John Howard wedged the Labor Party with his proposals to change the Marriage Act and this is how two prominent Federal Labor MPs are spinning Labor’s complicity as the complaints flooded in.

Tanya Plibersek’s response to a gay activist

Dear David

The government has attempted to use same sex relationship recognition in the same way they have used race and refugees in past election campaigns. They want to be seen to take “tough action” against a non-existent threat.

Labor has responded by accepting that the Marriage Act refers to marriage between a man and a woman, but preparing a whole raft of other amendments which show that we recognise and value same sex relationships equally with heterosexual relationships, and that we believe in full equality for the GLTBI communities.

Labor’s position on the government’s proposed amendments to the Marriage Act and Family Law Act, adopted today in caucus, says that we will not oppose the changes to the marriage act. The proposed changes do not take existing rights away, so we will not oppose it in the House of Representatives but we will send the legislation to a Senate inquiry for thorough examination before voting in the Senate. This will give all community members who are interested the chance to make a submission to the inquiry, and put on the public record their thoughts about relationship recognition. The reference to a Senate committee was one of the major requests made by people who contacted me about this legislation, and it has been delivered.

We have also committed to move an amendment opposing the government’s moves on adoption. Adoption will remain the responsibility of the states, and those states and territories which currently allow same sex adoption will not have their laws tampered with.

We will also move an amendment on superannuation. The government has claimed it will introduce superannuation legislation making it
easier for inter-dependent couples of all types (i.e. same sex couples, siblings etc) to leave their super to one another. This legislation
is separate from what has already been introduced, and no-one has yet seen it. Labor will move our own amendment and challenge the government to support it.

Perhaps most importantly, the ALP has committed to provide absolute equality between same sex and hetero-sexual de facto couples. This is something the lesbian and gay communities have been lobbying for some years, and we will urge the government to support our changes. If they don’t, we will deliver on this promise in government. Every piece of Commonwealth legislation will be examined, and every bit of discrimination based on sexuality or gender identification will be removed.

I still believe the Prime Minister’s proposed changes to the Marriage Act and Family Law Act are intentionally divisive and a dirty political exercise, however I believe the package of reforms Labor has negotiated, if passed, would be a huge step forward. The GLTBI communities can look forward to genuine, far-reaching reforms under a Labor government.

Best wishes, Tanya Plibersek

PS: The reason I think it’s clear that this is just dirty politics is firstly, no Australian couples currently have access to same sex marriage. The change to the Marriage Act is not necessary to prevent same sex marriage in Australia – this is just gratuitous. The marriage act and common law make clear that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The reason this is being brought up
now is to distract from the polls, the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, the destruction of our health and education systems, the re-emergence of leadership tensions in the Liberal party – and the Trish Draper scandal.

The government’s legislation also says that it is better for a child to grow up in a Calcutta orphanage that to be brought up by loving
same sex parents in a committed relationship in Australia. Also, single people can still adopt, so couples will adopt in the name of one parent.

What will be the legal position of the co-parent if something happens to the legal parent? How can it be in the best interests of a child to
introduce such legal uncertainty?

Duncan Kerr’s response to another gay activist

Dear Dave,

At our caucus on 1 June 2004 the Federal Labor Party decided not to oppose Prime Minister Howard’s measures to confirm in the Marriage Act the common law understanding that marriage is “a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.

However, Labor will move amendments to this Bill and refer the Bill to a Senate Committee for a full exploration of the technical issues that arise and to ensure the broader community has an opportunity to express their views on this Bill. I hope you take the time to make a
submission to this inquiry.

I am very sceptical of Prime Minister Howard’s motives and reasons for this move. There had been some debate in the community about the possibility of amending the Marriage Act to allow same sex marriages, but the current law did not allow that. These changes will not
prevent that debate continuing into the future if community attitudes continue to evolve.

Labor does not support the Howard Government’s attempts to interfere in adoption issues. Adoption has always been an issue for the States and Territories to determine. It is inconsistent and inappropriate for the Prime Minister to try and interfere in this issue simply because some children are being adopted from overseas.

Rigorous eligibility standards apply at the State and Territory level and we have confidence that those processes ensure the best interest of the child are paramount. Prime Minister Howard has a view that you can determine parenting solely on the basis of your sexual orientation. This is not a view I share. There are good and bad parents in all groups of society. I do not believe sexuality is the critical issue.

Most importantly we have restated Labor’s commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation on the
basis of sexuality, following a full audit of existing laws. This audit will commence immediately upon the election of a Labor Federal
Government. It will allow issues of substance, such as superannuation, taxation, social security and much more, to be addressed comprehensively.

When complete this will give same sex couples the rights and recognition of heterosexual de facto couples. That will complement in federal law, the approach taken in Tasmania, under the ground breaking legislation introduced by Attorney-General Judy Jackson – Legislation which puts Tasmania well ahead of most other states.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns.

Yours sincerely
Duncan Kerr MP
Federal member for Denison