The Adventures of QueerPenguin

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: The finale

Over my nearly three years of blogging, and several more years' involvement in all things teh gay, critics from both sides have questioned my 'preoccupation' with same-sex couple rights and empowerment of the queer (insert gender ambiguous noun here) generally. A couple of Trots I know reckon I'm too caught up with relationship rights/recognition on account of my middle-class upbringing, and that far too many single queers have greater issues at hand - isolation, drug addition, physical and psychological abuse etc - than worrying about who they can or cannot nominate as their private sector super beneficiary. Folk on the right try less successfully to use a similar argument as apology for John Howard having done next to fuck-all for queers in his 11+ years of power.


But all I really want is a government that recognises and acts on the hardships both queers and queer couples face every day. I genuinely believe the Howard government has failed, repeatedly, to do so. Such hardships are independent of class and wealth status, and should be redressed by a government in a secular nation that has long decriminalised homosexuality and claims not to support unjustified discrimination.


At a federal level, Labor have been disappointing on this issue. They are committed to action on HREOC's 'Same Sex: Same Entitlements' report but this was reactive rather than proactive. They caved too easily to the gay marriage wedge in 2004 and they're still too influenced by rabid homophobes from the catholic right union(s) like Joe de Bruyn or SA No 1 Senate candidate Don Farrell. Kevin Rudd has not spoken out often enough against the Howard government's many failures in this area for fear of frightening the horses and I really wish Penny Wong would lead by a more inspiring, empowering example.


The Howard government has failed on teh gay. Labor deserves a fighting chance.

Labels: 2007 federal election, climate change, GLBTI, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3 comments

Gay Bashers First

It occurs to me some might perceive my fury at Fundies First's continued obsessive stalking of teh gay as somewhat hypocritical. How can I get mad at a bunch of gay-bashers attempting to out a Lib politician, when I have form on outing myself?

I'll do a Kevin Rudd here and answer my own question: 'Fair enough point...but there's no real comparison in this particular case.' And here's why:

1. Ben Jacobsen clearly believes being gay or lesbian is a bad thing, and that a local member being such will negatively impact on their job representing their constituents. I don't. What I think is bad is when a queer pollie gets into a position of power and possible influence, and rather than lead by positive example of being out and proud (Brian Grieg, or Bob Brown on a good day), they are at best ambivalent (Penny Wong) or worst closeted (you know who) about their sexuality.

2. Jacobsen is only articulating the overall Fundies First philosophy. They don't attract candidates like this man - or supporters who seek to burn lesbians at the stake - by accident. Similarly, they don't preference all but two Liberal candidates - one openly lesbian, the other one of the party's most vocal GLBTI supporters - by accident either, as they did at the last election.

So Steve Fielding's statement that he has 'spoken to the candidate and told him that his comments were inappropriate and offensive' rings very hollow. He and his party may claim that a person's sexuality is a private thing that has no bearing on how they will deal with them, but their past acts clearly suggest otherwise.

3. Fundies First want it both ways. They go out of their way to keep teh gay down and denied equal rights in our relationships, parenting and access to the public purse, but as Jacobsen demonstrates it's not even enough for them for us all to stay quiet in the closet - we must make a public declaration too, presumably for ease of identifying targets for further persecution. Perhaps they'd like us to go around wearing pink triangles on our biceps? That worked so brilliantly the last time, after all.

4. If Charlie McKillop is a lesbian (and I don't mean to insinuate one way or the other), I sincerely hope that, if she chooses to stay in the closet, she will at least do justice to the man she is replacing in Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, by carrying on his tremendous work lobbying his party internally to act on their own alleged opposition to unjustifiable discrimination. After all, the seat takes in Cairns and its surroundings which I understand contains quite a bit of teh gay, so if nothing else it's smart and effective grass roots representation.

But given what's happened, I think it would be hypocritical of McKillop to accept any preferences from Fundies First, though I guess such a decision would be out of her hands anyway. Remember, even though Jacobsen has 'apologised' for his statement, he has still 'refused to say if it was still his personal view that all candidates should declare their sexuality' - i.e. his views, and no doubt those of many Fundies First candidates, remain the same, no matter how much the party leader tries to spin them.

