My Life in the Slow Lane

As of yesterday, same-sex couples are considered couples by Centrelink, the Australian social security agency. Isn’t that lovely, my friends, that Centrelink has deigned to “recognise” (their word, not mine) same-sex couples who are living in a de facto arrangement in exactly the same way as their heterosexual counterparts?

The Australian Government has introduced wide-ranging reforms that recognise all couples, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of a partner… From 1 July 2009 changes to legislation will mean that customers who are in a same-sex de facto relationship will be recognised as partnered for Centrelink and Family Assistance Office purposes. All customers who are assessed as being a member of a couple will have their rate of payment calculated in the same way. (Source)

The Minister for Human Services, Sen Joe Ludwig, even has the gall to describe Centrelink’s changes as “the next step to equality for the gay and lesbian community begins” (Source). There has been an extensive advertising campaign run since 30 March, when Centrelink’s “couples are couples” campaign was launched. It cost taxpayers $450,000, probably paid for in its entirety by the savings Centrelink is sure to make by this move (Source). Forms have been changed and now everyone is reminded, when asked if they have a partner, that this also includes same-sex couples and in the case of student allowances, asked about everyone they live with, rather than only being asked about people of the opposite sex like they did before the start of the new financial year.

Am I the only who can smell the stench of false magnanimity in all this?

Many reforms have been passed so that same-sex couples are treated in the same way as opposite-sex couples in areas of tax, superannuation, social security and the like, it is true. This is a wonderful gain, I don’t deny it, but there is one major privilege that has been expressly left off the table: marriage. So, ultimately, the government is saying that GLBT Australians are good enough to tax as a couple, good enough to receive couples rates of social security (which are pitiful compared to singles rates), but apparently we are NOT good enough to marry.

Why should we, I say, accept the burden of equality (as the Attorney General puts it) in having reduced pensions and allowances because our relationships are suddenly recognised, when in actuality, they aren’t recognised in any meaningful way at all. Attorney General Robert McLelland has gone on record to say that legislative changes that seek to remove discrimination against same-sex couples are “overdue” but, mere breaths later, he hastens to remind any right-wingers reading that “the government regards marriage as being between a man and a woman and we don’t support any measures that seek to mimic that process” (Source). The attorney-general’s department has set up a website, www.ag.gov.au/samesexreform, to explain the reforms but it is eerily silent on marriage.

Don’t be fooled. The Australian Government doesn’t really care for equality or for making the lives of same-sex couples easier. It cares about votes. If this were actually about human rights or equality, then all discrimination would be removed and, however you choose to couch it, whether in financial, religious or political language, the phrase “marriage is understood as between one man and one woman” discriminates against an already vulnerable section of the community.

Janek sent me the link the video below, an anti-prop8 video (Prop 8 – The Musical) with an all star cast including John C Riley, Margaret Cho, Alison Janney, Kathy Najimy, Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black (as Jesus).

This one is also amusing: Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce.

I have a lot of half finished posts that I’ll be uploading in the next few days; hopefully now that I am no longer food-poisoned, exam-stressed or holiday-bound, I can write a little more reguarly.

The honourable Brendan Nelson, MP, federal leader of the opposition, has made public his thoughts on queer rights. He states that:

We believe … in relation to people, that families are the foundation of Australian society, I make no apology for saying that a man and a woman is a marriage and that forms a family. I don’t support gay marriage, I don’t support gay adoption and I don’t support gay IVF. But I sure as hell believe very strongly that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security by virtue of his or her sexuality and I will do everything I possibly can from opposition to see that those and other things are delivered.

Effectively he is saying:

“I believe that same-sex couples should be denied social recognition in the form of marriage, adoption of children or access to IVF; in these areas it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. This belies my belief that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. On the other hand, I don’t believe that there should be discrimination on the basis of sexuality in the areas of taxation or social security. This belies my belief that although same-sex relationships are inferior, it is my hope that they will be placated by this concession. Furthermore, it shows I am not homophobic, nor is my party.”

I wonder what exactly he was trying to achieve in such an incongruous statement. Yes, it is a breath of fresh air to read this coming from the leader of the liberal party after eleven dark years of having John Howard at the helm, but does he really expect it to hold any water with anyone? Who exactly was he was trying to please with such a blatant compromise?

