Rudd sides with the bigots
April 29th, 2009 by Idiot/Savant | Published in Law, Lesbian and Gay, Politics | 87 Comments
Crossposted from No Right Turn
Whenever I look at Australian politics, I’m constantly reminded that the Australian Labor Party is neither as progressive or liberal as its New Zealand equivalent. I’ve had another such reminder today, with Kevin Rudd categorically ruling out any move to introduce civil unions in Australia. His reason? American-style bigotry:
The Government’s response equated the proposal with same-sex marriage equality, saying the no gay unions policy “reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman”.
The furtherest they’ll go is to officially recognise gay de facto couples. And this in a country which has not yet outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at a federal level.
Civil unions are not full equality – they are “seperate but equal”, which never is. At the same time, they are a marked improvement, and a step on the road to full equality. Rejecting even this half-measure is the sign of a party – and a country – which is still deeply bigoted, and does not yet accept the fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such. We expect that from the right; to see it from the left is deeply troubling.
I agree that Rudd is caving into the bigots, although in fairness the position he is taking is entirely consistent with what he ran for election on – keeping promises matters.
That said there is no justifiable argument that gays should not enjoy the same rights that straights do. End of story.
If one had the money (and if it was legally possible, of course), it would be great to test the hypocrisy of the federal government over it’s contradictory arguments for removing all instances of federal discrimination based on sexual orientation except one.
Kevin Rudd is caught in the crowd.
I like that US comedian who did a skit on the first known gay divorce:
“Don’t they realise its a sacred institution – between a man and a woman who HATE each other?!!”
Separate but equal … never is I think sums it up. The ‘moral zeitgeist’ will shift, and this change will happen gradually. Most Australians just aren’t there yet. Young Australians are much more open to this than older ones, so it will take a generational shift, which comes through time.
I/S he is “merely” fulfilling an election promise. It’s another way he distinguishes this Govt from its predecessor. This matters to many voters.
Thanks for the link on Kate’s song, Paul.
Personally I’m not a supporter of same sex marriage as I don’t believe marriage fits the variety and diversity of same sex relationships. I would prefer a combination of civil union, mutual adoption, sworn brohterhood and sworn sisterhood. Indeed if marriage was abolished altogether and replaced with varieties of these bondings (I won;t say pairings because, because only civil unions could be interepreted in an exclusively couplist manner)talored to suit both saem sex and opposite sex relationships then that would represent real social advancement that is both equal but not hetero-uniformatising either
God the man’s a dipshit.
Honestly, I don’t expect Australia to pole-vault from nervous removal of same sex discrimination in Commonwealth laws to full-fledged gay marriage, but I had held out hope that this government would move to offer civil unions.
I think it would be good to urge Getup to revive their campaigning on this. His statement that it’s a ‘widely held’ community view that marriage is only for men and women is bunkum. last time the Australian people were asked 57% supported same sex marriage.
“From 1 July 2009 changes to legislation will mean that customers who are in a same-sex de facto relationship will be recognised as partnered for Centrelink and Family Assistance Office purposes. All customers who are assessed as being a member of a couple will have their rate of payment calculated in the same way.”
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/same_sex.htm
Idiot/Savant, look, progress!
Myriad: sounds like someone needs to chuck a member’s bill into the works to haul them over the political coals. Except then it might lose – and that’s the last thing we want…
Joe2: woo-hoo! (#include["appropriate.hand.gestures.h"])
I think New Zealand started doing that sometime in the 90′s…
“I think New Zealand started doing that sometime in the 90’s…”
What, you mean the government came back again, to join gays in bed, to see what they were doing, ealier than us, so they could pay them less?… wow, that is progressive.
joe2: more that it treated all couples equally shittily when providing benefits, regardless of sexual orientation.
I/S,
The “community” that Rudd is referring to is the one that is important to him – Caucus. That is why he made the election promise in the first place (honestly, do you think he would haveended up with even one seat less if he had not made that promise) and why he is so determined to keep that promise.
“I think New Zealand started doing that sometime in the 90’s…”
and more power to you, seriously I/S, but as a lesbian Australian, please don’t be quite so flip to dismiss our first major national advance towards equal rights in a very long time. To give what small credit there is where it’s due, while Labor here won’t federally support gay marriage or civil unions, it did introduce and get through legislation that removed federal discrimination against same sex couples in about 70 various pieces of legislation (from memory) – suffice to say it was comprehensive.
It means for the first time as a federal public service employee my partner will be entitled to my superannuation when I die, and I can claim her as a dependent in my tax, and not have to technically break the law by refusing to pay for the private health insurance surcharge, which I have done for the last few years.