Every statement like this is helpful in the sense that it scratches away Fundies First's thin veneer of pleasant secularity - they're neither - and given Labor is on track to screw them out of a preference deal and thereby not accidentally hand them a senate spot, as they did in 2004, hopefully after this election Fielding will remain the only Fundie First in federal politics we have to endure.

But on the flip side, statements like this remind you of the horror inherent in the possibility that, even if we finally get Howard out, Fundies First could control the Senate. And at that point, it wouldn't matter if Howard, Rudd or Patti Newton were PM - we'd be fucked.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First, GLBTI

posted by Sam @ Friday, November 02, 2007 1 comments

Hard Labor

Went along to a forum at ACON last night put on by the good folk at the GLRL. 'Twas about all things ALP. And Tanya was there...And Anthony was there...And Joe was there...And George was there...And Penny was there...Yeah, you get the drift.

I actually didn't mean to go with an SX hat on - was more as a private citizen directly affected by what they were talking about - but the following article formulated anyway. Hopefully it will get into SX next week, if not here 'tis:

For the purposes of this article, let’s optimistically assume the following: Labor wins this year’s federal election; Labor and the Greens form a Senate majority; and Labor implements its promises within its first term of office.

It was with such assumptions in mind that Labor recently outlined its GLBTI policy to a small but passionate assortment of believers and cynics alike, organised by the GLRL and featuring Labor candidates for inner Sydney seats as well as the party’s would-be Attorney General, Senator Joe Ludwig.

As all speakers went to great lengths to make clear, Labor is the better option than the Howard government where ending legislative discrimination against same-sex couples is concerned. Labor is committed not only to amending the 58 laws identified in HREOC’s ‘Same Sex: Same Entitlements’ report, but also an even more comprehensive audit of additional laws and departmental policies. Sydney MP Tanya Plibersek and Wentworth candidate George Newhouse articulated a thorough understanding of other key issues concerning GLBTI folk, including domestic violence and the rise of assaults on Oxford Street, with corresponding action plans.

So far, so good. It’s at the next step – formal recognition of same-sex couples – that things get tricky. Labor’s 2007 National Platform and Constitution states:

‘Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that will include the opportunity for couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have those relationships registered and certified. This legislation will: be based on the scheme that has existed in Tasmania since 2004 and that the Victorian government has announced its intention to introduce; (and) not create schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.’

Essentially, Labor is washing its hands of a federal civil union or partnership scheme. Spooked by the gay marriage boogyman, the party is instead offloading responsibility to the states to follow Tasmania’s and Victoria’s lead, establishing their own state-based registries in the hope that a uniform national law would be created through mirrored legislation in each state and territory. Senator Ludwig offered the example of uniform evidence laws, in which states have individually passed identical evidence acts to create a nationally consistent model. He argued that one advantage of this approach is bypassing the Commonwealth parliament, which could be convenient in the particularly horrific event that Family First wins the Senate balance of power.

However, Ludwig’s plan, though no doubt well-intentioned – and by all reports, he’ll be an approachable and informed federal Attorney General for our community to lobby and work with – also seems somewhat naïve. He spoke of a ‘journey’ in which all states can eventually be convinced of the value of registries and motivated to legislate accordingly. But with NSW’s Attorney General, John Hatzistergos, having already made unequivocally clear he does not support enacting Tasmania’s scheme here, it’s difficult to see what Ludwig will say or do to change his mind – or to see a clear timeframe in which this will occur. The bovver boys in NSW Labor Right comprise homophobes who would put John Howard’s Family Values warriors in the shade – and they never give up anything without a fight.

Is the solution, then, that all NSW same-sex couples wishing to be ‘registered’ move to Hobart or Melbourne? Waiting for state-based legislation creates a new layer of delay and potential resistance that could easily be avoided through a Commonwealth law. If NSW and other states – quite likely South Australia, for example – do not wish to enact registries, they have a reasonable defence of autonomy against any pressure exerted by their federal counterparts. To remain consistent, those of us appalled by the Howard government’s trampling of the ACT’s civil unions legislation could not reasonably expect a Rudd government to force intransigent state governments into action. Furthermore, there will eventually come a time where Labor does not have uniform state governments – and there’s little hope an O’Farrell Coalition government, for example, would be any less reluctant than the Iemma Labor government, particularly while ‘Godfather’ David Clarke is calling the shots.

