Rodney Croome . gay advocate

‘Poorly served’

Is Labor offering a viable alternative for LGBT voters or is it just shadowing the Government?

A couple of weeks age I wrote of a spate of meetings between LGBT community reps and Federal Labor Party officials.

For me these meetings culminated in an unusually long session with Shadow Attorney-General, Joe Ludwig, last week in Brisbane.

That meeting involved representatives of several community and interest groups, and left us with what I believe is the best insight we will have, pre-election, into what a Rudd Government will do on key LGBT human rights issues.

The meeting addressed some of the important outstanding concerns about Labor’s recently-adopted policy on same-sex relationships.

It also took in a number of other issues not dealt with in the motion.

So here is what Labor says it will do. After each item I’ve included a summary of the Coalition’s position for easy comparison.

1. Equal marriage (and the reasons for deying it)

The ALP remains completely committed to excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Three years on from its decision to up-hold marriage discrimination it still cannot provide a reason for this policy beyond “marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman”.

The Coalition’s position is identical down to its empty, circuitous reasoning.

In a letter to the Australian Christian lobby sent in May, Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, wrote

“The Government does not believe same-sex relationships have the same legal character as marriages and therefore considers they should not be given the same legal status as marriage.”

In other words, same-sex partners shouldn't legally marry because they can’t legally marry.

While this is more stupid than the ALP’s position, the latter’s appeal to tradition makes its rationale more offensive both to LGBT people and to its own reformist principles.

On a related matter, and in a small nod to reformism, a Labor Government will review the Government’s policy of denying Australians who wish to enter into same-sex marriages overseas, the routine government documents they need to prove they are not already married in Australia.

2. Equal entitlements for unmarried same-sex couples (and the reasons for delaying them)

A Labor Government “is committed to removing discrimination against same-sex couples”. Specifically, it will conduct an audit of all discriminatory provisions in national law before it acts on this discrimination. It will not set a timetable for this process. Nor will it be satisfied with an imminent report from the Human Rights Commission detailing discrimination. Its reasons are that the issue is “complicated” by the potential cost, by HREOC’s failure to look at regulations as well as legislation, and by the fact some same-sex partners may lose entitlements in areas like social security.

The Coalition is also “committed to removing all discrimination against same-sex couples” on the basis of interdependency. It also has no timetable and considers the issues complicated by the potential cost, and the implication of reform for welfare recipients.

3. Federal and state relationship recognition schemes apart from marriage (and the reasons for differentiating between them)

A Federal Labor Government will encourage the states to enact Tasmanian-style relationship registries that do not “mimic marriage”. Clarifying this, Senator Ludwig has said a) couples registered in state schemes will be recognised for the purposes of federal entitlements, b) Labor has no commitment to a federal registry, and c) state schemes which include legislative provisions for official ceremonies, such as those proposed in the ACT, will not be supported by a Federal Labor Government.

The Coalition has said it is happy for the mainland states to have Tasmanian-style registries, although it has not shown interest in recognising these schemes for federal purposes. It strongly opposes schemes that allow for official ceremonies, and was responsible for quashing such a scheme in the ACT

4. Overseas same-sex adoption

The ALP’s position remains the same as it was in 2004. It opposes a ban on the adoption of children from overseas by Australian same-sex couples. However, this policy will be reviewed by Labor caucus if and when the matter returns to Parliament.

The Coalition has repeatedly flagged and reintroduced its overseas same-sex couple adoption ban, and has promised to pass it before the election.

5. Nationally-consistent recognition of gender identity laws

Senator Ludwig is committed to a nationally-consistent approach to this issue.

The issue has stalled under the Coalition.

6. Consultation and liaison

There are no commitments from either Party to formal consultation on LGBT-specific justice and law reform matters with the LGBT community, although Labor is committed to formal consultation on a Charter of Rights.

*

According to the Weekend Australian editorial (June 9-10)

“Labor certainly has been poorly served by the small-target, defensive strategy adopted at the past three elections.”

Glancing over Labor’s LGBT policies it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that it is adopting the same “small-target, defensive strategy” for the 2007 election.

In some cases, not only do its policies mirror the Government’s, but so does the language it uses to justify these policies.

This is especially the case on the formal recognition of same-sex relationships (surprisingly, when we compare Labor on same-sex couple parenting and same-sex relationship ceremonies, it’s the latter that’s harder for it to handle. The Victorian Labor Government’s response to parallel issues in that state is the same. What a bizarre state-of-affairs when it’s easier for the centre left to allow same-sex partners to raise kids than to publicly declare their love for each other).

The one bright spot is Senator Ludwig.

He has a level of interest and detailed knowledge of LGBT issues which exceeds every Federal Attorney or Shadow Federal Attorney in either major party in my 20 year experience.

It’s not an exaggeration to say he’s met with more LGBT community reps and attended more community meetings in his short time in office than any of his predecessors, and possibly all of them put together.

If the electorate and his Party give him the chance, and within the limits outlined above, he will be a reforming Attorney-General.

But is this enough to convince LGBT people and their families that Labor deserves their votes?

In the lead up to this year’s election, will they see a Labor Party prepared to expand its horizons to meet their legitimate claims on justice, or an ALP that matches the Coalition’s every move like a shadow cast by the harsh light of political expediency?

If it’s the latter, and the ALP loses its chance to capitalise on profound disenchantment amongst LGBT people and their families with the current Government, The Australian’s assessment that Labor’s “poorly served” by its defensiveness will be proved right.

***

In other pre-election left-of-centre news,

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are keen to show their support for the LGBT community. Where’s Kevin Rudd?

And

Between now and the election, Labor will tell the LGBT community to forget about equal marriage and be content with whatever else it is offering.

My response: if LGBT Romanians can endure violent attacks and political repression and still forthrightly demand equal marriage, LGBT Australians have no excuses.