It also means others won’t go through the farce I went through, when I sponsored my US partner to live here, where I had to on one hand sign a Statutory Declaration for the Immigration DEpt. to the effect that I would support my partner for 2 years and declare my relationship to all relevant authorities, and on the other have Centrelink refuse to make any record of my relationship because they didn’t recognise same sex relations – which put me in the catch 22 of potentially being accused of lying about my relationship status!
so small steps they might be to you, but big ones for me.
Barring a hanful of administrative functions (pensions, etc) I fail to see why the government should have anything to do with marriage.
It should be arranged by 2 consenting people (pologamy Im not so keen on) with the religous/civil/whatever organisation of their choice. My only proviso would be the government couldnt legislate to force religous organisations to marry people. That should come down to pressure from religous organisation members, and the government should but out.
Id rather have 2 gay/lesbians raising a child in a stable family rather than some of the serial “octomums” who treat their kids like crap.
“It means for the first time as a federal public service employee my partner will be entitled to my superannuation when I die..”
If the marriage act was changed to include all couples then all same-sex people would be entitled to all the benefits/drawbacks not just public servants and those affected by federal statutes.
Partners may be still be barred from hospitals & medical decisions, funeral arrangements etc. etc. by families of the other partner.
Until same-sex marriage is legal we still have discrimination against a minority for no valid reason.
Troubling yes, surprising no. I’ve heard just as many poofter jokes from trade union officials as from managers.
Rudd also promised action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of the two promises I know which one I’d rather see kept.
As much as I am backing equality between all citizens of the world, no matter race or sex or preference etc… The purpose of our Government is to uphold the views of the Majority of the people. Unless something radical has happened and nobody told me, the Majority of Australians do not support Gay Marriage.
Perhaps we should be looking at ourselves as a nation and not to our political leaders, because as far as what Ruddy is doing, he’s doing a spot on job! He has done what our Constitution asks, he Represents the Majority.
So before anyone has yet another go at Ruddy for doing his job… maybe they should think about having a go at the population of Australia? Because after all, we are what is holding our nation back from growing!
@Carn
“The purpose of our Government is to uphold the views of the Majority of the people”.
Could not disagree more. What if the majority of people thought that torture should legal or that we should be able to own slaves or that the Islamic faith should be outlawed? Do you believe that the government should enact those laws just because the “majority” believed it? Of course not. The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority. If your rule held true then in Australia women would not have the vote, Aboriginals would still be second class non-citizens, sexual discrimination would be allowed, the White Australia policy would still rule, etc etc etc. Each step of cultural growth and maturity in every society has resulted from a Government doing the opposite of what the majority wants. The role of government is to lead and to govern not to pander to ignorance.
If it is true that the majority is opposed to gay marriage (and I don’t concede that), then the majority is wrong. Just like it was wrong when blacks could not marry whites and when women were barred from the holding public office. If you are right that the majority of Australians are opposed to gay marriage then shame on my fellow country men and women but even more shame on Kevin Rudd for allowing narrow minded bigotry to rule his leadership.
There is no rationale argument for denying two people the right to commit their lives to each other.
There’s a great comment over at the Star Observer article that this piece links to:
Rudd is a disappointment isn’t he? just a younger version of Howard
I think Dom Rose’s summation was on the money.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-hopefuls-rudd-rant/2007/10/02/1191091114703.html
This is just more confirmation that he’s simply a low-cal version of the guy he replaced.
BTW Cam a mojority of Australians do support same-sex marriage and a thumping majority support civil unions as you can see here:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21942737-5007133,00.html?from=public_rss
Corny but true that marriage is an institution…….and who’d want to live in an institution! Seems to me that the argument here is still largely about money, pension entitlements and the like. The statistics for marriages ending in divorce are pretty dismal and we all know the acrimony surrounding maintenance, superannuation funds etc. Lawyers do very well out of it! Ex-same sex couples will have the same issues to deal with. Be careful what you wish for! Also Family Law Courts are over-burdened as it is, why add the complexities of same-sex divorce to the mix?
As for Rudd being such a disappointment, billie…Maybe he is to you but two thirds of the voting public think he’s Okay. Just keeping promises is somewhat miraculous for a politician. He’s wise about not making too many of them, even at the risk of being labelled a bigot. At least he’s a fair bigot, and he did keep his 2007 promise about recognition of de facto and civil unions. If you want anything more progressive you’ll have to find another politician or party!
