The Adventures of QueerPenguin

Wellity, wellity, wellity

The small-l Lib mice really are coming out to play now the Big Bad Howard cat is gone, aren't they?

Marise Payne pwns her own party, thus:

Excepting hereditary monarchies, "born to rule" went out of vogue long ago and the democratic process is no exception ... in building broader representation and diversity, we must attract more members from multicultural Australia, more women and more young Australians who see membership of a centre-right party as a way to express their ideals in a stimulating environment of open minds and open debate. We need an agenda where the modern priorities include: climate change and water issues; addressing why women are still paid less than men in exactly the same jobs; dealing with the reality of modern family life in its many versions - particularly the notorious work-life balance.

And real money quote about teh gay:

(A) similar view from families, who believed that the life of their family member was perceived by our government as insufficiently "mainstream" to merit the respect and basic human rights that the rest of the community takes for granted, just because they were gay.
We can talk about the importance of family all we like, but once we are perceived as telling Australians that we disapprove of the lives of members of their family, I believe we are crossing a line, and we also pay a philosophical price for that.

I'd complain that Payne was nowhere near this vocal about such issues during her time as a government senator, but I sympathise with her, knowing she was Enemy #1 for the hard-right freaks in her own party and probably too busy watching her back.

Even Chris Pahhhne seem to be getting his moderate groove back:

(I)f we don't decide to engage in the centre of the political spectrum then we're basically signing our death warrant.

Well that's lovely, but I can already hear the howls of disapproval and protest from the right of party and Howard's meeja darlings. To wit, one Kevin Andrews:

The coalition ... should not abandon the centre in favour of the latest trendy alternative or middle class left fancy.

That's right kids, climate change, water conservation, gender and queer equality, work/life balances - all trifling middle class lefty fancies.

Pahhhne does raise a valid point that's equally applicable to Labor: the desperate need to stamp out internal factionalism that's squeezed out the grass-roots true believers in place of faceless machine men (hello, domination of NSW Liberal Party by Hawke and other uber-righty charmers). Traditionally, rot seeping from within to destroy has been idiosyncratically Labor but it's clearly now just as much a problem for the Libs.

The sad thing is, in winning the election Kevin Rudd did not nor ever will bring about a green lefty utopia*. He has indeed captured the middle ground - but said middle ground was shifted so far to the right under Howard's rule and Rudd isn't about to shift it back anytime soon. The 'middleness' of the middle ground is totally subjective.

(*Slightly o/t: Anybody else find it amusing to watch Howard's meeja luvvies try to have a two-way bob with their sniping at Rudd? On the one hand, he only won the election by copying Howard; but on the other, he's a 'comrade' according to Bolt. So which is he, conservative or commie?)

Tony Blair and New Labour were often criticised for being softer, pale imitations of Thatcher, but I can already see he'll appear positively Marxist compared to Rudd. But I also imagine this is precisely what will keep the latter in power here for a long time. He'll keep Labor right enough, but not so right that he can't raise the threat - with the implicit agreement of certain Libs, no less - of the resurgence of the real hard-right should the Libs ever be returned to power. And in the meantime, only acting at 50% capacity on issues on which he should be giving at least 80% - watering down Labor's commitments to formal federal recognition of same-sex couples or cutting back on greenhouse gases for examples - will seem the sensible, middle-ground approach to take.

The Libs don't necessarily need to regain the middle ground through any particularly progressive shake-up - they just need to neuter their hard-right Id. That's where they'll meet Rudd. After all, he's not that far away from them.

Labels: Kevin Rudd, Labor, Liberal moderates, Liberal Party, Marise Payne

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5 comments

:-)

OH. MY. GOD!!!

I've never been happpier in my life to be wrong about something as I am tonight.

John: See ya 'round mate. It hasn't been fun.

Kev: Please don't fuck it up.