The most frustrating aspect of Labor’s policy is the overriding sense of how it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… If implemented effectively, federal Labor’s plan would provide same-sex couples with all the same entitlements, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual de facto couples. Ludwig made clear he would not prevent same-sex couples from holding ceremonies in which they made their commitment public. He also specified that same-sex families would not be treated any differently, and that unlike the Coalition’s (barely touched) approach of creating a category of ‘interdependent’ couples, same-sex couples would clearly be considered de facto – that is, the sexual component of our relationships would not be airbrushed out of the legislature.

So why is Labor avoiding a federal civil union scheme in principle, when in practice its alternative is an unnecessarily complicated means to essentially the same end? Is this part of Kevin Rudd’s utopian vision of uniform state and federal Labor governments working together harmoniously, ‘ending the blame game’? Or is this consistent with Rudd and Labor’s general approach to be a little bit different from John Howard and the Coalition, but not so different as to frighten the horses – swinging voters in marginal seats – or indeed Rudd’s own socially conservative beliefs?

Whatever the reason, after 11 years the GLBTI community desperately needs a federal government that will deign to recognise our needs and concerns, and act accordingly. And as seems to be the common theme in this election, though I’m both disappointed and concerned by Labor’s policy, I know it literally could not be any worse than the current alternative.

Labels: 2007 federal election, GLBTI, Labor, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Thursday, October 04, 2007 5 comments

Turnbull must go

The Lib 'think tank' front organisations are again trotting out their token sisters to bat the naughty PM around with their Prada handbags for putting same-sex law reform in the too-hard basket.

In Tim Wilson's defence, he has actually managed to be quite critical of Howard for the most part, maintaining his continued argument that true conservatism should by definition facilitate genuine equality. It's just his apparent surprise that Howard has made the decision he has that angers me.

Sorry to all the Howard-voting queers who thought nice Uncle John might invite them to the grown-ups table if they played nicely with the other kids and behaved themselves, but the rest of us always knew he was going to fall this way - we had 11 years of inaction and apathy to go on. There is a reason why Howard's 'critics have always ... equated his conservatism with regressivism.' But unlike what Wilson might like to believe, we have not been 'wrong' to do so.

Anyways, onto how this relates to Malcolm Turnbull. Upcoming SX column below.

***************************************************************************
Last week, John Howard confirmed what many of us have suspected all along: He was lying – surprise! – when he claimed not to be in favour of unfair discrimination against same-sex couples.

Forget about marriage rights – Howard doesn’t think we should even receive de facto or interdependency rights. He’s told his party room the issue of equality for gay and lesbian couples is ‘complicated’ (which is bullshit, it’s not) and ceded to the demands of the Australian Christian Lobby and other right-wing ‘Christian’ lobby groups with whom he wishes to stay in bed spooning.

The reason why Howard’s man in Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, must go, is not because he feels the same way as his master – quite the opposite, Turnbull has been one of the Liberal Party’s strongest internal agitators for law reform and has an admirable history raising money for the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.

But it's clear Turnbull has failed.

This election, queer voters have an unprecedented opportunity to flex some electoral muscle. If you live around the East Sydney/Kings Cross area, chances are you’re now in Turnbull’s seat where before you were in Tanya Plibersek’s – that is, you’ve been redistributed out of a safe Labor seat and into a marginal Liberal one. Turnbull knows the ‘queer vote’ he’s inherited counts in this election (not that we all vote the same, of course), and Howard has now effectively hung him out to dry once he hits the streets to confront his queer constituents.