I’m trusting him on the greenhouse gas emissions, Moz. After all, politics is the art of the possible. What will the Greens and the Coalition between them do with Rudd’s ETS in the Senate. Surely that’s his strategy?
This just goes to show that the worlds problems are not political, they are moral and ethical. Therefore, politics & politicians won’t help.
It’s fun to read though. I often think future generations will look back and laugh at us, but then people have probably been saying that for centuries.
Cam @ 20, I posted a direct link directly above your comment showing you that indeed, things have drastically changed, and over 50% of Australians when last polled do support gay marriage. So even taking your flawed argument about government apparently only being there to implement the will of the majority (shame that didn’t count when we all didn’t want to go to war in Iraq), you’re flat-out wrong.
And hey Patricia, how about you support us to get the right to marry as equal citizens rather than pontificating at us in patronising tones about ‘careful what we wish for’.
Well said. It offends me that the Government is trying to tell people who they can and can’t have feelings for and how they can spend the rest of their life with.
Thank you for clarifying that, Myriad. I was of the understanding that the majority are in favour of gay marriage, it’s good to have a reference point.
I don’t really support civil unions, I think it’s could actually delay what I believe should be the inevitable move towards full recognition of gay marriage, I’m worried it could entrench unequal recognition of relationships.
It was interesting to read about this issue in the papers while I was in the USA, it seems weird that the discussion there should be seem so much more progressive than the discussion here, given the supposed influence of the right-wing Christian lobby. So what’s our excuse, why are we dragging the chain so much on this?
rudd’s a fake – at least howard was honest . . .
C’mon I think bigoted is a bit strong.
Aren’t you forgetting all the bits of legislation the Government has changed to get rid of discrimination – some of which Howard promised to do but surprisingly never got around to.
One of the things that makes the debate here different from the one about gay marriage in the US is that we have recognized de facto relationships here. I’ve listened to friends who are active on gay rights issues, and I just don’t get the sense that this is a big issue for them. Sorry, I just can’t work myself up enough to see this as a pressing human rights issue of the order of, say, closing the gap in aboriginal health.
Let’s call a spade a spade here: gays enjoy more freedom and face less discrimination than ever before in Australia in 2009. And the present government has probably done more to eliminate discrimination for gay couples and families than any previous government.
Things are only moving in one direction for gays in this country: more acceptance.
I thought most of the changes that removed discriminating against same sex couples were driven by money – a couple for example receives less in social security and other entitlements than two individuals in many cases.
Rudd on the left? Surely you jest.
I am trapped in a nightmare. Limp lettuce and Labor is about all I can see at the moment. I will wake in fright soon.
Ginja, you’re putting up some awful arguments, like, gays face less discrimination than before so they should be satisfied with that? Like, we can rank human rights issues and discrimination against gays isn’t as important as ….. when this marriage thing can be fixed by changing a few words in a piece of legislation – the Attorney-General’s job. Fixing Aboriginal health is a huge problem that several other ministers could spend nearly all their time on for the forseeable future.
As for ‘I’ve listened to friends and it isn’t a big issue for them’ – why aren’t you listening to the people on this thread who are telling you it is a big issue for them.
About breaking promises …. what Rudd could do now is acknowledge that opinion is shifting on this issue, and get a Senate committee to inquire into what the government should do. That inquiry could cover what’s happening elsewhere (according to today’s paper even Iowa now has same sex marriage!), the situation in Australia, lots of consultation, a discussion paper or two, and in a year’s time, report with a recommendation, ready for the government to implement after the next election. The new promise could be: we’ll implement the recommendation of the committee.
If people want to see gay marriage implemented in Australia, then they have a choice to support political parties who support equal rights. The Australian Democrats support gay marriage, and whilst they had a presence in the Senate, they did a lot to help remove discriminatory laws.
The Australian Democrats:
- lobbied for and supported the lifting of a ban against gay men and lesbians in the military
- successfully amended industrial relations law to prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation
- were pivotal in bringing about the introduction of an interdependency category to allow a direct immigration opportunity for same-sex couples and opposed the Howard Government’s downgrading and capping of this immigration category
- voted to overturn Tasmania’s anti-gay laws
- moved for the removal of gender specific language in all legislation and regulations
…and there are more
http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/ActionPlans/Attorney_GLBTI_2007.pdf
It’s up to politicians to stick to their party lines and election promises.
It is up to the people to choose which parties and therefore politicians represent them and hence their views.
@John:
People are rarely single issue voters. If one of the big parties is perceived to address the other issues more effectively than one of the minor parties, there is absolutely nothing wrong with members of the electorate agitating for the major party to change its party lines on issues such as equal marriage rights.