:-) :-) :-)

Labels: 2007 federal election, Labor, Liberal Party

posted by Sam @ Sunday, November 25, 2007 8 comments

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

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 4

4. Iraq + US/International relations From the beginning Labor consistently opposed Australia's automatic kowtowing to the US' disastrous invasion of Iraq based on fraudulent premises. They argued, correctly, that there were still further diplomatic options to consider and that UN directives should not be pissed aside simply because what they did not suit the US warmongering agenda.

Mark Latham was/is a lot of things, but he hit the nail on the head when he identified George W Bush as 'the most dangerous and incompetent US president in living memory'. History has since shown this to be more than true. Unfortunately, due to our PM's sycophantic urge to be besties with the idiot, the rest of us had to suffer along, falsely tarred with the same brush that we were all eager to be the No. 1 ally of a government whose corruption, arrogance and utter contempt for democracy puts even our own in the shade.

Whatever happens, this time next year the world will finally be rid of the cancerous Bush, and hopefully the US citizens will come to their senses and elect a government committed to gradual withdrawal from Iraq. It is much more credible for Australia to have a government and PM that can similarly commit to this goal without having to first perform a massive about-face on its established foreign policy.

Howard would only be an uncomfortable, shadowy reminder of the Bush legacy and I imagine reluctant to work professionally and effectively with the likely Clinton Democrat administration. The Australian and US conservatives have had nearly eight years of combined government, and look where they've got us; it's time to give a more progressive combined alliance the opportunity to undo at least some of the damage.

3. ABC Conservatives have longed argued that public broadcasting is an anachronistic waste of public expenditure. No doubt, many in the Howard government think as much even if they're unable to say so publicly. But this government's relentless attack on the institution over the last 11 years is fueled not just by this ideology, but by the hatred it harbours for any outlet that dare seriously question, examine and/or expose its operation and agenda.

In an era where commercial television grows increasingly stupider, more crass and more offensive - hello, The Farmer Wants a Wife - the role of a television station providing quality Australian programming is now crucial. Think what Aunty has given us over the years: Four Corners, 7.30 Report, Play School, Mother and Son, GP, The Chaser/CNNNN, D-Generation, The Late Show, Kath and Kim, Enough Rope, We Can Be Heroes, Summer Heights High, Frontline, Seachange, Rainshadow, Good News Week (the early years, obviously), Spicks 'n' Specks, The Librarians ... Not to mention all the various mini-series too. It's not in the commercial interests of Seven, Nine or Ten to churn out locally made news, current affairs, comedy and drama - buying overseas products is so much cheaper - so this vital role falls on the shoulders of the ABC, and even parched for funds as they are, it does so admirably.

Even some conservatives themselves recognise the vital role of the ABC, particularly with regard to regional radio services. Other conservatives have confused the ABC's scrutiny of any government of the day and trying to hold it to account with a specific, biased attack against the Howard government. Not so.

Of course the ABC has a good friend in the Labor Party - the former's ex-journos running as candidates for the latter is testament to this. But the ABC needs a friend in government now more than ever before. It will still hold the Rudd administration accountable and no doubt piss off Labor and its senior members, just as it did under Hawke and Keating, but that is only an indication that it's doing its job properly.

More importantly, its board won't be further stacked with right-wing culture warriors intent on its gradual decimation. It will be provided with a budget (or close to) that it genuinely deserves and needs, and the pressure of 'editorial balance' - a brilliant euphemism for 'Howard government propaganda' - will be lessened. The ABC will continue to lead innovation in digital technology - anybody else excited by the thought of an ABC 3, 4, etc? And the ABC will have greater liberty to produce programming that deserves international attention and kudos, so that as commercial stations sink further into the gutter, Aunty can once again hold her head high, as she did before she was so shamelessly violated.

Almost there! I'm pooped. Woine toime now.

Labels: 2007 federal election, ABC, George W Bush, Iraq, Labor, Liberal Party, US

posted by Sam @ Sunday, November 18, 2007 1 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 3

They just keep coming and coming ...

