No to marriage equality in Australia - unrepresentative democracy

Recently "victory" was claimed by anti-marriage equality protagonists following defeats of amendments to the Marriage Act in the Federal and Tasmanian Parliaments.

But at close examination everyday Australians could be forgiven for questioning what we call "democratic process", as this episode played out in Parliament.

Now it is time to consider the implications of this "victory" for the ongoing "conversation" within Australian democratic society. Put as two questions:

What lessons can be learned from the divisive "conversation" on marriage equality in Australian society leading up to, and including, the recent Parliamentary decisions?

How has Australian "democratic process" served the conversation and decision on marriage equality?

Democracy

Webster's Encyclopaedic Dictionary explains "democracy" as follows:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents....a state of society characterized by normal equality of rights and privileges.

When applied to large modern societies democracy has taken the form of government in which supreme power is exercised by the people through their elected representatives in Parliament – by means of representative democracy. In Australia representative democracy has taken the form of a bicameral system in which the party, or coalition of parties with the largest representation in the House of Representatives forms government, or has the majority in the Senate (House of Review).

How did the recent debate/review of the Marriage Act reflect the spirit and meaning of parliamentary democracy (and democratic process) in Australia?

Credibility of Parliamentarians

When new members of both Houses take their place in Parliament their maiden speeches typically include a vow to their constituents who elected them. For example, Teresa Gambaro, after she had won the Federal seat of Brisbane, pledged in her maiden speech that:

I will always listen to your wishes and display the courage to stand up and speak for these aspirations as your federal member. I will work tirelessly on your behalf and be your voice in Canberra.

However, when elected representatives enter Parliament their intentions and loyalties change as they succumb to the prescriptive reality of parliamentary party politics. A few snapshots of key politicians illustrate how the democratic process is attenuated, as idealism, commitment and best intentions are compromised by the pragmatism and expediency of adversarial politics in Parliament.

On the issue of marriage equality, the wishes of a number of electorates were gauged from reputable public opinion polls, over time. When installed as a Member of the Coalition in Parliament, Ms Gambaro abandoned the commitment in her maiden speech to be the voice her electorate, by conforming to the prescribed "No" vote of the LNP. In so doing she forwent the opportunity for a conscience vote which would have allowed her to consider the wishes of her electorate.

Ms Gambaro voted against marriage equality, despite the fact that 73% of her electorate were in favour. Furthermore, it has been suggested that her strong personal beliefs in Catholicism prevented her taking a non-religious stand on this (civil/secular) matter. Parliamentarians should be more circumspect about their personal religious bias in this context. We are talking here about the social reality of civil marriage in secular Australian society today.

The quest for (civil) marriage equality is about: firstly, equality, legitimacy and recognition, based on an entitlement to natural justice, procedural fairness and human rights; and secondly, preventing discrimination and social prejudice. This statement is consistent with that part of the definition of "democracy" (above) which refers to:

....a state of society characterized by normal equality of rights and privileges.

Thus the unkept pledge in Ms Gambaro's maiden speech has come to sound hollow and untrustworthy, and undermines her credibility as the Member who vowed to voice the wishes of her electorate of Brisbane.

Take the case of Malcolm Turnbull who polled his Liberal electorate to gauge public opinion. A clear majority were in favour of same-sex marriage (68 %). On many public occasions Turnbull has been forthcoming in his support of same-sex marriage and has acknowledged that community views on this issue were changing. He has spoken out in support of marriage equality in Parliament. But when it came to changing the Marriage Act, he was not prepared to make the big call of resigning from Shadow Cabinet which would have allowed him to cross the floor, follow his conscience and represent the clear majority view in his electorate. He voted against the Amendment.

Prime Minister Julia Gilliard's stand is puzzling. She has repeatedly stated her opposition to same-sex marriage:

We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a Government taken steps to equalize treatment for gay couples.(Emphasis added)

However, it is unclear just who the "we" are, because she seems unaffected by the results of a Senate inquiry which drew 75,000 submissions and which resulted in a clear majority supporting same-sex marriage (44,000 in favour and 31,000 against). She is also out of step with public opinion in her own electorate of Lalor, where many more are in favour of same-sex marriage than against (45% in favour, 34% against, and 21% don't care.).

This calls into question the coherence and integrity of the PM's personal position. Consider reported statements the PM made during a dinner held at the lodge with marriage equality advocates earlier this year. Present at the function were three same-sex couples. and the PM's partner, Tim Mathieson. During the course of the dinner the PM indicated that marriage equality in Australia was "inevitable". She also led the group to believe that her opposition was not immovable. Furthermore, the PM virtually admitted that Australia's lagging behind the increasing number of developed Western nations which have already granted same-sex marriage laws, was putting increasing pressure on Australia to come on board. She pointed out that as more countries embrace this reform, it will become increasingly apparent that this is a reform whose time has come. Following the dinner, it was reported that, "The Prime Minister listened carefully to the case for equality, and gave us all hope when she said the reform would happen one day." On the day the PM voted against the amendment. How can her electorate know who or what she is representing on this issue?