Despite election rhetoric there is absolutely no obligation for parties to stick to every single plank of an election platform for the entirety of their subsequent period in office, and I for one would find such a lack of policy evolution over 3 or 4 years to be the sign of a party in stagnation, not of sticking to some moral high ground.
I am a supporter of gay marriage. Still, I find some of the Rudd bashing on this thread pretty silly especially when it comes to a longing for the wonderful Howard days. Just remember the treatment that Justice Michael Kirby received under the old regime, for instance.
Kevin needs to relook at the issue and go further than the important changes already implemented – apart from the regressive Centrelink measure I mentioned @10.
Um, Tigtog your argument made good sense until the last bit – I presume you would exempt a Party’s policy & election promise to bring in full human rights as not something you see as ‘stagnation’? And what on earth is wrong with sticking to the high moral ground if the policy they have is at the evolutionary peak?
If you’re trying to suggest that they should have a good principle but work their way up from what’s on offer, well some parties do that, and it’s a good thing, but certainly the two majors can’t be relied on to turn down a good opportunity to devolve, rather than evolve, in most cases. There’s all those dogwhistles and ‘the centre’ to be won after all.
That’s a SotBO* I didn’t think I needed to make, myriad. I did actually make the distinction “every single plank” rather than the election platform as a whole. I would be astonished if a government’s term of office would never include the acquisition of information requiring the tweaking of at least some party lines to better accord with the reality of the problem being addressed.
I was responding to John’s claim that seemed to imply that it was wrong to agitate for the party one voted for to change party lines to what one would view as improved, because somehow the parties ought to stick to their election promises no matter what. While evasion of election promises on the order of “non-core promises” is obviously* despicable, for a party to say “we are not going to work for marriage equality” at election time and then change their mind after a year or two is not the same thing. There’s rather a difference between position statements and election promises, for a start.
The Rudd statements that marriage equality is not on his agenda have always been position statements, not election promises to traditionalists that he would actively fight against marriage equality, so John’s argument doesn’t apply.
*Statement of the Bleeding Obvious
Well I’m glad you think it was obvious tigtog, but I for one needed the clarification, particularly as you brought the high moral ground into your last point.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with agitating for a Party to improve its position, but I don’t think John’s point is invalid either. I could wait until I die for the ALP to have the guts to endorse gay marriage, or if it’s important enough to me, I can go vote for the Dems or Greens. While most voters aren’t single issue (in fact I think more research shows they are emotionally motivated, not rationally), rights-based issues do make a good yard stick for measuring the level of integrity in a political party.
The Rudd statements that marriage equality is not on his agenda have always been position statements, not election promises to traditionalists that he would actively fight against marriage equality, so John’s argument doesn’t apply.
I’m sorry, but either it’s just too cold for me this morning to think straight about what you’re trying to say here, or this is parsing of the finest and I’m not sure why.
Rudd has set ALP policy in this area, and his policy is to reinforce discrimination against gays by not only not wanting to amend the Marriage Act, but also refusing to examine federal civil unions. The best he’ll do is encourage the states & territories to all have registries – which does exactly nothing in terms of improving federal/national recognition of same sex unions, including those of us who get married overseas in more enlightened countries.
To say his active refusal to engage in reform in this area is a ‘position stance’ rather than an active policy makes no difference to what’s actually happening – the effect is the same, the ALP will not use it’s power now in government to advance same sex equality, and that deserves to be bagged.
This is all about religion, Rudd’s, again. The ALP is full of religious nutters who are smart enough to keep it to themselves until the big “conscience” votes come up: on human rights for poofters and pregnant women especially.
If the religious patriarchy disapproves (according to that mad anglican mullah in Sydney, all our problems can be traced back to Virginia Woolf, don’t you know), then the ALP cadres fall meekly into line, and bugger majority secular opinion.
The sooner Rudd gets his heart’s wish, of becoming Secretary-General of the UN (his ambition is that boundless IMO) and The Red Fox secures the top job, the better for all of us.
@myriad:
I didn’t say that a position statement can’t be active policy, just that there is (or should be) a difference in perception between politicians saying “this is what is/is not on our agenda” and “this is what we promise you voters to support/oppose”.
John’s argument only applies to election promises that are repeated over and over in carefully crafted soundbites during an election, and considerations about sticking to promises do not apply to position statements that are there in the policy platform only because the party has to have a response to questions about that issue.