It’s not easy advocating the removal of a GLBTI political ally, but Turnbull is in the unfortunate situation, for him at least, of holding a marginal seat where every individual vote will count. And in the depressing event that Howard is re-elected this year, even if Turnbull were also returned, it’s clear voters who care about ending discrimination and genuine equality will have to spend at least another three years banging our heads against a brick wall. Turnbull has had as long to get his government to act, and failed; what’s to say he’d be any more successful after another three years? Howard has had so long and such success decimating the more moderate element within his party; it’s not as though the damage he’s caused will be instantaneously undone once Peter Costello grabs the reigns.

No doubt, as a multi-millionaire Turnbull will be able to buy his way to electoral success. But with what’s going to be a very close election this year, every seat – and every vote – will count. The Liberal Party must be punished for its offensive misconduct against queer voters, and circumstances dictate that Turnbull must necessarily be a casualty.

Labels: 2007 federal election, GLBTI, John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6 comments

Howard to kill Teh Gay and Teh States with one stone

UPDATE: Ruddock was telling lobbyists this week that the adoption ban was off the table. Either Howard has blind-sided Ruddock (plausible) or Ruddock was lying through his caps (more plausible).

Farrrrrrk! What more can you say, really?

(thanks to Chris for tip)

*******************************************************************************

Hrm. Seems we might finally get some action on HREOC's 'Same Sex: Same Entitelements' report after all. Just hazarding a guess here, though. Reasoning?

Because the malodorous swamp creatures are going to press ahead with the overseas adoption ban, after all. And this is the Howard government MO with fags and dykes: qualify one queer-bashing offensive with a 'but hey, we also did this one good thing!' defensive. It happened in 2004 when the private sector superannuation intederdepency reforms paired with the marriage ban.

Above my fury and urge to kill rising, rising, I'm actually a little curious. Why now? Why at all? I know the first 'stranger' adoption of a boy by two gay men happened in Western Australia in June but I daresay this is part of Howard's broader quest to decimate states and have complete, unfettered, 'mwuhahahahaha' evil laugh-type power.

Annabel Crabb nails this in her Smuh blog. Following Howard's effort at the Mersey Hospital in Devonport (side note: is it just me or does he ALWAYS have that look of utter horror whenever he comes into direct contact with any human being?), it's becoming clear his new desperate pre-election tactic is to play up a knight-in-shining-armour role in the marginals, that conveniently paints the state Labor governments in a bad light.

Crabb:

Mr Howard's solution (to state/commonwealth conflicts) is very different (to Rudd's) - if bickering over a particular area becomes chronic, then the Commonwealth should just sweep in and take 'em over. The appeal of this approach in the short term is utterly unmistakable. Just ask anyone in Devonport what they'd prefer - an orthodox federal system, or a hospital?
Just imagine, by the way, what must be happening right now in the offices of marginal Coalition MPs all over the country. Anybody who wants their house painted under the new Howard federalism would be a mug not to put in a call, wouldn't they? Anyway, election or no election, it's a debate very much worth having - it's just that up until now 'whither federalism?' hasn't exactly been a barbecue stopper. Does the Howard approach send us down the path of eventually abolishing the states completely?

Answer: Hell yes. Uniform state Labor governments have stuck in his craw for ages, and realising he has increasingly little to lose, he's treading a fresh war path against them. He's losing the war with the Murray-Darling takeover and hasn't really got a good solid boot into a jurisdiction since Stanhope's ACT government and quashing the civil union legislation - so recognising he's on solid ground with queer bashing, he now eyes the WA Carpenter government.

I don't think Labor will side with them on this. Given Rudd's reluctance to show a queer-friendly facade, he can at least fall back on the argument of trampling the autonomy of elected governments, rather than highlight the objective moral reasons why banning s-s overseas adoption is fucked up. But I presume Howard has made sure he's got autonomy-sympathetic defector Gary Humphries on the team before announcing this plan.

So I guess that's the 'why at all'. The 'why now' is quite interesting. Note: 'The Family Law (Same Sex Adoption) Bill is listed on the Prime Minister and Cabinet department's website as legislation 'proposed for introduction in the 2007 spring sittings'. Given the six-week parliamentary hiatus during election time, can we guess from this that they don't plan for the election to be until at least the end of November?