In Queensland, it seems principles and promises delivered on the hustings gave way to pragmatics and expediency in Government.

During his election campaign, newly elected Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, announced that, if the LNP won Government, it would look at repealing the Labor legislation on civil unions – despite having previously voiced his personal support for gay marriage. In the same breath he cautioned – without supporting evidence – that legislation on civil unions appears to be "roaring ahead a bit too fast for the majority of Queenslanders". Thus the Premier came around to his Party's position, reactively, at the expense of his personal principles and without testing public opinion either in his electorate, or in the State at large.

In Office, Mr Newman shifted again, by announcing that Queensland's same-sex civil unions would not be "repealed", but "amended". Under the proposed legislation same-sex couples would be able to register their relationship with the Government, but would no longer be able to have a State-sanctioned declaration ceremony when taking their vows. Despite the fact that this is an issue of civil marriage in a secular State based on natural justice, procedural fairness and equal human rights, Newman indicated that the amendment was because the State-sanctioned ceremony offended Christian groups – in particular, The Australian Christian Lobby. It bears repeating that doctrinaire Christians need to be careful about imposing their religious beliefs in this civil/secular democratic context. It was also apparent that, as far as the Premier was concerned, the gay community already had all of the rights that they needed to not be discriminated against, asserting that, "They have nothing to fear from this change." Nothing to fear?

Consider the purpose and intent of changes proposed to the Queensland Surrogacy Act. Surrogacy lawyer, Stephen Page, warns that changes to the Act proposed by Queensland Attorney General, Jarrod Bleijie, are intended to ban same-sex couples having children through "altruistic surrogacy". In effect the proposed Queensland legislation would deny the right of surrogacy to anyone outside of married couples or those in a heterosexual de-facto relationship of at least two years. Violation of that law would be an offence for same-sex couples, punishable by up to three years imprisonment. The Premier does not seem to understand the meaning of "... normal equality of rights and privileges" inherent in the definition of democracy.

House rules

Bicameral Parliament dominated by two major political parties is acknowledged as the system by which Australians will be governed. But in adversarial politics the quest for power and survival often distorts democratic process. Much of the time pointed political invective, retaliatory 'cheap shots' and point scoring pass for old world debate. This is illustrated by the Party-serving or individualistic manner by which marriage equality was managed in both Houses of Parliament.

In the House of Representatives Labor Party members were granted a conscience vote on marriage equality – not because of any proactive leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, nor the will of Labor Caucus within Parliament, but because of a decision taken at the Labor Party Conference, outside of Parliament. However, there was evidence that a number of Labor members reflected measured public opinion in their electorates. Then there was the Opposition, who, as a Party, was intransigent – determined in large part by the Catholicism of the Opposition Leader on the one hand, and the ideology of the far right of the LNP on the other. Apart from Malcolm Turnbull, the Opposition kept a tight lid on public opinion in the electorate during this episode.

The Senate functions as the "House of Review". During the time the proposal for the amendment to the Marriage Act was before the Senate there was little in the way of actual review. Coalition Members were denied a conscience vote and thereby remained silent – but for the lone voice of an overzealous Member who gained instant infamy for characterizing marriage equality as the beginning of a moral slide to legitimizing bestiality. Just who was this Member representing? Presumably he was speaking as a member of the Coalition when he stood to make his speech. Could he be representing public opinion in his electorate? How could his statement be construed as contributing to a "review"? The Greens simply reinforced their Party platform on human rights on this matter and all voted in favour – but not because they were forced to as in the case of the Coalition. In the final analysis there was little in the way of critical analysis or broad debate of the Bill before the Senate. For all intents and purposes public opinion was marginalized in House of Review deliberations. The final "No" vote simply reflected the preconceived views of parties and individual politicians. Whatever happened to the views of the Australian people they claim to represent? (Note that the Senate inquiry drew 75,000 submissions and which resulted in a clear majority supporting same-sex marriage [44,000 in favour and 31,000 against]).

The last word goes to a respectable citizen with a "real world" view: Liz Ann Macgregor, Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art (Sydney). Macgregor struck a chord with the diverse audience on Q & A (9/7/12) and drew much applause when, after lengthy discussion of marriage equality, she summed up the situation with an endgame scenario:

I just don't think the politicians are reflecting what the people want. Survey after survey says so [support for marriage equality]. For goodness sake let's just get on with it. It's another of these issues where we see the politicians bickering about it. It will go away [when passed]. They should just pass it.

Take home message for Australian voters

Two questions about the "democratic process" that arise from the "No" vote for marriage equality in Australia:

1. On this deeply human matter of marriage equality, should the person who "represented" your electorate have been morally obliged to represent public opinion therein – above the dictates of the Party, a particular religion or a personal view?
2. What means are at your disposalto advise your elected federal parliamentary representative what you thought about the way he/she voted on marriage equality?