None of this should be construed as any defence of Rudd’s closed mind on marriage equality, I was purely addressing John’s prescriptions about what voters should and shouldn’t do/expect.
Well said, myriad @ 15.
Small, slow steps but tangible improvement for many women and men. Overdue, but still meaningful and directly beneficial. And by enacting these changes, a small increment in changing attitudes amongst the general public, I imagine. Actions louder than words.
I find it difficult to understand why some folk are reluctant to acknowledge progress (albeit tiny steps).
Cheers!
I didn’t say that a position statement can’t be active policy, just that there is (or should be) a difference in perception between politicians saying “this is what is/is not on our agenda” and “this is what we promise you voters to support/oppose”.
That’s a fair comment Tigtog, and I agree. I am however bitterly disappointed that Rudd has now explicitly taken civil unions off the agenda – if he’d simply said it wasn’t a priority it would be one thing and I’d be giving him and the government a lot more slack, as it could be seen as a positive -ie working quietly for reform, rather than attracting heat by making big statements.
but he hasn’t done that. He’s explicitly said that civil unions are too much like marriage (the horror) and the latter is only for men and women, and we couldn’t therefore possibly allow gays and lesbians more rights. So I’d have to call that active policy, and a bloody awful one.
And in terms of what voters expect, this is where I’d like to see people who care about human rights make much more use of our preference system to send a clear message. By voting for a party that does support civil unions first, then preferencing the ALP, it can help send a message for them to grow a spine.
Ambi,
I do acknowledge and greatly appreciate the changes that the ALP have made – they were a long time overdue and it’s to their credit that they made it a priority to make the changes as quickly as they did once in government. Big, big tick from me.
I also wasn’t expecting any great movement on same sex marriage – I knew the devil and he is a god-botherer called Kevin. I was however hopeful that they might quietly pave the way towards federal civil unions, not least because as Idiot/Savant pointed out, they are pretty popular with secular straights as well. But no, that’s had to be explicitly killed as well.
Sod religion.
Wow, wasn’t expecting a debate over the specifics of what I said. I was merely pointing out that, people have a choice, and if they are passionate about an issue then they have a choice to vote for good representation. And as someone said, people often aren’t single issue voters, but then again the Democrats are not by far a single issue party. They do, however, represent equality and human rights which was what I was getting at.
As for my comment on election promises and party lines. I was trying to back up the belief that voters have a choice, and if one party doesn’t support their view; don’t vote for them. Preferential voting will get them their next best option if their first choice doesn’t succeed.
I believe that politicians should be intellectual people who have flexible thoughts and judgement (am I asking too much?), when faced with facts, however people vote for those people or parties who represent their views or election promises. For a politician to change those election promises mid-term without bloody-good reason is going against why they were elected in the first place.
However, progress is obviously very important in civilization, and so parties and politicians should be allowed to change their policies (not election promises!) to best reflect the views of their members and/or constituents, or in the case of better judgement, change for the better of humankind.
We acknowledge progress Ambigulous. We just don’t want to have to be making these same arguments – to the ALP! – at the 2050 conference in 2020. A bit less caucus solidarity wouldn’t do them any harm. Bring on the Red Fox.
Incidentally, that Kate Miller-Heidke clip nearly made me bawl.
Can gay people be anything else but what they are. They can’t change. Marriage though surely isn’t a word to describe any “union”. How about holding a forum on a new name for “marriage”.
The real reason why I suspect the government is in no hurry to move on this has more to do with class than anti-homosexual predudice per se.
It’s a statistical fact that that most gay Australians work on home improvement reality TV programs giving advice on interior decoration or as celebrity hairdressers. Gay Australians also live in tastefully restored inner-city terraces.
If you want to really get down to the truth of it, no government wants to be seen as overly preoccupied with wealthy inner-city trendies (generally having no kids means you have huge amounts of disposable income).
I’m sure we’ll have gay marriage at some point. All I can say to gay couples wanting to get married is: “Are you mad! Run for your lives!”
The other option is to just make “marriage” something highly specific. In fact, let’s use the anti-gay marriage lobby’s own arguments to draft the rules.
Let’s leave “marriage” as a wholly religious ceremony. Just you and your opposite-sex partner and the priest/minister. After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And since marriage is a “sacred institution”, you can’t ever get divorced. God would get very upset if you did. There is no such thing as adultery or domestic violence. Oh, and since marriage is also about raising the next generation of children, any couples who can’t have children won’t be allowed to get married. There wouldn’t be any point. So, there we have it; marriage is now just for nice, heterosexual, fertile Christians.
