The Age believes Attorney-General Robert McClelland will announce today that he will introduce amendments to Parliament as early as next month to alter around 100 federal laws.
The changes will not allow gay marriages or same-sex couples to adopt children, and the issue of access to the Family Court for same-sex couples is still being resolved.
Some of the changes would take effect immediately, but many financial laws — such as social security, tax and veterans’ affairs — would be phased in by mid-2009. But first the changes will have to be passed by the Senate, where the Coalition retains its majority until July 1.
Even after then, Labor will need the vote of conservative Christian and Family First senator Steve Fielding and independent senator Nick Xenophon if it cannot clinch Coalition support.
Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has signalled he backed the principle of removing discrimination against gay couples but has yet to secure formal support from his colleagues.
This is the sort of situation that led to my rabbiting on so much about the importance of balancing the Senate in our last election. I’ll bet on Fielding voting against this bill, in which case unless the Liberals support it it won’t go through.
The other option is a conscience vote, but I don’t know how often the Senate has practised that option. So, if you have a Liberal Senator in your state, contact that senator and register your support for this bill. It’s a dead cert that many social conservatives will be contacting them to register their opposition. Your calls /letters/emails might make the difference to a wavering politician, stiffening their spine to formally support Nelson’s backing of the principle of the bill.
For more information on the rights and responsibilities for married and de-facto heterosexual couples which are currently denied to same-sex couples under Federal Law, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has a section devoted to the issue.
I don’t want to encourage complacency, but I can’t see the coalition blocking this legislation. For one thing, it would give the ALP a double dissolution trigger. Imagine the Libs trying to fight an election in their current state of popularity on an issue that would guarantee Malcolm Turnbull lost his seat. I mean they’re stupid, but they’re not that stupid.
The Coalition has already said today that it supports the legislation in principle and is only waiting for an exposure draft of the legislation. That was George Brandis on ABC radio this morning, no link that I can find.
“As a matter of principle we believe that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security support by virtue of their sexuality,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231128.htm
Could someone please tell Dr Nelson that this inequity has been the case for ages?
A gay couple, both on social security , get single payments. If even considered “de facto”, by present legal arrangements, they should expect investigation as to, ‘whether they are doing it’ and a lower combined benefit payment
Just sayin’.
Good catch on the double dissolution trigger, feral sparrowhawk. D’oh, can’t believe I missed that aspect.
In that case, should we actually be contacting Liberal Senators to tell them how opposed to the bill we are, and see if we can make them so recalcitrant that a DD becomes possible?
Eh, I doubt the current (really, quite conservative) lot would want this particular issue to the a DD trigger. It would give too much ammo to the crazies.
How about “As a matter of principle we believe that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security support by virtue of their
sexualityrelationship status”.That I’d like to see.
Repeal the Marriage Act.
I’m fairly sure the G+L rights lobby is well aware of the cases of people’s benefits going down if they are in a relationship. I have a couple fo friends who know this will be a little harder at first, as they are on student allowances, but it’s the principal of the thing. Which is why an economically conservative gonverment should be happy to take the money away. It’s good for the economy :p
Fielding will vote against it but it shouldn’t be too hard to get Brandis and Trood on side in Queensland. The rearguard regiments of Liberal culture warriors will fight tooth and nail but Brendan will have to either let the Senators vote according to their consciences or try and force his position on the party and let the leadership be wrested from him.
Or they could do what the BCC ALP have done over the Hale St Bridge and abstain as a party.
“It’s a dead cert that many social conservatives will be contacting them to register their opposition.”
Anyone who rings up to complain about this most basic of reforms is a miserable, miserable human being.
I think this is a good idea in general, but I’m not sure how you’d deal fairly with child welfare payments. Clearly children of a poor single mother need more support than children who have a wealthy “step” father, but I can’t see a way of acknowledging this without taking the relationship of the adults into consideration.
As long as marriage and civil unions are out of the equation, I can’t see any reason why the Liberals would block any properly devised legislation of this nature. It would hurt them electorally to do so.
Jeremy, that’s far too polite. I am still pissed off at Nicola Roxon as shadow A-G supporting the amendments to the Marriage Act.
The Liberals will be wedged 47 different ways on this. Recall that this initiative was supported by the majority of Howard’s cabinet, but it was vetoed by Howard.