6. Reconciliation Like his alleged environmental road to Demascus (more on that later), I don't buy John Howard's claim to have discovered the value of symbolic politics as part of the reconciliation process. I strongly believe his pledge to stick around for a referendum on recognising indigenous people in the Constitution preamble is just that - an opportunity for him to stick around and delay for as long as possible the handover to Costello that party chieftains have forced him to publicly commit to.

Labor has always been consistent in committing to a formal apology for past wrong-doings. Of course, this won't solve all the many problems in one statement, but it will be a positive starting point. Whether it will be a genuine 'sorry' or a John Howard sorry remains to be seen but the expression of goodwill and desire to work together, which has been lacking for the last 11 years and especially in the last 12 months with cowboy Mal Brough and his over-inflated sense of deluded self-importance that he's single-handedly saving the poor darkies from themselves, is vital.

Labor dropped the ball playing me-too on Howard's intervention media stunt earlier this year, but hopefully when they're in a position to be dictating rather than reacting to indigenous policy they won't be placed in this situation again. At an international level Australia's record on indigenous rights and living conditions is appalling - both parties have failed. I don't know if a Rudd government will do things any better than a Howard government but I believe the time is right to try something different, something other than a government that only determines its policies according to what is expedient for the PM of the time after years of putting it in the too-hard basket.

5. Education The Howard government has shown itself time and time again to be an enemy of intellectual thought and discourse. Every Higher Ed minister from Vanstone to Nelson to Bishop has been so obsessed with finding the reds under the bed at our tertiary institutions that they've forgotten the value of proper investment in the thinking industry.

It's not necessarily wrong that the Libs have prioritised developing trade schools - the country is experiencing an unprecedented skills shortage after all. But it's bitterly disappointing that over the last 11 years the Libs have so effectively devalued the inherent value of thought and education, that rather than being a nation of ideas we're a nation of trade jobs and corresponding degree factories.

Students' higher ed debts - which, yes, were started by a Labor government - have risen ridiculously exponentially. On a personal level, I don't see myself free from uni debt until my mid-late 30s - and such a burden only encourages further personal debt. When you graduate with 20k looming over your head, it's not such a big leap to think, 'what the hell, I'm already debted up to my eyeballs anyway, what's another 5-10k in credit cards gonna hurt?' Fee increases all implemented, by the way, by ministers who had the luxury of free degrees themselves. Thanks for that.

VSU has irreparably damaged student life and culture on campus. A one-size-fits-all user pays system sounds nice in principle but by definition renders sensitive student services, such as on-campus GLBTI support groups of which I used to be an active participant, 'unnecessary' because 'users' may be too nervous to pay up-front.

Again, I don't imagine Labor will reintroduce compulsory student fees or significantly lower higher ed debts (at best they'll plateau). But getting past the 'Education Revolution' cliche, the guts of their education policy thus far is sound. In particular:

When it comes to our Universities, the Leader Kevin Rudd, in the course of his address to Conference, referred to the lack of investment which the Howard Government has made, not discharging its central obligation as the Commonwealth to our public Universities. We must make that educational investment. It’s absolutely essential for our future prosperity, our competitiveness and our capacity to be a thoughtful nation.

Contrary to the Libs' charge, it is in fact they who are the fiercest ideologues in their education policies. Consider for example what is airbrushed out of existence in John Howard's history curriculum. We need a government that genuinely values education for its own sake, not just as a tool of economic growth, encourages independent thought and is not obsessed with re-writing history to suit its own agenda.

If you get caught between number 4 and number 3, the best that you can do ... yes, the best that you can do ... is read my next post.

Labels: 2007 federal election, education, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, reconciliation

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 2

Previously, on QueerPenguin ...

