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

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

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

It'd almost be tragic if it weren't so funny...

Well, if this isn't the comment to make you splatter your half-eaten Corn Flakes across the breakfast table.

Lackey Downer on Santoro:

Think about him as a human being.

...

...

...

(This is me still pissing myself.)

Not sure which of youse had the displeasure of catching the Mad Monk's odious rant against Krudd in last week's Smuh. I won't dignify it with a link but here's one lowlight from his piece doubting Krudd's account of his own father's death:

The problem with his story is that it now sounds too self-serving to be true...

It was a quip - indeed, an entire article - even Lib colleagues acknowledged as nauseatingly offensive, indicative of a desperate government with absolutely no new ideas left and nothing else to do than attempt to offload the coat of shit that has steadily encased it over the years.

The day this government thinks in terms of humanity will be the day...well, the day will never come, so it's not an issue. Imploring Labor to think of its own as human beings is just ... hey, you saw the ellipses. I'm speechless.

In other news: Not a bad piece by Tanya Plibersek about the Libs' track record on same-sex couples.

Like her I question Malcolm Turnbull's alleged queer-friendliness, and she's right about his redistributed seat now taking in the queer ghetto suburbs on the harbour side of William/New South Head roads. He'll really have to show some form on law reform soon or he'll be stranded when confronted by angry fag Wentworth voters - who may just happen to look a bit like me - waving their brollies in his face demanding why we still have next to fuck-all to show for nearly 12 years of his government. The whole "he's working behind the scenes, we have to do this softly-softly" defence stopped washing after Warren Entsch's failure last year.

Labels: Australian politics, Howard government, queer, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4 comments