This could break Nelson’s leadership. On the one hand, the Turnbull wing will be inclined to support the policy, but they may see it as an opportunity to undermine Nelson fatally. On the other hand, Nelson’s supporters on the Right, who put him in the leadership, like Tony Abbott, may see this as the opportunity to break with him.
..by opposing the policy.
A DD would result in Turnbull losing his seat. So that’s a reason for some Liberal Senators not blocking the bill?
I think lobbying Liberal senators on this one is an excellent suggestion.
Isn’t this the policy George Bush was proposing, except with the “Civil Union” tag?
The right (and the new libs) couldn’t care less about this issue as long as it avoids the “m” word and adoptive/reproductive rights. They’re right to wait until they see the color of the legislation though.
I don’t know what you mean about George Bush, Craig, but this has nothing do with civil unions (more’s the pity), but just removing discriminatory provisions in a grab bag of laws. Basically the same diff as doing so for de facto heterosexual couples. It doesn’t imply any form of recognition for same sex couples.
“The right (and the new libs) couldn’t care less about this issue”
John Howard cared, so much so he killed the idea,despite a majority of his cabinet colleagues supporting it.
Let’s see what Abbott and Minchin, to name but two, have to say, before concluding that the Right couldn’t care less.
Barnaby Joyce doesn’t sound keen.
Yes.
>
If Nelson is smart he’ll let his senators go the way they want on this. He’s already presented as a small ‘l’ liberal so to turn conservative would show him up weak. It’s what he believes in and considering his personal history it’s also a character matter. That’s to say if he doesn’t somehow support the bill he’s got none.
>
But the smart play is: don’t try to win caucus and precipitate a conservative/liberal brouhaha (unless he can win). Just allow a conscience vote.
It really is about this sort of change was made, I feel that it doesn’t go far enough. But with the Liberals in charge in the Senate, this legislation is probably as far as they can go at the moment
Agree with Alastair at #11 – succinctly put.
And it should go through just in time for Justice Kirby who retires very soon.
Nelson said on a tv news broadcast that they won’t oppose what is currently proposed, however gay marriage, IVF and adoptions are definitely out.
The proposed changes will pass the Senate.
It was Nelson, Turnbull, Hockey & Ruddock apparently who pushed similar changes at Cabinet before the election, and as Spiros says, JWH vetoed it. Considering Nelson & Turnbull are now the Opp. Leader & Shadow Treasurer….not likely they won’t get the numbers combined, even with some minority hard right frothing.
If it does go to a conscience vote, this would indicate that Nelson has absolutely no sway at all, either in the shadow cabinet, or with his much sucked up to backbench colleagues.
In respect of contacting more sympathetic Coalition Senators from your state, check out the list of Liberal Senators who voted for (with their consciences) the 2006 – RU486 Bill, at Andrew Bartlett’s site.
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=130
The end result being 14 Liberal senators voted for, with 17 against. (And this was with Abbott as Health Minister reputation at stake) It was very much a gendered vote for the Liberals in particular, the combined Senate vote was: Male: 21 in favour, 25 against. Female: 24 in favour, 3 against.
As to Aqua-man, he doesn’t win Wentworth with the ‘pink vote’. His 2PP vote for booths in the Cross, Darlinghurst, Potts Point & Elizabeth Bay is a mere 31-40%, these areas being the most pro-labor/green parts of the electorate, (besides a few remaining beachside holdouts
) This is not to suggest that they’re aren’t many gays and lesbians who vote for Malcolm in particular, or Liberal in general, across the entire electorate, but where there is a significant, identifiable gay/lesbian community, they have traditionally voted either Labor/Green or for independent candidates like Clover Moore in the NSW state elections etc.
He did of course, campaign v. hard for the gay & lesbian vote in the 07 election. In terms of his own seat however, rather than his national profile, he can go as hard as he likes on progressive social policies, as the entire combined Christian Democrat & Family First vote in Wentworth only just cracked 0.6% of the total electorate.
“Nelson said on a tv news broadcast that they won’t oppose what is currently proposed”
Good to hear. Thing w/ Righties of the political persuasion, it’s usually about the money…but sometimes their conscience cometh before political games & money making.
As has been shown in American politics time & time again, by way of the media spotlight, it’s “do as I say, not as I do” underlying most ‘wedge issues’.
Hopefully Aussies in the Senate & by way of polling will demonstrate themselves to be a darn site less discriminatory & narrow minded than many of their American counterparts as they go about their profit-making ventures & need to find “understanding” thru God.