Everyone else has to have civil ceremonies of some description. A nice snappy name would come in handy here. But there would be the same *legal rights* for everyone whether you were married or ‘insert snappy name here’. The practical upshot is that the name “marriage” has been set aside to describe a church wedding between a Christian man and woman who can and intend to have children.
There we are. Back to where God and his supporters envisaged marriage to be. Because we all know how successful marriage was before gay people came along…
Oh Ginja, please tell me your tongue was firmly in your cheek when characterising all gays (what happened to lesbians?) as inner city upper class….
I have often thought along the same lines chinda63. Of course I haven’t been able to come up with the snappy name. I did tell friends when my partner and I registered our relationship here in Tas that I guessed we could now be described as institutionalised at some level – but I don’t think that’s exactly what we’re looking for here!
I hope Ginja was tongue-in-cheek too, Myriad. I live in the Sydney’s outer western district and have teenage children. However, I did work in television and film back in the 70s, but on the business side of the cameras. ;-)
Um, nice, heterosexual, fertile, virgin, Christians, presumably…
I always remember what David Marr said on the Hidden History of Homosexual Australia – every effective gay rights activist knows most law reform in Australia was done by the Labor Party; none of it without a HUGE fight.
Just for once it would be nice if Labor could do something progressive without having to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way or waiting until the thing is so massively overdue that not even the Australian Christian Lobby opposes it like the law reform last year. Or get out of the ‘one reform per term’ incrementalism that it seems wedded to. Gay and lesbian workers have to wait until 2011 for a Parliamentary committee to report on how to bring in Federal anti-discrimination when there are perfectly good state Acts they could copy. This really matters in a post WorkChoices world and a recession but no, we don’t want to move too fast do we? In the meantime you’ll just have to keep on your boss’ good side and hope he/she doesn’t hate poofters.
If the government grew some balls on gay rights it would find Australians are a lot more supportive than it would suppose.
That’s a fine rant you’ve got there Blogsy, thank you!
chinda63, it’s the “able to have children” bit that concerns me. I don’t think that’s a meaningful requirement. It would be more practical to require that at least one spouse is pregnant at the time of the marriage and make continuing recognition dependent on successful production of at least one child. Lose the baby, lose the marriage.
It might also be useful to require that all marriages be recognised by a state-sanctioned religious body. Doesn’t matter which one, just has to be state-sanctioned. Of course, in best Rudd style that would require some way to approve religious bodies, and I think we could tie that up in committee forever :) Just put an MCC minister in a room with Pell and al-Hilali and require them to reach agreement on a single set of requirements.
@ myriad #44
Good point, and exactly my own voting strategy. I live in a safe Labor electorate, and it’s unlikely to change soon, but I vote for progressive minor party candidates first before I put a number next to an ALP candidate.
Cheers myriad :)
yeah, ditto Tigtog. I strongly suspect it’s why the AEC has never been resourced by either major party to run an information campaign on how to use your vote & preferences etc. :/
myriad, and a fair few of the party members are clear on the disadvantages of doing so – it’s not just the parliamentary funding that flows from primary votes, it’s letting the voters know they can do something other than vote one. They might actually start thinking about their vote, and that can only be bad.
totally agree Moz. we need a bipartisan campaign on it – once again I turn to Getup! maybe I’ll write to them just out of curiousity
Myriad and moz, that’s incredibly unfair on the AEC. They run massive information campaigns, particularly in schools, and spend a great deal of energy educating. You can read about the many millions of dollars they spend on it in the dedicated section of their annual report.
The AEC rightly value their position of extreme disinterest in election outcomes. To encourage one particular form of strategic voting—preferencing major parties through a minor one—would be very prejudicial to that.
People with greater-than-average interest in politics often underestimate how difficult a thing to explain to an uninterested person the optional or compulsory preferential ballot is, let alone the proportional representation that goes on in Upper Houses.
That said, one of my own special joys on polling day is deciding who goes last on my vote. (Nor, of course, as enjoyable as I always find it, do I want to turn this thread into the usual Labor-vs-Greens-in-Sydney-Grayndler-and-Melbourne bunfight).
Let us all, in the special universal worker’s solidarity of May 1st, continue to pour shit on the Australian Labor Party’s throwback Right.
Liam, I don’t think suggesting that the AEC be given more resources to run voter information campaigns is somehow ‘unfair’ to them – I wasn’t criticising the AEC. They do a very credible job with the resources they get.
A friend of mine is senior in the AEC (and impeccably impartial) and tells me that they have ‘never’ (this was a casual conversation, not one where we swapped references) been given the resources they have requested to run education campaigns.
