Everything, it seems, is a “distraction” for Campbell Newman’s LNP. The latest series of revelations of their ad hoc and unprofessional candidate selection process, and the oddballs and misogynists it throws up, is a “distraction”, says Newman.
Now Jeff Seeney, the party’s parliamentary leader, thunders against Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser’s introduction of a bill to legalise same sex civil unions in Queensland, calling it a “distraction”. Meanwhile, LNP MP Vaughan Johnson distracts from Seeney’s thunder by intoning “marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman” as Campbell Newman himself reiterates his support for same sex marriage.
Yet, the LNP MPs voted en masse in the Legislative Assembly tonight against the first reading of the bill and its referral to a parliamentary committee.
Civil unions, the LNP suggests, are a distraction.
Update: Campbell Newman, who says he supports same sex marriage, has now announced the LNP will oppose the civil unions bill, not just its introduction and referral to a parliamentary committee. It’s a “distraction”, he explains.
The LNP will hopefully show the rest of QLP just what a bunch of unreconstructed buffoons it really is.
Apparently anything that you disagree with is now a “distraction”.
And anything on which their lack of an agreed position is going to be exposed, and anything which reminds people of the unreconstructed Nats in the ranks.
Yes! And Vaughan will lead the charge.
Well it is certainly a distraction from what the LNP would like to see on the front pages, so they are right about that.
This is the old “we can’t walk and talk and chew gum” claim. What they are implying is that they can’t multi-task. That scarcely recommends their fitness to rule.
Sidenote: Wouldn’t having a leader who is not even in parliament and can’t vote down the distraction be … err … a distraction? I’d say so.
. . .so distracting that the polls are . . .
saw someone on twitter make the point that the LNP is already leaking like a party in massive crisis, so if the polls do hold up for them over xmas, and they win government it will be an extremely chaotic government that follows!
lots of distractions for the LNP at the moment.
This just means that Queensland will continue to bleed a portion of their population to the sothern states. Their loss is our gain. (Of course the real tragedy is that some young gay and lesbian teens won’t wait until they are old enough to move south and will continue to kill themselves.)
To many the takeover of the Liberal party in Queensland by the Nats. was a distraction and will probably mean that another distraction (Katter’s Australian Party) will be the beneficiary come election time; I find it a complete distraction for the Queensland conservatives to be led by a person who is not elected and doesn’t sit in the parliament. At least Queensland politicians were focused for long enough in the early 20th century to banish the upper house from the Qld political landscape; politicians, like other bad habits, need to be curbed.
Campbell would probably have voted yes. The problem is that the party he’s leading has voted no. What a nice wedge. There must be other ideas in the ALP to hammer the wedge in further.
Update: Campbell Newman, who says he supports same sex marriage, has now announced the LNP will oppose the civil unions bill, not just its introduction and referral to a parliamentary committee. It’s a “distraction”, he explains.
“Mr Newman, who again said he personally supports gay marriage but not a law change” – wtf?
I wish him the best of luck selling that decision in Ashgrove, Kim.
Or indeed in explaining his incoherent position!
@9 Well I’d say QLD’s abortion laws would be a good start, particularly in Ashgrove. Anyway, wedging is fun, but if you’re going to lose it’s best to get this stuff passed now rather than wait another 10-15 years.
so campbell newman votes against what he knows is right.
just like his federal twin abbott, campbell tailors his beliefs and principles to suit the audience of the moment.
no wonder they don’t let him in =P.
u simply cannot have equal rights for ‘all but a few’.
There’s that too.
It might also be a test of whether Campbell Newman is prepared to go down the nutty ‘repealathon’ mode beloved of Mr Rabbit.
I wonder if newman’s position would turn out to be repealing CU if it were passed, despite him supporting it.
That should be an obvious opening to push for what Newman says he supports.
This is such a non-issue, as far as I’m concerned.
Whether or not gay and lesbian people have the right to marry is not an issue that people should be able to just have their “crazy opinion about”– which is the level of much of this discussion. I mean, to use this issue as a vehicle for your arguments about the family, or culture, or whatever other hobby horse you ride, is not only pathetic, but totally superficial.
The issue is not an issue. It should never be an issue. The right of gay people to marry has to be the result of other legislation with respect to discrimination law, or some larger framework.
It is just totally contemptible and pathetic to live in a country with a law which makes discrimination of people due to homosexuality illegal and then to have this pseudo political discussion about, whether or not they are allowed to get married.