It would be good to live in an “enlightened society”…my hard working gay mates deserve a heck of alot more respect than they’ve received over the past decade and such. That’s a fact. At least this is a major move forward…rather than backwards, Howard style.
Insightful comments. Worthwhile topic tigtog.
It’s true that Turnbull does worse where there is a recognisable GLBTI community, but that’s not the issue. The point is that if his vote in those booths drops from mid 30s to high 20s he’s in deep deep trouble, particularly considering the likely national swing to the ALP. Take in some more diffuse votes across the seat and he’s done for if he votes against this. And if he votes for it there’ll be no problems finding a handful of Senate Libs to do the same. It’s going to pass, and the odds are that Nelson will support it as well. I’d guess there’ll be less than 10 votes against even if there’s a conscience vote.
I think that jo is spot on. The G&L anti-discrimination amendments will sail through the Senate without too much trouble. Even were they not to, I very much doubt that Rudd would go to a DD over it because the ALP’s resolute – and illogical – opposition to Civil Unions (let alone gay marriage) would open the potential for an attack from the Left (on well-merited rank hypocrisy grounds) that could cost them dearly in inner metropolitan seats. And the media would have a field day – “if you feel such double-dissolution outrage about discrimination towards gay and lesbian Australians, Mr Rudd why do you continue to oppose extending the same legal validation to their relationships that all other Australians enjoy?”
I’m not sure about how indelible Wentworth’s pink hue is. A Sydney Star Observer (Sydney’s gay journal of record) poll on reader residence a couple of years back revealed that the majority were inner westies, so Sydney and Grayndler might be more reliably queer these days.
I agree with jo@25: the RU486 vote is a reasonably reliable indicator of how the Libs will split – allowing for the fact that Liberal Senators Campbell, Hill, Vanstone, Ferris and Santoro have since been replaced.
Among NSW Libs, Heffernan and Fierravanti-Wells would be dead against the proposals, Payne would definitely vote for them (and would cross the floor, I’d reckon, if the party room came down against it). Coonan would probably invoke some-of-my-best-friends-etc. to vote for the current proposals while stacking up the straw men to mollify the right.
There might be one or two other rock-ribbed conservatives who might support the bill, with a gay brother or a lesbian daughter swaying their decision just this once. Gary Humphries represents the ACT, an area with an increasing gay presence, and he may support the bill on constituency grounds (he voted against Howard’s repeal of earlier ACT legislation on gay marriage on that basis).
While gay and lesbian couples have struggled with these discriminatory measures, it is important to recognise that these measures represent an advance, to celebrate them and push for remaining objectives – it would be
bloody typicalchurlish to claim these measures represent a sell-out or an inadequate response.A very well considered article by Rodney Croome in The Age this week.
It begins with the word “imagine”, a word I rather like to associate with that Albert Einstein Quotation: “I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
No one needs to know everything about gay life and gay relationships to imagine what a struggle for social acceptance might be like. Mr. Croome’s article asks you to imagine these struggles for a moment.
I myself probably have a more pragmatic and less principled view of formal relationship recognition than a committed gay advocate like Rodney Croome does. However, I would at least go as far as discouraging Government from classifying gay relationships as “interdependants” rather than defining them quite appropriately as “de factos”.
Let those principled Conservatives assert their case against same-sex marriages, but don’t be so unimaginative and uncompromising that we have to have our gay relationships classified so vaguely, effectively denying any pragmatic definition.
…From Justin
Latest reports are that the Opposition want to amend it to include longstanding non-sexual domestic partnerships, like between sisters, best friends and carer relationships.
This is what the Libs pushed for here in SA when the legislation was debated, and if memory serves the ALP granted them that to prevent the Bill falling over.
Their thinking seems to be that if they include all these other relationships then somehow it deflects attention from the gay stuff: the issue is “softened” into one of acknowledging all domestic relationships, rather than dealing with the more hard-nosed political issues of eliminating the longstanding discrimination against gay people and the need to fully recognise, FINALLY, that same-sex attracted people should have the right to marry their partners if they want to.
Personally, I think the Government should let them have their way and as soon as that is done, swiftly reopen debate on Howard’s nasty anti-gay amendments in the Marriage Act.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the first Liberal Caucus meeting after that if it happened