Nor am I suggesting that they run a campaign that is somehow partisan. But the fact remains that the AEC (rightly) with its current education resources concentrates on getting people to enrol and lodge a formal vote. They’ve not been resourced to run campaigns – to my knowledge -that explain how our voting systems work and therefore how preferences work, yet it is the very basis of our system of democratic election, and sets us distinctly apart from ‘first past the post’ etc.
If people think it’s partisan to suggest that an AEC education campaign should include examples and explanations of how preferencing works, I think it would say a lot about just how partisan our politics has become!
and no, definitely not looking for a bun fight, but I think it is a very relevant point when discussing how to push the major parties towards greater human rights protection, and how to support the usually smaller parties that do in fact offer that.
Myriad, I don’t think we disagree a lot.
The teachers’ resources the AEC provide are actually quite thorough in terms of decribing preferential balloting. The kind of campaign in that link is one I expect would satisfy the both of us, and educate a lot of people. They do it—and their problems are the usual ones of not enough money, and sitting down a bunch of year 9 kids and getting them to stop staring at each others’ arses and concentrate on PR ballots. (I know, I remember).
A campaign with the message that “you don’t have to vote for the Party you want to win, rather, you can vote for a smaller Party you want to influence the policy of the major party”, is clearly a campaign within the realm of politics, not electoral education. That’s not the electoral role of preferences (ie. sorting a winner from losers), that’s the political role.
Liam, since it’s clearly not working, I wonder what needs to change.
I’m reluctant to suggest that police should get involved, and dubious even about prosecuting people who lie about how the electoral system works (whether for money or political gain). But getting politicians involved in rejigging the AEC is probably not good either, especially since we have the US as a model of how not to do it… their worship of partisanship extends to denying that it’s worth having professionals run their elections because party political hacks obviously do a better job.
so, suggestions?
Sorry, moz, I don’t understand your comment. Why don’t you think the system works? That’s not clear to me at all. And the police? Why would the police be involved?
Liam, I thought you agreed that many people don’t appear to know how the electoral system works. If you disagree, I’m amazed (and I’ve misread you).
The police role is to catch and prosecute people who break the law, and there’s a raft of law around the running of elections that is poorly enforced when it’s enforced at all. From trivia like not campaigning inside polling booths to systematic vandalism against campaign materials, there’s a whole heap of petty lawbreaking at election time.
I certainly see a lot of ballots marked, to my eyes, in a crazy way, when I’m scrutineering. A ballot paper a dozen boxes long marked [1] Labor [2] Liberal [3] Green (or a variation on the theme) makes no sense whatsoever in my partisan eyes, but is it evidence of ignorance or of a voter’s genuine expressed preference? There’s no way of knowing. It’s certainly not evidence of a broken system.
I disagree that electoral scofflaws and corflute-tuggers are a major scourge on our polls, or that we need more policing on polling day.
“A ballot paper a dozen boxes long marked [1] Labor [2] Liberal [3] Green (or a variation on the theme) makes no sense whatsoever in my partisan eyes,”
It will surprise you little to hear i occasionally do this kind of crazy shit voting. In these cases, its often because i know the people concerned, while i may not want their party to win, its kinda like a weird compliment that i didn’t stick them last. Heck i preferenced Libby Connors in our last state elections, not because i expected her to win, but because she grew up in the house i bought.
Well said Liam. And, wasn’t Kackie Jelly’s husband sentenced the other day for unauthorised advertising at the last election? That vicious anti-muslim rubbish he and his mates were letter-boxing under cover of darkness. The ALP got the evidence, in the glare of a camera flash, and the police and the courts did the rest. System working.
“wasn’t Kackie Jelly’s husband sentenced the other day”
He was found/pleaded guilty to be sentenced later in the year.
This was the first I’ve heard of it. A Google search shows it was reported just about everywhere except in the SMH & Age.
Yeah, in the case of those clowns I’ll join the outrage squad. Hang ‘em high! Ala Akba!
Yep Liam, we are basically in agreement, and that teacher’s tool (ta for the link) is exactly what I’m talking about.
Now, what about the vast majority of the Australian population who don’t understand preferences? Seriously – I’d like to see the AEC resourced to run something with similar information targeted for adults.
Moz & others,
in terms of policing elections, I largely agree that we are blessed having to deal with only very minor infringements of election law overall. I am fearful of electronic voting being widely introduced in Australia – I know we’re not the USA with a massive insane neoconservative agenda actively planning to use electronic voting as a means of rigging elections, but I see no need to go down that road and open the door.