This is a distraction. Even for those people, who think this political argument implies some coming nirvana for progressive politics. If only there were the same level of activity surrounding the mining tax. (Well, actually, there should be much more activity surrounding the MSPT.)
Excellent idea, John@13. There must be a list of other such policies in the bowels of Peel street, buried behind glass with only a little emergency hammer to open. Policies they’ve been too scared to pass unto now because they’re a little too liberal to be comfortable. Perhaps marijuana decriminalisation is on there? Lot of policies that will get Campbell twitching like a Galvanic frog to align himself with Ashgrove and Seeney.
Perhaps it’s time to smash the glass. The ALP probably will lose anyway, but I’d rather Anna go crazy-brave rather than crazy. Anyway, it might win over a few Green voters to preference her rather than leaving the second box untouched.
Why is anybody surprised that the party of Joh Bjelke Petersen opposes gay marriage? (What is surprising is that the party of Jack Egerton supports it.)
It is damaging for Newman because it underlies that it is conservative Christians like McIvor that are running the show, not Newman. Forcing him to go down the opposing civil unions route while supporting gay marriage made him look stupid.
Yep. The point is precisely that Campbell Newman was supposed to convince socially liberal metropolitan voters that the LNP *wasn’t* the party of Bjelke-Petersen.
@18 – Down and Out, wouldn’t surprise me at all if they do.
@17 – Joe, I can’t make much of what you say. For a start, marriage is subject to federal law, and the bill proposes to enshrine civil unions for same sex couples precisely to ensure that remaining discriminatory provisions are removed as well as to accord recognition. And I’ve got no idea where you get off proclaiming that it is a distraction. Clearly, it’s an important issue of justice and equality for same sex attracted people, and ought to be for the wider community too.
@14 – he’s is just following the Greens lead who would have voted against Rudd’s ETS.
Kim,
I don’t think there’s anything to argue about with respect to the right of same sex couples to get married, adopt children etc. This discussion was had, and anti-discrimination law was passed. It’s ridiculous for people to now say, they think anti-discrimination law is ok, but they don’t think it’s ok for gay people to marry, etc.
At the same time, this has become a symbol, blown out of all proportion. And as far as I am concerned, it is not worth “fighting” and winning this “battle”, only to have the opposition point and sneer about how “far to the left” we all are. It would be far better to quietly refer to the existing anti-discrimination law and the spirit of the existing legislation and then vote in parliament appropriately.
But we have to do it the American way.
Joe, still have no idea what you mean here. A bill has been introduced to the Queensland parliament to enable civil unions. Why is it necessary or desirable that this be done “quietly”? The homophobic stuff coming from the opposition is not “quiet”.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/mp-challenges-gays-to-explain-their-heterophobia-20111027-1mlik.html
Why should same sex attracted people and those who support their rights be “quiet”? It sounds suspiciously like a demand that people not “flaunt” their sexuality and don’t disturb the “quiet” of heteronormativity.
It will interfere with the “divine gift” that is marriage apparently, Kim.
Joe said:
That’s wrong all over the place.
The passage of civil union legislation will say how much we favour treating people with dignity and respect regardless of their sexual orientation rather than ‘how far left we are’. If the right want to make treating people with dignity and respect regardless of their sexual orientation a measure of ‘how far left we are’, and own bigotry as r|ghtwing, I’m relaxed about that.
Fran,
well, I’m glad you’re relaxed– I wouldn’t want to see someone with your pent for grammatical exactitude stressed out.
But, these are the bones thrown us, Fran…
In principle, I agree completely with you, but practically, I see this as an issue, which prepares the ground for the kind of reactionary backlash, which when funded by mining interests makes having a rational discussion about a real national (or even state) policy issue very difficult.
Anyway, this is not a political issue, it is a cultural issue. Either enough individuals support this change and the rules of society adapt to fit them, or they don’t. This kind of top-down approach on cultural issues is bad for a community.
There is a category difference between say an issue like tax and marriage rights. I understand that marriage rights need to be legislated in the sense that they need to be formalised but they should not be in that sense, created by legislation, as a speech act.
Further to your point, Fran, that’s why, on this point I agree with Richo, on this one. The Labor party should support gay and lesbian rights, but this is not a Labor issue any more than it is a Liberal issue. Anti-discrimination law is the place to decide this stuff and not on the level of personal opinions on talk back radio. It is also on the more abstract level of discrimination, that the argument is most clear. It is on this level that all Australians are able to understand the concept of fairness and mutual support of family and friends.
How’d I do on this one, Fran? Wrong, again? I really want to pass the final exam, you know…