If this announcement doesn't coincide with positive action on the HREOC report, I think it would be safe to assume that Howard is eagerly burning what tiny little bridges remain to the queer vote. It certainly won't help Malcolm Turnbull hold onto Wentworth - although, that might be part of Howard's masterplan too.

Regardless, brace yourselves for another couple of months of political queer-bashing. This will be May/June '04 and June/July '06 all over again. Apologies in advance to all the same-sex couples whose families will be demonised, whose children will be victimised and bullied in the schoolyard with the PM's blessing, and whose difficult situation will be exposed and exploited for some cheap, cynical vote-scoring. All I can offer as hope is that this year might be the last for it.

Labels: federalism, GLBTI, John Howard, same-sex adoption

posted by Sam @ Thursday, August 02, 2007 4 comments

Round 12: FIGHT!

UPDATE: The HREOC report is unleashed.

*******************************************************************************

(Title comes from me recently playing Mortal Kombat 2 on PS3 and rediscovering my inner 12yo. Not in that way. Eww.)

Anticipation of responses to this latest finding on gay marriage - 57% in support, but even more encouraging, 71% in favour of full de facto equality:

1. The survey was commissioned by GetUp!, a Labor front organisation designed for the sole purpose of undermining the Howard government. Insert additional cliches of 'David Hicks fan club', 'climate change fundamentalists', 'friends of Middle Eastern terrorists' etc here.

GetUp! certainly did commission the poll - nevertheless, Galaxy did all the work. 1100 people across all States and Territories. And the Murdoch rags - particularly the Gazette - had no trouble believing the 100% accuracy and integrity of Galaxy when it recently highlighted a resurgence in voter support for Howard.

2. Stupid poll, polling 16 and 17yos who don't even vote.

Again, true - but the 16-24yo group were the strongest supporters of same-sex couple equality - 82%, no less. Sure, Howard doesn't need to worry about them now, but assuming he wins this election, he may have to come the 2010 election when they're voting age.

Plus, they simply reflect what is already known: The strongest anti-queer prejudices lie with the older generations, and are dying a slow but inevitable death.

3. John Howard isn't driven by polls - he's driven by what's right.

Pwhahahaha.

Heheheheh.

Pfffft.

Still, as the poll-driven back-pedaller he is he won't resile from this issue. A poll commissioned tomorrow could reveal a million Australians supporting gay marriage, but unless a/ they're all in marginal seats, and b/ it's an issue not only do they support, but they support strongly enough that it could potentially change their vote, he'll stick to his homophobia, which to his credit, he believes in personally as well as exploits for political mileage.

It's lovely that so many people support same-sex couple equality, it really is. But very few decide to vote/not vote for Howard based solely on this issue. He knows this and knows he can get away mobilising the religious right vote instead of doing his proper duty as an elected representative and reforming existing discriminatory law - after all, 4 election wins can't be wrong.

This poll also won't change anything with Labor, at least not before this election. Kevin Rudd's pitch since winning the leadership has always been poaching the dreaded 'aspirationals' - i.e. shifting to the right just enough to steal back capricious, interest rate-sensitive voters in outer suburban seats. He doesn't need to do anything for GLBTI voters other than the barest minimum so that there is at least some point of difference between Labor and Liberal - but otherwise, he can take most of our votes for granted. Sure, we might vote Green or independent above Labor but those of us concerned with equality will eventually preference Labor above Liberal - i.e. vote Labor.

It would be nice to think this poll, combined with tomorrow's launch of HREOC's Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report, will trigger a new groundswell of support and desire to act. But we've made that mistake with this government so many times before (Warren Entsch, anyone?), and with less than 6 months before an election, the only imperative the Liberals will have to act on this will be to save Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth.

Encouraging poll results for sure - and cheers to GetUp! for getting the poll...umm...up - but not enough for anything to change. Not this year, anyway.

Labels: GLBTI, John Howard, Labor, opinion polls, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Thursday, June 21, 2007 11 comments

Laboured love

It's gone pretty much the way I predicted - right down to de Bruyn being chief asshat about it - and so now we have the very, very soft option of federal relationship registration to look forward to. Looks like the Kruddster is every bit afraid of seeing the happy fags at ceremonies - god forbid! - as J-Ho. Although I guess de Bruyn's response is perhaps indicative of why Labor had to come up with such a cop-out compromise - they had their own influential homophobes to counter before they could expect to go up against the homophobes on the other side.