It can’t be the Christian Right, who will criticise it for giving same-sex couples any kind of recognition, even if it is only in the legal-financial arena and not social recognition—remember that this is a group who want to raise the age of consent for male-male sex and/or reintroduce sodomy laws. It can’t be gay and lesbian lobbies or voters, who will criticise it for denying full equality to same-sex couples in the social recognition arena and family arena.

Now if this is actually what he believes then I think he’s a tool because it makes no sense to discriminate only some of the time, but at least he stands up and says so. If, on the other hand, this was contrived to make both sides happy, then it still shows he’s a tool because it just won’t work.

“Did you hear about what Brendan Nelson said this morning?” Amy asked me this morning.
“No? Am I going to be disgusted?” I replied.
“Well he said he wants to bring in same sex entitlements, but not marriage.”

Well this is wonderful news. The leader of the Liberal Party has come out on record supporting the removal of most of the 58 discriminatory laws. All, that is, except the Marriage Act (2004) and laws governing access to IVF for same-sex couples and adoption by same-sex couples (source).

To my mind, while I’m overjoyed at having “practical discriminations” in the areas of taxation, superannuation and social security, it’s a bit of a slap in the face that same-sex couples continue to be treated like second-class citizens. That said, I enough of a pragmatist to graciously accept the changes they are willing to make before fighting for the removal of remaining discriminatory laws.

Bring on the revolution!

… and now the new beginning.

Last night I felt like singing, dancing, and running around the lounge room with my shirt pulled over my head. I restrained myself, content to say to Dad “guess who won?” It was smug, I admit, but I was so overjoyed at the unceremonious ousting of ol’ Johnny. Dad didn’t ask who, he just waited silently for an answer. “Rudd”, I said triumphantly, adding “and it looks like Howard will loose his seat. And Bartlett [our local MP] lost his too”. I grinned. He replied “Well that’s it, we’re fucked now”.

I have to admit, while I am overjoyed at Howard’s defeat, I am totally underwhelmed by Rudd in general. My parents both voted for the coalition because of its economic policies; I voted against them because of their social policies. Rudd got my vote only because he was the lesser of the two evils available to me on election day.

It will be really interesting to see what happens now in terms of Rudd’s election promises and their coming to fruition. What he neglected to remind voters, during his election campaign, is that to pass new laws (or amend current ones) the legislation must be passed by the senate. The Howard government enjoyed having a coalition controlled senate from 1 July 2005. It was having control of both houses that allowed the coalition to push Workchoices legislation through both houses with little public consultation. The current senate will continue to sit until 30 June 2008, at which time the new senate will take over, so I think it’s unlikely he will be able to do anything too dramatic before that time.

As well as promising to roll back workchoices, Rudd has vowed to remove legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. Well, sort of. I was listening to an interview with Julia Gillard on Triple J’s current affairs show, Hack. The woman is, without doubt, a savvy politician, yet for me she is one of the most tedious people in politics, if only because of her total inability to actually answer a simple question. Instead she opted to recite party lines, confuse issues, annoy the reporter, and avoid answering the question in any way, shape or form. She was asked at one point about removing legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. She stated, in a roundabout way, that the Labor party is committed to removing all discrimination against homosexual couples, and as such it will amend the federal laws listed in the HREOC report, “Same-sex: same entitlements”.

However, it is well known that the Labor party doesn’t support gay marriage, civil unions, or formal partnership recognition of any kind, despite sanctimoniously trumpeting its abhorrence of discrimination on the basis of sexuality and avowing to remove all legal discriminations. I’m sure I’m not alone in seeing the contradiction. Kate O’Toole, the reporter, pushed the issue, asking Ms Gillard to comment on the fact that the party is essentially saying “all discrimination is unacceptable, except for this one act [the Marriage Act] where it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of sexuality”. Ms Gillard was asked if that was not the case. She couldn’t answer yes or no, rather sticking to the old “we see marriage as a union between a man and a woman” shtick. It was, in short, one of the most tedious interviews I’ve heard in a long time with one of the most tedious people in politics.

So ultimately, the point I’m trying to make here is that with a coalition controlled senate, at least for the present term (ending 30 June 2008), Rudd is going to have to work very hard to get changes to industrial relations laws passed, as well has amending the 58 laws that discriminate against same-sex couples (oops, I mean 57, since the Marriage Act will remain untouched as things presently stand).

