Nothing radical about equal opportunities for all citizens

It's no surprise that the Prime Minister is considering reforming access to government benefits for same-sex couples. Based on his own brand of conservatism, John Howard should support equal recognition for same-sex couples.

In 2005 Howard gave a speech to launch the publication The Conservative. He articulated his interpretation of conservatism, its values and how it is held in Australian society. The Prime Minister discussed the role of institutions and said conservatives "believe that if institutions have demonstrably failed, they ought to be changed or reformed".

There is little doubt the institutions charged with respecting the legitimacy and choices of same-sex couples have failed them.

Government institutions are perpetuating discrimination against same-sex couples in superannuation law, Medicare payments, migration law and taxation.

Liberal values and a belief in small government should promote downscaling these benefits, but if they are to be available, they should be provided without discrimination.

In the same speech Howard confessed to being a "profound opponent of radically changing the social context in which we live". It would be hard to argue that providing access for benefits to existing relationships would radically change the way homosexual or heterosexual individuals live their lives.

Same-sex relationships are an irreversible feature of Australian society. If there were a radical change in our social context that recognised same-sex relationships, it happened years ago when Will & Grace gained a prime-time television slot. Howard aligned his personal values to the values of average Australians: "[We] live in a classless society [where] a person's worth should be determined by a person's character and hard work."

Those Liberal MPs pushing for reform have shown that, as yet, the PM's words have not been put into practice. Warren Entsch became the proponent for equalisation of government benefits to same-sex couples following a constituent complaint from a gay military serviceman denied resettlement benefits for his partner. This example should directly offend Howard's ethic. Perhaps most poignantly, Howard articulated his strong belief "in the concept of mutual obligation, the reasonable expectation of a society built on individual achievement that, having given a fair go, they will return the compliment".

Same-sex couples have paid their taxes, taken responsibility for their lives and are active contributors to society. Unlike other debates in society, the lapse in mutual obligation in this debate is not on the individuals. The Government cannot say the same for itself.

Howard also professed his support for the institution of the family because it provides emotional support and reassurance as "the best social welfare policy that mankind has ever devised".

The Prime Minister's interpretation of the family was traditional, but that needn't mean its social welfare capacity doesn't apply to other mutually supportive relationships outside his model. Pushing gay rights is hardly Howard's wheelbarrow, but the move to provide government benefits to same-sex relationships shouldn't cause social conservatives discomfort.

The Liberal Party is a combination of two distinct political traditions, liberalism and conservatism. Whether conservatives believe sexuality is by choice or design, respecting individual choices is a shared position of conservatives and liberals. Still, this action may seem surprising in light of Howard's efforts to overturn the ACT civil unions bill. It shouldn't. The ALP used the gay community as patsies to try to retrieve its credibility on gay issues.

Gay activists felt abandoned by Mark Latham's support for Howard's commitment that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The ACT Government's bill was designed to enrage the federal Government and be overturned for Labor's political benefit. Had a state government passed the same bill it may have stood, but sections would likely have been in conflict with federal law and the federal government's constitutional responsibility to define and establish marriage.

Political pragmatism has always ensured the PM is attuned to backbenchers' concerns because they are often attuned to voter sentiment. Voters may not support gay marriage but they don't believe same-sex couples should be locked out of government benefits. Debate on gay marriage has been suffocated by a failing to consider why government is regulating marriage in the first place.

Regardless, Howard faces the challenge that many gay Australians vote Liberal because of their support for small government and fiscal conservatism. But their patience has been wearing thin.

In the face of a difficult election the PM is also playing smart politics. Reforming government attitudes to same-sex relationships may even appeal to doctors' wives. It will also pre-empt the forthcoming Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report that details government discrimination against same-sex couples. Howard should be able to take confidence that, according to his values, he is delivering conservative reform for same-sex couples.