing and growing, increasing year by year. It is absolutely clear. The trend is unmistakeable. We now have the ironic situation of the Coalition’s favoured pollster Crosbie Textor polling results with 72% of Australians in support and the LNP ignoring them. It is over two thirds of Australians. Name one other single issue where there is more than two thirds support. Business supports, the media supports, health associations support, sport supports, even many of the churches support and there are a majority of Christians who support. The simple unadorned fact is: we don’t need a plebiscite - we already know.
2. Plebiscites are hideously expensive. The Australian Electoral Commission has stated that a plebiscite not held concurrently with an election would cost $158 million. Imagine what we could do with $158 million. I would much rather see twenty million go to early psychosis research, thirty million to go to indigenous health, twenty million to go to MS and autoimmune disease research, twenty million to go to dementia research, twenty million to homelessness, ten million to go to drug education, ten million to go to educational services for the bush, ten million to funding shelters for domestic violence, ten million to go to anxiety and depression research, and eight million to go to obesity research, just as an example. But not to a plebiscite to tell us that over two thirds of Australians support marriage equality. We got that already.
3. We do not have a history in Australia of deciding issues by plebiscite. We have a Westminster system of responsible government and a perfectly good working parliament with members and senators we all elect to make these decisions and to show leadership. And the High Court has strongly stated that it is in the purview of the Parliament to decide on questions of marriage. We have not called a plebiscite to take Australia to war in Iraq and Afghanistan or to bomb Syria. But apparently we need one to tell us that it is okay for gay and lesbian people to marry our partners. 
4. Plebiscites are not binding. After all that effort and all that money, no-one would have to take any notice of it. The decision would still then have to go before the Parliament for a vote.
5. Most worrying, a plebiscite would let loose the crazies and the bigots and the fundamentalists who would have this question decided based on the book of Leviticus and their unstated aversion to gay and lesbian sexuality. It would be acrimonious and very very hurtful to LGBTI people. Do not think for a moment that our better angels will be released as we gently discuss marriage equality over hot cocoa. The opponents of marriage equality are cashed up and belligerent. They fill the Comments sections of articles on the topic with judgement and vitriol. They are already out there at every opportunity to stop marriage equality.
6. Marriage equality is the right thing to do regardless of the vote count in a plebiscite. Every Australian in the country could hypothetically vote against it and it still wouldn’t make that decision right. It is discrimination that stops gay people from marrying. Gay people are treated differently to other people in this respect and are not equal with our straight fellow citizens before the law. Get that: as things stand, we gay people are second-class citizens. We keep the social contract and pay our taxes but are treated unequally. This sticks in our craw and will never ever be okay, which means that this issue is here for keeps. It will never ever go away until gay and lesbian people are not discriminated against in marriage. And the converse is true for me too. If every Australian voted in favour of marriage equality, although I would be hugely chuffed, that decision would not make it right. It is right, because it is the right thing to do. Jettisoning discriminations against people in our type of Western society is the right thing to do. Treating people equally is the right thing to do. Treating people unequally is immoral.
7. The LNP would have the opportunity of framing the question. When you frame the question, you can skew it one way or the other, as did John Howard in the Republic referendum. You can say something like, “Do you agree or disagree with the notion that marriage has always been throughout history between one man and one woman and that Australia should retain this time honoured definition”? It’s not hard to do. And if there is a plebiscite, conservatives in the Government will try to do it.
8. Talking up a plebiscite as being democratic is disingenuous. It is merely a cover statement for a poorly hatched idea that was essentially borne of one of Tony Abbott’s ‘captains’ calls’. The party itself did not decide. Under new leadership with a supportive Prime Minister, one would have thought that he could have pushed for this as a first salvo into bringing his party, taken over by conservatives, back to the liberal centre of Robert Menzies and into the twenty first century. But at this first hurdle, he fell.
9. No amount of Shakespearianesque rhetoric will ever take away the fact that my relationship and that of every other gay and lesbian person in the country would, by means of a plebiscite, be offered up for evaluation and appraisal by bigots, homophobes, rednecks, religious fundamentalists and opponents of every kind, people who are implacably opposed to marriage equality. A plebiscite invites everyone to discuss the gay and lesbian community as though we are objects. A plebiscite objectifies us and opponents will not hesitate to declare that our relationships are inferior and not worthy of being admitted to the halls of the married. These people do not have the right to evaluate our relationships. If the situation were reversed, there would be marching in the streets.

So we are left with a society at large that is absolutely supportive of marriage equality, a parliament which probably already has a majority of supporters were LNP Members given a free vote. There is plenty of will in the community for change. It is only a small group of people stopping this for the whole country: conservative Liberals and Nationals in the main, many of whom themselves will have a sizable support for marriage equality in their electorates but are just refusing to budge or ignoring their constituencies. Full credit to Nationals Member for Gippsland Darren Chester who has changed his position to support for marriage equality and has overwhelming support from his electorate. He cannot be the only one. So you have to ask in the face of clear and patent broad community support, what are these LNPers actually doing apart from just being bloody-minded? Is this new shiny Prime Minister, the darling of the moderates of the Right, going to pull his party back to the centre? Or not?

With Tony Abbott gone, we have the paradoxical situation of having both a supportive Prime Minister and a supportive Leader of the Opposition and yet we still cannot get this reform through. It really is just unbelievable. Is it any wonder that people are turned off politics in this country?

I still see the choice now as being stark: a party, the ALP, who will take marriage equality as its platform to the next election and present a bill to the Parliament within one hundred days of winning the election, and a party, the LNP, many of whose Members will oppose this reform to the death and who will make the country go through a very divisive and destructive costly plebiscite six to twelve months after the next election.