One last thing. In Australia, as many of my American readers may have realised by now, we follow the British spelling system. This means, among other things, that many words that end in “or” in the US (such as harbor, neighbor and color) are spelt “our” in Australia. The word “labour” fits this category, yet the Australian Labor Party insists on misspelling its own name.

I hope that they make better governors than proof-readers.

UPDATE (in response to Drew’s comment):
Oh I totally agree… baby steps, especially after the last 11.5 “dark years” lol.

I’m just saying, don’t think that the Labor party is going to be our salvation. Because it just isn’t.

Fifty-seven out of 58 is a great start… once we have them signed, sealed and delivered, will be the time to push on and start lobbying for that last one.

As for holding Rudd accountable, I agree, but it will be interesting to see if the senate co-operates, and how Rudd spins it… the new senate appears to be more balanced, but there is still a coalition majority at this stage but the counting takes weeks to finish, and besides which, it won’t take effect until 1 July 2008.

State civil unions are all very well, but they will never count in federally legislated areas (tax, super, work, etc) so while they’re great for finally being allowed a recognised ceremony, they don’t do much in the legal arena.

The past week I’ve been making an admittedly feeble attempt at studying, amidst a sea of distractions—this blog included. In an effort to avoid any actual study, I bring you the weeks’ news highlights that I’ve heard on the radio while in a state of semiconsciousness as I slept through my morning alarms.

Candidates ‘should declare sexual preference’
1 November, 2007

The Family First candidate in the far north Queensland seat of Leichhardt says voters have a right to know the sexual preference of all candidates contesting the federal election.

Apparently being gay makes you a lesser politician, according to FF candidate Ben Jacobsen at least. Actually that’s not quite accurate, being gay doesn’t (necessarily) make you less of a politician in Jacobsen’s eyes, it merely makes you a less of a representative: “Look I think this is a public office, this is a person that’s going to represent Leichhardt in our House of Representatives… I think the public have a right to know the values that you’re going to pursue in Parliament.” Of course, this is in no way related to his questioning the sexuality of opposing liberal candidate for his seat (oh the irony). Dickhead.

Pell backs discrimination against gays
30 October, 2007

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has argued in favour of maintaining discrimination against gay couples, saying it is wrong to equate the position with any sort of racial discrimination.

Pell not only wants discrimination against homosexual (or indeed any non-heterosexual) Australians to continue, but he wants it condoned. Not only does Pell display a massive lack of Christian kindness and compassion, but he misses the point rather spectacularly in saying “I think what we’re talking about here is making sure that while we remove unfair discrimination, that we do not allow a very small part of the population to force their model for relationships to be adopted as the community norm, when it isn’t.” Gay marriage (or even just the simple removal of practical legal discriminations in the 58 federal pieces of legislation which discriminate against non-heterosexual Australians) is not about foisting “our model for relationships” as a community norm. It will never be a norm. A norm is, by definition, of the majority. But being the norm does not mean being ‘normal’, and not being the norm does not mean being inferior at all. Only people in same sex relationships can get same sex relationship recognition…everyone else can carry on as they have thus far been privileged enough to do. Fuckwit.

John Howard’s backflip on the issue of Indigenous reconciliation puts Olympic gymnasts to shame.

Howard announced, a few days ago, that “if re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise indigenous Australians in our constitution – their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special, though not separate, place within a reconciled, indivisible nation”. He continued, “I would aim to introduce a bill that would include the preamble statement into parliament within the first 100 days of a new government” (source 1, source 2, source 3 and full speech).

This is coming from a man who has repeatedly refused to offer any gesture of apology, any formal or in-formal acknowledgement of past wrongs, and who attempted to thwart any progress or actions of others.

It’s a contentious issue, and one that is quite complex. At its height, in 2001, when Howard refused to walk over the harbour bridge as symbolic gesture of reconciliation, I was 17. I remember thinking, “Why should I apologise? I wasn’t the one who perpetrated the injustices against indigenous Australians.” But I’ve realised since then that such a simplistic view completely misses the point. Saying ‘sorry’ and reconciliation are not about personal or individual blame; they are about accepting the past and standing up as a representative for past governments, past peoples, and apologising for their blame. The government is bigger than the individuals that comprise it, and more enduring than the careers of its ministers. The present government is a continuation of the colonial government, in the same way that the present crop of “white Australians” (for want of a better term!) is a continuation of colonial “white settlers”. It’s about one group of people acknowledging another.

