No to marriage equality in Australia - unrepresentative democracy

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In Office, Mr Newman shifted again, by announcing that Queensland's same-sex civil unions would not be "repealed", but "amended".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?