Pinkwash

This begs the question, why can’t we have our own home-grown Charter which allows Tasmanian human rights claims to be handled by Tasmanian courts within a framework set by Tasmanians.

It will show the world that we are mature enough to resolve our differences ourselves.

The third illustrative moment in Tasmania’s same-sex relationships debate brings us closer to the present and is a symbol of how much Tasmania had changed since the arrests at Salamanca - the passage of the Relationships Act in 2003.

That Act not only gave equal rights to same-sex couples. It also established Australia’s first civil union scheme, and the world’s first such scheme for the recognition of a wide diversity of personal unions. Tasmania now has the most progressive relationships laws anywhere.

The Mercury clearly thinks Tasmanians should be proud of this kind of social-justice leadership. But when it comes to a Charter of Rights it suddenly loses its nerve.

“Why not do it properly and draft a Bill of Rights for Australia?” it asks rhetorically, echoing the state government’s preferred excuse for procrastination - the need for “national consistency”.

Think for a moment about all those reforms often cited by The Mercury and the state government as examples of Tasmania proudly leading the nation and the world - the Hare-Clark voting system, daylight savings, comprehensive anti-discrimination protections, an apology and compensation to the stolen generation, smoking bans, and of course the decriminalisation and subsequent recognition of same-sex relationships.

Where would these reforms be if Tasmania had waited for national consistency?

Exactly nowhere.

Let’s take the example I’m obviously most familiar with, same-sex couple rights. The Commonwealth has yet to follow the states and territories down the path of recognising same-sex de facto partners. John Howard was largely indifferent to the issue and his successor, Kevin Rudd, isn’t in a great hurry either.

As for formal recognition, Rudd is as deeply opposed to same-sex marriage as Howard was. The former says he supports “national-consistency” on “Tasmanian-style” registries, but has no intention of actively pursuing this goal unless it’s as an excuse to block ACT civil partnerships with a version of Tasmania’s registry that is so watered-down as to be “the Tasmanian model” only in name.

The fact that meaningful formal recognition of same-sex partnerships is on the agenda in the ACT and Victoria is because Tasmania led the way, not because of platitudes about “national consistency”.