Howard wants a united Australia, in which Indigenous and “mainstream Australians” live in harmony with no social, racial or ideological disparities. Howard’s campaign slogan in 1996 was “for all of us”. He envisaged, I’m sure, an Australia in which everyone was equal and happy. Unfortunately, the “all of us” to which he alluded was the mythical “mainstream Australia”. There’s no such thing. “Mainstream Australia” is the white, middleclass, heterosexual male. If Howard is governing “for all of us” he certainly isn’t governing for me, nor for Indigenous Australians. While it’s a very worthwhile goal, and certainly a nice thought, it is totally out of touch with reality. The reality is that until there is reconciliation, and until there is same-sex equality for that matter, we can never be united.

There have been many misconceptions and myths about the reconciliation process. Many believe it will give rise to native title being invoked on privately held land. Many believe it will impinge on the rights of “mainstream Australians” (which is also a myth). Pauline Hanson has weighed in on the debate, scared her “rights” will be somehow impinged upon. These arguments miss the point too. Native title legislation is about crown land. Privately held land is not affected in any way and cannot be claimed.

So is this a real and considered move on Howard’s part, indicating that he is prepared for real reconciliation, or just a desperate election stunt? Either way, in my opinion, it’s far too little, far too late. Constitutional law experts have warned that 100 days is not enough time to craft an appropriately worded preamble. Does Howard really expect that promise (and we don’t know if it is a “core promise” or not) to hold a referendum about whether or not to implement a hastily drawn, non-binding, preamble with do anything to win Indigenous votes? If he is so contrite, why doesn’t he take on his leadership role, admit his mistakes in preventing reconciliation so long, and actually do something: say “sorry”.

That would win votes.

A friend pointed me in the direction of the Australian Citizenship Test. What a load of horseshit. When I saw the ads on TV I was wary; I knew it would be bad but I had no idea it would be this bad. The test is, for all intents and purposes, a trivia quiz on arbitrary bits of information loosely assembled around the nebulous theme of Australianness. The totally maddening part of it all is that the Australia to which the test alludes doesn’t actually exist.

The test is designed, ostensibly, to choose new citizens who share Australian values. In reality, it will only serve to enshrine an outdated monocultural, jingoistic view of the Australia that certain people wish existed. Does this remind anyone else of White Australia? It didn’t work then, why should it work now? This is just a wedge to keep out “un-Australian types” and to bolster support for the coalition in the federal election, in the hope that “mainstream Australia” will vote them back into power.

I have news for you: “mainstream Australia” doesn’t exist. Shit, even “Australianness” doesn’t exist if you really think about it. Take 100 random current citizens—if we are to assume they are all “Australian”, I defy the governmental powers-that-be to find a single common thread between them. It can’t be done because of the simple fact that Australia is a nation of immigrants; we are diverse and as such we have no one single “Australian” culture. Monocultural Aussie values are myth. A friend of mine summed it up beautifully by saying that to be Australian is to desire or to believe you are Australian. Whether you believe that or not, the point is that it cannot be measured or characterised by a simple multiple choice test.

Aside from the tenuous justification for the very existence of the test, the content is another indicator of the way the government feels about “Australianness”:

Indigeneity: question 1 denies the indigenous flag, but then question 2 asserts the inhabitation of indigenous Australians for 40,000 years (a token gesture, surely). What about:

• When were Indigenous Australians granted full commonwealth voting rights in Australia, by public referendum?
  a) 1901, b) 1922, c) 1962, d) 1972.
• Which legal fiction was used to justify the British invasion of Indigenous land in 1788?
  a) terra nullius, b) tierra del fuego, c) terra firma, d) terra australis.

Trivia: questions 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 19 are trivia—name the floral emblem, a popular sport, the animals on the coat of arms, the first PM, the national anthem, the meaning of ANZAC day, the year of European arrival, and Australia’s involvement in various wars. Why not:

• Which Australian cricketer is a sleazy adulterer? a) Don Bradman, b) Ricky Ponting, c) Shane Warner, d) Glen McGrath.

Geographical trivia: questions 6, 19 and 20 are geographical trivia—what is the capital of Australia, how many states and what is the largest river system in the country. While these are only marginally more useful than the pure trivia, why not ask the following, to show how Australian two of our most treasured landmarks are:

• Paul Strzelecki, the explorer who “discovered” Mt Kosciuszko, named it after:
  a) a Swedish military leader, b) a Russian national hero, c) an Australian bushranger, d) a Polish national hero.
• Who “discovered” Uluru, formerly known as Ayer’s Rock?
  a) Chief Secretary of South Australia, Sir Henry Ayers, b) the Pitjantjatjara people, c) Paul Strzelecki, a polish explorer, d) explorer Ernest Giles.