8. WorkChoices/Work+life balance Even though this will probably be the issue that decides this election one way or another, the reason it's lower down on my list is that even though I was put onto an AWA after WorkChoices was rammed through, changes to my overall working and pay conditions were minimal - same shit, different contract to sign.

But I think at issue here is a fundamental difference in perspective between Labor and the Coalition regarding work generally. On the whole, Australians work very hard. We're renowned internationally for our hard work ethic and long hours. It's great that as a nation we're channelling so much productivity, but WorkChoices takes that enthusiasm too far, to the point of exploitation. Its overarching goals are firstly to lower the minimum wage in Australia so that we have an edge in the international labour force, and secondly to render unions completely redundant - John Howard's raison d'etre for his 33-year political career.

Of course, while we're cruising along the nice freeway of labour shortages and an upward wage-driving resources boom, plenty of individuals will be happy to negotiate themselves a cushy AWA - but I don't see this as sustainable in the long term, especially when the bough finally breaks. Service industries like nursing, teaching etc still rely on good collective bargaining for their basic work conditions and entitlements. Yes, union membership only accounts for around 20% of the overall work force, far less than under the Hawke glory days for the unions, but this doesn't mean they still don't have a place. Think of the key negotiating role both the ACTU and Unions NSW played in reaching a compensation agreement for victims in the James Hardie asbestos case. Under an unfettered Liberal government, unions would be neutered in this situation.

I don't say this as a particularly big fan of unions - I was a reluctant member of the SDA, the most right-wing, homophobic union in Australia, and saw absolute power corrupting absolutely an organisation that certainly wasn't representative of me or my interests. Likewise, I have first-hand experience of how quickly public sector unions abandon their members when it's politically expedient to do so. But just because unions don't always operate in practice as well as they should in principle does not mean they should be completely decimated.

I don't buy the Liberal scare campaign that the big evil union bosses will be in charge again under a Labor government - it's obvious Kevin Rudd has very few senior union friends - so I want to give them an opportunity to reprioritise, ideally to show that working long, hard hours to earn thousands of dollars to buy McMansions, gas-guzzling SUVs and plasma TVs and/or donate to Hillsong should not be the only goal to which all Australians should aspire.

This is the one election where voters actually have an opportunity to do what they should have been allowed to do last time - vote for or against WorkChoices. It only became a reality when the Coalition gained Senate control and the legislation was rammed through without any legitimate mandate. I firmly believe the hard economic warriors of the Liberal Party - Costello, Minchin etc - wish to take WorkChoices to its furthest possible extreme, and unlike this election people should be able to bear this in mind when they cast their vote. We were duped last time, but if we vote to keep the Howard/Costello government and its Senate majority in tact, we will only have ourselves to blame when WorkChoices is progressed to its natural extremity(ies).

7. Referenda on Republic and fixed elections This one is pretty self-explanatory. Both are exercises in democracy to which Howard is vehemently opposed. I believe the majority of people want both and should be allowed an opportunity to vote accordingly. Rudd is committed to both. Both will strengthen Australia's democracy, enhance our independence on the global stage and, perhaps most importantly, remove the pain of waiting for the PM in charge to capriciously determine when we go to vote according to the most favourable opinion poll. We now have fixed dates in most states and it's time for the Commonwealth (which hopefully won't be called the 'Commonwealth' much longer) to catch up.

The 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' argument against Australia severing ties with the monarchy is rubbish. The Australian Head of State should be Australian and should not be representing a redundant queen. I'll always have a soft spot for Lizzie #2 but I think Australia is all growed up now, that we can move out of her home and no longer be beholden to her in any way. The 1999 Republic referendum, which denied Australians the opportunity to express their genuine desires, highlighted that the majority of us did indeed wish to become a republic - we were just split on how to get there. I have major reservations about a directly-elected presidential model but I'd still much prefer this to the current alternative.

A lot of people are of the opinion that both these issues are just two of those things that will naturally sort themselves out - but don't seem to understand this won't happen until Howard is removed. Now's the time.