The main area I do see a major need for policing of here in Tas is the quite regular and disgraceful level of vandalism and stronger intimidation and related tactics that happen. For example, Green candidate posters are regularly torn down, or shot up in the head (a fairly bracing experience for our candidates – one year someone went around and deliberately shot every Christine Milne poster they could find right between the eyes and daubed ‘terrorist’ across the posters). Last federal election someone(s) stuck ‘pedophile’ stickers all over Bob Brown’s posters, and cost the Hobart City Council a lot of money in clean-up by posting stickers and bills all over the city illegally with messages that incited violence against Greens. A sticker that has finally started to disappear here, but to the shame of the major parties and police was never challenged was one that said ‘save a job, shoot a greenie’ – it’s hard to imagine a sticker that encouraged a person to shoot any other member of society being deemed acceptable.
Of course the Libs & Exclusive Brethren down here (to get back on topic somewhat) regularly trot out really revolting pamphlets accusing homosexuals, transexuals etc, of causing breakdowns in family and the end of civilisation as we know it, but our Anti-Discrimination Tribunal ruled that was ok, so I guess we live with it.
But the real area for election reform, here in Tas at least, is political donations, and the formation of shadowy entities with names like ‘Tasmanians for a Better Future’ that mushroom up with squillions to spend on blitz advertising but never mysteriously have any public spokespeople, or identified members.
My tongue was nowhere near my cheek! All my stereotypes are based on ABS figures.
P.S. The gay Australian is a contented Australian. So let’s not rock the boat.
And am I the only bloke made uncomfortable by the colour scheme of this site? It’s not exactly….um….manly. What about British racing green?
Ginja, it’s not actually lesbian purple, it’s just purple.
Does that make you feel better?
True moz, but British Racing Green is the awesomest colour ever.
I’ve always thought of LP’s colour scheme as Purple Rain.
I wonder how gay refugees from Iraq would fair in Australia if they arrived by boat:
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/05/01/iraqi-gay-torture-claim/5922
Rudd’s attitude is very hard to work out. Given the majority of Australians are totally supportive of gay marriage, or don’t really care either way, there is no political risk, and he will be shining some positive political light among all the economic gloom.
Rudd’s attitude is very hard to work out.
not really Sam, sadly, once you get your head around the fact that the man really is a conservative god botherer with a bit of a conscience in many good areas, but certainly not when it comes to teh gays.
All my stereotypes are based on ABS figures.
As this study points out the ABS methodology for identifying gays and lesbians is flawed because people are only counted as gay/lesbian if they are living in the same household and are therefore inferred to be in a defacto same sex relationship.
So you might want to unclench your childishly tenacious grip from those stereotypes.
To me the colour’s always been a very Catholic purple, like the fascia around the cassock of a bishop or a prelate.
You can’t get more butch than a bishop—British Racing Green indeed.
Myriad, you’ve got to be kidding! I had no idea the ABS collected these kinds of stats. I love the idea of someone from the ABS with a clipboard asking: “Out of 10 how gay would you say you are? 10 being flaming and 1 merely liking ‘Antique Roadshow’”.
John Kenneth Galbraith warned never to use irony or humour in print – half the people won’t get the joke.
When I first clicked on LP, it must be a year and a half ago now, I thought it was a feminist site, partly because of the colour purple and partly because the first thread I clicked onto, linked from Graham Young’s site, was a thread in which there was a somewhat full-blooded feminist/anti-feminist stoush going on. Just sayin’.
btw the gay colour is pink.
I wonder if our pollies supposed religious misgivings, against gay marriage, can be overidden if they think there is a buck in it. It seems to sway them on just about everything else!
“Some economists say carving out an economic niche for gay and lesbian weddings — and the spending that comes with them — makes sense at a time same-sex marriage has stalled in California and a recession is deepening.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53T8PK20090501
Ginja, there’s all sorts of weird bureaucrazy that touches on gays. My favourite moment was my sister trying for british citizenship and having to “demonstrate an ongoing sexual relationship”. The mind boggles… do you go to them or do they come to you? So to speak.
But using statistics to detect gays is tricky. You run into “self identified” vs “observed behaviour”… just because he’s wearing leather chaps in the mardi gras parade doesn’t mean he identifies as gay. Trying to tie gay venue use figures to sexual health reports to marriage breakdown numbers to internet surveys gets very confusing. Somewhere between 0.1% and 50% of people might be gay, depending on your definition. Makes the sexual abuse stats seem positively rock solid.