Political system: questions 5, 9, 12 and 13 are about the political system. These are arguably important for new citizens to know about, so I won’t mock them too much, other than to say that they are extremely ambiguous and a little misleading.

“Australian values”: questions 14 and 15 are ludicrous. I just don’t know where to begin on these two. So how about:

• Which Australian values were displayed in the Cronulla riots in 2005?
  a) tolerance of diversity, b) mateship, c) “a fair go”, d) none of the above.
• To be granted a fair go in Australia, ie to gain legal protection and social rewards, you must be:
  a) of Anglo-celtic appearance (ie white), b) heterosexual, c) male, d) all of the above.
• Australia was established as:
  a) a retreat for retired English nobility, b) a penal colony, c) a community of free farmers, d) all of the above.

I just can’t believe in this day and age the powers that be are still peddling the myth of a monocultural Australia. So sad really.

John Howard: I often wonder what goes through that shiny little head of his.

I feel a genuine sadness when I look at the person running our country–a homophobic, conservative, racist, smug little gnome–and I feel deeply ashamed. I feel a deep sadness at the state of affairs we are in. I often wonder if he realises that there are so many jaded citizens (his voters) in his country, ashamed and embarrassed by their elected leader? If he does realise this, I wonder if he cares? And if he cares, I wonder if does anything about it? I would wager than a good deal of my fellow jaded citizens actually voted for him, as I did, in the last election and now regret such a decision with their very souls.

I was lying in bed, half asleep, half watching the late news, when a story caught my attention. Today (17/8/06) marks the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, an important battle in the Vietnam War. I don’t pretend to know the historical significance, but I do know it’s a big deal. It caught my attention because my grandfather, who I’ve been becoming much closer with this year, is a WW2 veteran. I saw some footage of truly courageous men fighting in the battle and of various veterans making statements. I had barely finished thinking “now these are REAL Australian heroes” when Mr Howard invaded my television screen making a public address. What happened next took me by surprise and left me completely floored. He apologised to the veterans for the way the Australians of 40 years ago treated them when they returned home to Australia from the Vietnam War. I have to admit a wry smile and a small chuckle escaped my lips.

International visitors may not realise the significance of this statement, in my opinion one that is going to come back to haunt him in the not too distant future, but I hope Australian readers get the joke. Indigenous Australians, the original inhabitants of our great country, had their land taken from them by European settlers (along with their dignity, culture, customs, languages, and in many cases, their children) from the time of invasion in 1788. Yet our PM, John Howard, refuses point-blank to apologise for the way that they were treated at the collective hand of Australians at that time.

Does anyone spot a double standard here?

His argument against apologising to Indigenous Australians is that neither he, nor the present government, are (or were) responsible for the rape and pillage of Indigenous communities, and therefore he owed no apology. However the problem with such an argument is that the collective “Australian people” is not a person. It does not die; it carries on. Each year it gains a new leader in the election, but it is still essentially the same thing. It was the Australian people and their government who denied citizenship rights, voting rights, took their children, discriminated against them and took their lands. Similarly, it was the Australian people and their government of the 1960s who refused pensions, compensations, bravery awards and a whole host of benefits from our Vietnam Veterans. It was the Australian people who spat on them in the streets. The rightly deserve an unreserved apology.

If Howard can apologise for the sins of the Australian people in 1960, he can apologise for the sins of the Australian people from 1788 or any other year.

And don’t even start me on the gay rights issues.

It really is sad. This isn’t what being an Australian (whatever that means) is all about. We are a great nation, we are not a nation that should be ashamed of its leader. This isn’t what the Australian Spirit is all about, something we hear about so often in our classrooms as children. The teachers don’t explain the Australian spirit and the twin principles of mateship and hard yakka, only to conclude by saying “although these are the ideals we as a people strive for, when you reach voting age you will probably have a hand in electing a short bigot who will make you doubt your country’s democratic system and ultimately cause you to feel extremely embarrassed to be Australian.”

You are a tiny, tiny man Mr Howard. And I’m not talking about your stature.