Coming up next on QP: 6 confronts 5, and sparks fly.

Labels: 2007 federal election, fixed terms, Labor, Liberal Party, Republic, unions, WorkChoices

posted by Sam @ Monday, November 12, 2007 1 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election

The number one cliche best remembered for the 2007 Australian Federal Election will surely be 'me-too'. Kevin Rudd's strongest critics argue he shouldn't win because he's only ever parroting government policy - therefore, why not vote for the genuine article? In fact, I'll bet dollars for donuts this will be the line in the Oz's Vote Howard editorial on Saturday morning, 24 November.

(PS: My challenge still stands, that I will shave my head if the Oz or any Murdoch rag gives a Vote Rudd editorial on the day, even though they're still hilariously claiming they 'haven't made up their mind yet'.)

There's no doubt Rudd has gone for a safer, small target election campaign than his predecessor - after all, it makes little sense to present a vastly different alternative to someone who is undeniably a popular PM, even after 11 long years. And maybe the policies between Labor and Liberal are so closely mirrored because Rudd is in fact just another Howard - a ruthlessly ambitious, socially conservative populist with few genuine friends in the party - and apart from industrial relations, Labor is essentially a right-wing, as opposed to a far right-wing party.

But for me, there are 10 issues where I see clear delineation between Labor and Liberal, and based on these I will be preferencing the former ahead of the latter*. I will order them from 10 to 1, Bert Newton style, over the next week and a bit.

10. The Rancid Religious Right There is no doubt the RRR has a friend in John Howard. Both the rise of Fundies First and failure of Exclusive Brethren to be shut down can both be atrributed to him and his courting of 'Christian' extremists rather than condemning them.

I'm by no means anti-religion or anti-Christian - I know there are many millions of good folk doing great work across the world all in the name of Christ, Budda, Allah, whoever. And good luck to them. But I do believe in secular nations and constitutional separation of church and state, and I don't believe biblical passages have any place in the legislature. After all, if they did my partner and I would probably be dead by now - so consider my position self-preserving, if you wish.

This is why I find Fundies First particularly threatening - they're smart enough to conceal their Bible-thumping agenda behind a fallacy of 'secular family values'. They've noted from Fred Nile's Christian Democrats that an overtly Christian-based political party will only garner so many votes, so they need to market differently to lure more innocent prey into their trap.

Labor made their mistake arranging a Senate preference deal that got Steve Fielding a job, but they appear to have learnt their lesson, judging by this year's deal in which the Greens are rightly preferenced ahead of FF in all states. The Libs, however, continue to spoon with FF, meet with and receive funding from the EB (which Rudd did rightly identify as an 'extremist cult', so there's a clear point of difference) while hypocritically gaining mileage condemning the 'troublesome' Islamic element.

I know Rudd feels the JC love big-time too, but I believe a key point of difference is that not as many of his senior ministers/allies will be thumpers as Howard's (Abbott, Andrews, Heffernan etc). Plus Rudd has previously outlined his belief in church/state separation, so I'm prepared to give him a shot that as PM he will practice what he preaches, and keep his personal religious beliefs just that - personal.

Bear in mind too, that Godfather David Clarke's chief flying monkey, Alex Hawke, is about to begin his no doubt long and illustrious career with the federal Liberal Party - and we know how dangerous both these men are.

9. Tony Abbott, Alexander Downer, Christopher Pyne, Kevin Andrews, Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz will not be ministers under a Labor government. 'Nuff said.

Coming up next: 8 and 7! Don't miss it.

(*Quite honestly, I haven't yet decided who's getting my No 1 vote. There are 11 candidates in Wentworth and I know my No 1 won't go to the Fundies First, CEC, Christian Democrats, Labor or Liberal candidates, but that still leaves me with 6 to order.)

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First, Labor, Liberal Party, rancid religious right

posted by Sam @ Friday, November 09, 2007 2 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

Bex and a nice lie down?