People are suggesting that for the moment, the most important thing is for Krudd to announce policy that will get him into power - or more importantly, get Howard out. It's probably true, too. Howard didn't flaunt the extremities of his government as part of his 1996 election platform; they came out when he was safely in government and had sympathetic Independent and Democrat senators on hand to assist his agenda. Likewise, perhaps, a better option can be presented when Labor is in government and has had a few years to help re-shape the Howard mindset in swinging voters. Not that civil unions are an 'extremity', of course - they only appear that way because Howard's been around so long - but it may need to be softly, softly for the first term.

I'm still not entirely convinced, however, that this policy doesn't also reflect Krudd's own personal views on the subject. Ever since he became leader he's been uncharacteristically tight-lipped about GLBTI issues. He has good form, having been Wayne Goss' COS at the time homosexuality was decriminalised in Queensland, but otherwise he's struck me as being fairly in-line with his predecessor on this particular policy area - i.e. no worse than Howard, but not much better either.

Of course, now the Labor apologists will bleat that this is the best option we have, we should be grateful for what we're getting, reforms only ever happen under Labor, yadda yadda - and it's true - but Labor and Krudd deserve no kudos for reinforcing the fallacy of public commitment ceremonies between same-sex couples somehow being a threat to society, which essentially is what relationship registration reinforces.

Honestly, who wants to get 'registered'? It's about as romantic as going to the Department of Motor Registries for your first date. Sure, the legal safeguards will be in place, but relationship registration - equating same-sex couples with elderly sisters looking after one another and other forms of interdependent relationships - only reinforces the misperception in people's mind of same-sex relationships as somehow alien to everybody else's, as though we're different from the everyday couples living together, taking out joint bank accounts and - yes - fucking each other.

The official text of ALP policy reads:

Labor will ensure that all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life do not suffer discrimination because they are not married.


Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that will include the opportunity for couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have those relationships registered and certified.


This legislation will:
- be based on the scheme that has existed in Tasmania since 2004 and that the Victorian Government has announced its intention to introduce;
- not create schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Just as I thought, the timing of Bracks' Victorian relationship registration scheme was too exquisitely convenient for the federal Labor agenda for it to be a coincidence. Presumably, 'state-based relationship recognition legislation' will have application for federal law - this, after all, is the key issue, since most state laws are now equal. It seems as though federal Labor is offsetting responsibility to the states - which is fine for the moment given the luxury of uniform state Labor governments, but this won't always be the case.

Very disappointing. Still, for a more positive perspective on registration, this is definitely worth a read (published in the Hun, no less!)

And in other, happier queer-related (sorta) news, one of the Libs' most homophobic tools, Ross 'What's to stop a bloke marrying his E-type Jag?" Lightfoot - joins the scrapping heap, where he belongs. I'd like to think that, with him and Santoro both gone, this is a slow but steady cleansing of old-school Lib anti-gay extremists - but unfortunately their successive generation equivalents just replace them. Still, good riddance.

Labels: GLBTI, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Labor, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Saturday, April 28, 2007 8 comments

Victorious Victoria?

It's good news, no question, that Victorian Premier Steve Bracks is now saying a statewide relationship register - the very register he has until recently opposed - could be in force by the end of the year. Kudos definitely to the VGLRL and other Victorian lobby groups for forcing Vic Labor to lurch forward.

However...

I'm a little bit cynical and doubtful (I know, me doubtful and cynical? Who'd've thunk it) for a couple of reasons. You see, Bracks just happens to make this decision, coinkidinkally around the same time as K-Rudd prepares to make the call on national relationship recognition at ALP national conference. Now, rumblings suggest Krudd is unwilling to commit to civil unions - the homophobic Catholic Right/'Shoppies' faction, especially under arch asshat Joe de Bruyn, won't have a bar of it and they're clearly either too powerful or too closely in line with Krudd's own personal views on the subject.

So what are the options? Marriage is out, civil unions are out. How about a federal relationship register, then? Or better yet, how about federal law recognition for couples registered under existing state and territory schemes? Ooh that'd be sweet, wouldn't it - Krudd doesn't really have to do anything then other than reform existing discriminatory federal laws, and that whole State/Commonwealth alliance he's been banging on about since his election to the leadership works an absolute treat in terms of the Victorian and Tasmanian Labor governments. 'End the blame game', indeed.

Maybe Bracks' timing playing exquisitely into Krudd's agenda of Commonwealth/State harmony is, as mentioned before, merely a coinkidink.

Or maybe it's not.

As for the model itself: I have my reservations, which I've expressed previously and reiterate in this week's SX:

Such a scheme, which would be also be available to non-conjugal couples, seems the best compromise for factions polarised by the issue, and thus the best defence against another attempt by Howard to wedge Labor.

This choice, however, would be a cop-out, pure and simple. It would ignore the reforms of New Zealand, the UK and other democracies similar to Australia where civil unions or partnerships have eventually been enacted by centre-left governments, despite great protest. A registration scheme, while equitable, does not provide the option of an official ceremony where partners can publicly formalise their commitment. Its very low take-up rate in Tasmania would suggest that same-sex couples are reluctant to have their relationships ‘registered’, as they would their pets – and do not appreciate being denied the opportunity of a legally-binding ceremony.

If Rudd does go with relationship registration instead of civil unions, he is following in his established style of holding a position different to Howard – but not different enough. Federal Liberal’s appalling record on law reform for same-sex couples could cost them at least one seat, now that Malcolm Turnbull’s takes in much of the inner east Sydney queer ghetto. But instead of adopting a progressive alternative and exposing a Liberal weakness, Rudd instead appears set to cave in to the Labor Catholic Right, and opt for a model towards which most on both sides will feel ambivalent, at best.

But I guess for the moment this is the best we can hope for. Same-sex couples in Victoria can now at least register their relationships, then have a ceremony as they've always been able to, even if by itself it's still essentially symbolic - but ultimately the legal safeguards will be in place, which is the most important thing.

Still, it is a pity that in studying Howard so intetently to learn how best to emulate his successes, Krudd seems to have lost track of what's going on in the rest of the world.

Labels: GLBTI, Kevin Rudd, Labor, queer law reform, Steve Bracks, Victoria

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2 comments

Chris Harris interview

Book-end to my Edward Mandla interview, here's the one with his Greens equivalent, Chris Harris (also available online here).

And now dear reader, I'm off to the Land of the Long White Sheep for two weeks of making sexually-suggestive jokes about said sheep - which I'm certain the locals will find hilariously unexpected and frightfully witty, and only reinforce their positive image of Australians.

Might try and blog from there but no guarantees. Toodles.

*************************************************************************

“Sexuality should not be a determinant of human rights.”

This Saturday’s State election is conjuring up many strong emotions in voters: anger, depression, disappointment and fear for the future, to name a few. Enthusiasm, hope and anticipation of better things to come are much further down most voters’ emotional checklists.

After 12 years of incompetence, corruption and strangling bureaucratic red tape that defines the Carr/Iemma Labor governments, voters know there’s likely to be four, perhaps eight more years of the same. They’re furious with the current lot, but have even less confidence in the alternative, personified in the ‘Frank Spencer’ of State politics, Peter Debnam.

Now would seem the perfect time for a legitimate third party to flourish and consolidate protest votes of both frustrated Labor and Coalition voters. The Greens have emerged as the closest we have in NSW to a third force that can wield any significant influence. And yet even with such an unprecedented national and global focus on environmental concerns, such as the drought and climate change – causes that define the Greens as a political party – opinion polls suggest the party is still only accounting for around 7% of the vote.

Chris Harris, the Greens candidate for Sydney, appears unconcerned about his party’s apparent inability to capitalise on its traditional strengths with the electorate: “Living sustainably, consuming less, living more modestly, recycling, saving – it’s not a sexy message we’re pushing. But we think it’s important and increasingly, history is proving us correct.” He believes that, because we haven’t yet reached an “ecological crisis point”, voters still are not as concerned by climate change as much as would suit the Green agenda.