In light of the adoption ban, I happened to run into George Newhouse this morning, who was campaigning outside Edgecliff station (before the election has even been announced, no less!) Newhouse is the Labor candidate for Wentworth and probably has a better-than-ever-before chance of turning the blue-ribbon (now hot pink-tinged) seat red than any previous Labor candidate.

Anyway, when I aggressively accosted politely engaged him over why Rudd still hadn't offered a formal reply - rebuttal, even, to the ban - I got the standard reply of a/ Rudd doesn't want an election wedgie and b/ Labor's understanding is that the legislation won't actually be presented in the Spring session, after all. It's a whistle to the fundie vote that won't actually equate to action.

This would fit with other informed speculation about only being alert, not alarmed, to this particular queer bash.

Not that Newhouse, of course, is in any position to know the government's legislative agenda, but it's possible - microscopically possible - that we don't need to worry about this after all. At least, not until the Libs win the election and/or the Lib/National/Fundies First coalition wins Senate control.

That's nice, isn't it?

Labels: 2007 federal election, Labor, same-sex adoption

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2 comments

It ain't easy being greenish

The usual suspects, led by Bob Brown and Australian Conservation Foundation, are pouncing on Krudd's overturning of Latham's 2004 Tasmanian old-growth forestry policy. But I really feel a reality check is needed here.

Not meaning to get stuck into Brown, a man I admire, or the ACF, but the fact is Latham's policy to boost protected areas cost Labor two seats in Tasmania. Before then, they had a clean sweep of the state's five federal seats. This new policy will win those seats back for them. It's smart politics on Krudd's part.

That's not to say I agree with the policy itself; as I've argued previously with regard to rice and cotton farming, there are certain industries that simply aren't practical or sustainable and should be gradually phased out of existence for the sake of preserving vital natural resources.

But Latham's original reasoning behind devising this policy was flawed. It was all about establishing Green cred on Labor's part and thereby appealing to Green voters - inner-city, skim latte gay homosexual types, mostly. You know, like me.

But the fact is, 3 in 4 Green voters preference Labor anyway, and they're not going to stop doing this based on this issue alone. Very few Green voters think, 'well I WAS going to preference Labor as I usually do, but since Krudd has announced this policy I think I'll preference the homophobic, climate change sceptical, anti-intellectual, anti-equal rights Bible-bashing wingnuts in the Coalition instead!'

Or, put simply, the typical Green voter is a much safer bet to preference (i.e. vote for) Labor than the capricious union bloke living in the seats of Bass or Braddon who'll completely piss on the party that actually believes in his organisation's continued existence, long enough to jump ship to Howard the moment he doesn't get exactly what he wants.

This is perhaps a smite harsh - we are talking about these people's livelihoods after all, even if they're centred on an industry I think should gradually be phased out (which I believe was what made up the $800m price tag of Latham's original policy, effectively buying them out of business). I guess you can understand why some of them went so far as to have their photo taken, beaming arm-in-arm with Howard, the man who is to blue-collar unions what termites are to Chippendale.

Still, Krudd has placated these voters; he's won support from the unions, forestry industry body and the Tasmanian Labor government and therefore has a show of solidarity where Latham had only fractured chaos. It's all part of Krudd's election strategy which, whether or not you agree with it, is working: take the left or left-leaning folk for granted and poach back swinging voters in marginal seats by focusing on the issues important to them. Labor's worst-case scenario is that they may lose a couple of inner-Melbourne or Sydney seats to the Greens - but that's a long-shot, and ultimately it's more important they win seats at a direct cost of the Coalition losing them (as they now will in Tasmania).

It's sad it's come to this, of course, but at crunch time you have to ask: Do you want to give Krudd and Labor a shot or do you really, really want to endure Howard for another three years (don't be under any delusions of a gracious handover to Costello, by the way) by sticking to pure principle? After nearly 12 years of Howard rule, the current political climate dictates that we cannot expect a Latham or a Whitlam-type to be our next Labor PM. The best we have to hope for is a centre-right leader to replace a right leader, hopefully drag the country back to some degree of middle ground in his first term and get swinging voters past the straw Labor boogiemen Howard and co are pitching in their desperate last-minute pitch to cling to power.

Then we can look at saving the trees.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Kevin Rudd, Labor

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5 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

Kevin Rudd Asked Driver for Sex...Oh...Wait...+ How Affirming is the Action?

That should read "Kelly Hoare Asked Driver for Sex". But you may not necessarily make that distinction were you to have briefly seen the blaring headline on Sunday's Terror.

See, apparently Kelly Hoare is a 'Rudd MP', not merely a 'Labor MP' - or, forbid, just 'Federal MP'. Despite the fact that prior to this story being released, Hoare had just been shafted for Greg Combet, so she wasn't even an MP anymore, let alone a 'Rudd MP'.

Still, guilt by association and all that - even when there's no actual association. Something tells me Kev's meeting with Uncle Rupert didn't go quite as well as his smirk implied.

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

Anyway, this segues nicely into a debate currently under way about women in politics and affirmative action - an 'insulting relic', according to TUAI Janet.

Firstly, with regard to Hoare: If she is guilty of what she's been accused - asking a driver to 'come inside and fuck me' - then she's not fit to be a MP, and the Labor Party did the right thing shafting her, even if it was just so they could install Melbourne-based Combet in a safe NSW seat. Can you imagine the furore - quite rightly, too - if the gender roles had been reversed here, and it was for example Wayne Swan or Tony Abbott making the same request of a female driver? So I don't have much sympathy for Hoare, victim or otherwise of the Labor machine.

Now, with regard to Labor's affirmative action program: It's fair to say I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think we can be so naive as to think that gender equality has been completely achieved and made affirmative action programs in politics redundant just yet - and I probably won't really believe it until such time as we have a female Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister (go Jules) and/or female premiers who haven't been propped there merely as scapegoats for the administrative debacles of their predecessors.

So I'm not opposed to the concept per se - but I question how it is applied within Labor. Think of some of the recent candidate announcements for the 2007 election. Who have been given either a safe or winnable seat to contest? Greg Combet (Charlton), George Newhouse(Wentworth), Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong), Jason Clare (Blaxland), Gary Gray (Brand) and Michael Kelly (Eden-Monaro), for starters.

But who've been given difficult or virtually impossible seats to contest? Mia Handshin (Sturt), Nicole Cornes (Boothby) and Belinda Neal (Robertson).

Do you see a pattern?

If Labor's AA program is merely a tokenistic pretence of support, which doesn't actually translate to installing quality female candidates into winnable Labor seats, then it's pretty useless. Similarly, Labor is only shooting itself in the foot if its AA program leads to a lightweight like Nicole Cornes getting a gig, while a quality candidate like Warren Mundine misses out to a fairly ineffectual hack like Julia Irwin.

But I don't think the faults of AA as applied by Labor are of themselves cause to dismantle the program altogether. The fact is women bear extra pressures in what is still a male-dominated, chauvinistic (in Labor and Liberal at least) industry. Penny Wong's take on criticisms of Cornes sums these pressures up quite well. While Labor loyalties prevent Wong from identifying the more legitimate critcisms of Cornes' apparent ignorance of policy and issues, she makes the valid point that

the pressure (on women) is on to be all things to all people. Given that this is an impossible task, women are then often criticised for not measuring up.

They’re either too pretty, too young, too fat or too unmarried. You have to ask whether male candidates get the same sort of treatment.

Furthermore, as Wong argues, sometimes the greatest critics of women are, sadly, other women. They're in an almost impossible situation, not just with men but with the sisterhood too.