Harris has been charged with the momentous task of ousting popular long-term independent member for Sydney – and Lord Mayor - Clover Moore. Like Moore, he also serves on Sydney Council (as Deputy Lord Mayor), but sees no hypocrisy in criticising Moore for attempting to hold both jobs simultaneously, even though he appears to be doing the same: “I’m only a part-time councillor, paid $25k a year” – which he does on top of running his own printing business. But even with such a full schedule of his own, he firmly believes Moore has taken on too much, and her constituents are wanting for the sort of representation in State politics she provided prior to becoming Lord Mayor: “I think Clover’s been a very, very good local member, but the huge workload, particularly the ceremonial duties – it’s illogical. Not to mention the conflicts of interest in the dual role.”

Harris also believes he will be a stronger voice for the GLBTI community. Unlike Labor and Liberal, where expressions like “GLBTI” and “same-sex” are nowhere to be found on their 2007 policy websites, it is difficult to fault the Greens’ extremely comprehensive policy on all things GLBTI.

But is there any point in compiling such a policy for an area that, sadly, is only likely to appeal to a small amount of voters in a handful of concentrated seats? Why push so hard for same-sex marriage, for example, when the majority of voters both within and beyond the GLBTI community appear so ambivalent to the concept? Harris identifies two older gay male friends, one who “looks terrible in white” and one who’s “a bloody aethiest. But even if they want to reject marriage, as many straight people do, we still support their right to be married. A human right denied to one group of people because of their sexuality is unacceptable. Sexuality should not be a determinant of human rights.”

The Greens’ main focuses for the GLBTI community are reforming adoption and anti-discrimination laws further. Harris is quick to highlight Lee Rhiannon’s current bill that would end exemptions for schools from anti-homosexual discrimination provisions, even going so far as to accuse Moore of taking credit for Rhiannon’s bill.

Harris is clearly hunting a large chunk of the “solidly-Clover gay and lesbian vote”, hoping especially that older Moore loyalists who remember her “glory days” might swing to the Greens this election in frustration. “I’d like to get 25-30% of the primary vote, 10% of which would be swinging Clover voters.” It’s a bold prediction, but inner Sydney remains the Greens’ stronghold. When questioned whether he considers a parliamentary system genuinely democratic in which a party scoring less than 10% of the vote across the State could conceivably hold the balance of power in the upper house, Harris points out the Greens’ advocacy for proportional representation – that is, the four members that the party is hoping to get elected into parliament would roughly to 8% of the overall vote. He argues that the Greens are therefore different to Steve “1.9%” Fielding, the Family First senator who cruised into federal parliament largely due to Labor preferences.

The Greens’ motto for this election is “Vote for tomorrow, today”. When I ask Harris for his personal vision for the future, he request one of his party’s pamphlets that he’s handed me. Truly, this is a candidate staying ruthlessly on message! Although his own perspective on Australia’s “money politics” is tinged with cynicism, he is also keen to point out that the Greens believe in positive solutions, not just whinging about the status quo.

And the key, unedited message Chris Harris wants to get across to SX readers? Again, Harris is so specific he sounds almost like he’s reading from a cue card: “Three things – firstly, I want to be a hard-working and accessible member; secondly, I will base all my work in and around the community, and finally, I’ll be looking for positive solutions.”

This election will be a watershed for minority political forces. The overriding criticism against Clove Moore is that since taking on Lord Mayor, her work as member for Sydney has been compromised and her constituents have suffered in the process. If Moore is returned comfortably on Saturday, however, it’s hard to argue this as anything other than a vindication of independent politicians and testament to her enduring popularity. If, instead, the Greens perform the minor miracle of knocking Moore out of Sydney, it will be fair to conclude the Greens is the party, in Sydney at least, to whom frustrated Labor, Liberal and Moore voters are turning.

Either way, it makes for a fight worth watching.

Labels: GLBTI, Greens, NSW politics, SX

posted by Sam @ Friday, March 23, 2007 0 comments