And double standards are rife. It was offensive to read the Murdoch rags repeatedly refer to 'Julia' in their headlines when Gillard was under scrutiny for her 'jihad on business' comments. Would the same papers ever refer to 'John', 'Tony' or 'Kevin' so patronisingly? Don't think so.

So for the moment, I think the extra support is still needed, and I agree with affirmative action 'in theory'. But 'in theory', Communism works. 'In theory.' In practice, it doesn't seem to be working quite so well for Labor.

Labels: 2007 federal election, affirmative action, Labor, preselection, The Terror

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8 comments

Note to Labor: Suck less

You know, Labor really isn't doing itself any favours at the moment. Nevermind the very disappointing resolution on federal same-sex couple laws, they've now chosen Nicole Cornes to run against Andrew Southcott for Boothby, in a bizarre move for which there is only one word - and it's not even a word - 'wtf'?

First some background for non-Adelaideans in the audience: Nicole Cornes is the upgrade wife of Graham Cornes, a Local Legend, or so he'd probably like to think. Being Adelaide, he's a LL because he used to play footy, and now he sells cars and hosts a show on 5AA. N Cornes, meanwhile, writes a column for the Adelaide Sunday Mail and runs her own business.

But how's this for less-than-appropriate criteria for running not just for federal politics, but for Labor?

• She's a self-confessed ex-Lib voter who as recently as 2004 was writing that John Howard had proved himself to be a fine PM;

• She's literally terrified by any - any - serious media interaction. Choice quotes in the last couple of days allegedly include:

- "I won't have to answer any tough questions, no hard-hitting questions, will I?"

- (to ABC local radio) "I have done a quick phone call with 5AA. Your show is different. You ask serious questions - they're not going to give me any hard questions, it's just going to be a soft interview."

- "(I am) not prepared for the onslaught of straight into policy and straight into in-depth conversations regarding issues I really don't have a grasp of, yet."

Wowsers, that is not good.

Of course, the starving Howard meeja lapdogs have pounced quickly - and if they were able to criticise without whipping out their shrunken man-bits to jerk-off over Cornes' (apparent) physical attractiveness, they might actually have a credible argument. It's really difficult to fathom why on earth Labor has gone with a person who clearly has no idea what is involved in federal politics or what voters expect from their elected representatives, other than a hope that she can cruise into the seat on her (Adelaide-only) celebrity - and that maybe male voters in Boothby are as lecherous as Andrew Bolt.

And most frustratingly, Boothby is precisely the sort of seat for which Labor should be reserving its A-material. It's fairly safe Liberal, yes, but it's affluent inner city, and full of doctors' wives (for want of a better term) who've had enough of Howard and who feel Rudd is similar enough, yet different enough, to vote for instead. Southcott is a nobody who could easily be overshowed by a high-profile, quality candidate. Labor, until now, had a not unrealistic chance of winning.

In that regard, then, Labor has made a much smarter choice endorsing Mia Handshin to run against Christopher Pyne in Sturt. Again, you won't have heard of her outside the Adelaide bubble, but she has a fairly impressive track record in actual politics, as well as a 'Tiser column she's written for the last 10 years. She's always had a bit of an over-privileged, precocious, Overachieving Young Student Pollie element about her - think a young Nat SD - but at least she knows the business, and knows not to say at her first media conference, effectively, 'don't ask me about politics, I'm just a girl. Hee hee!'

Labor also looks like they're getting in right over on the east coast, with quality candidates set to challenge Malcolm Turnbull and Gary Nairn in Wentworth and Eden-Monaro respectively. And it is nice to see Labor preselection branching out a little more beyond the usual hack-to-candidate, just-add-water gene pool (Greg Combet and Bill Shorten cruising into their safe seats notwithstanding). But seriously, even a hack would've been a better choice for Boothby than Cornes - at least they'd be trained to speak properly on cue.

I'll have absolutely no sympathy for Labor if they happen to lose this election by one seat. It would be entirely their own doing.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Labor, preselection

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4 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