With the next National Day of Action for Equal Marriage rapidly approaching on November sixth, the issue of the much needed reform will be soaking up yet more time in the media sunshine. This will be especially true given that South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hansen-Young’s Private Member’s Bill to legalise same- sex marriage is set for a third attempt in the Senate. The bill was voted down previously in June 2009 and then again in February of this year.
There’s been a lot of talk within the GLBTI activist community regarding the need for a conscience vote on same-sex marriage. That is, the ability for members to vote according to their own conscience or their own beliefs rather than along official party lines.
Lately, the issue of a conscience vote on Equal Marriage seems to be very much in vogue amongst GLBTI advocacy groups, as well as several progressive policy makers. Independent MP Andrew Wilke only last week called upon the Prime Minister to allow for a vote of this nature.
Given that both major parties have expressed (ad nauseum) that neither support granting equal marriage rights to same-sex and gender-diverse couples, some believe allowing those in power to demonstrate their opposition to the 2004 ban on same-sex marriage through a conscience vote would greatly boost the chances of the bill being passed, thus repealing the discriminatory law.
Or would it?
Much of the campaign literature that has been put out to the public regarding the need for a conscience vote quite correctly states that up to 62% of Australia’s population support Equal Marriage, and 78% also support a conscience vote on the issue. This is undeniably true – and given these figures one would also assume that it is not only fair, but also in the interests of democracy that our elected members be able to reflect and represent the views of their public.
But, what we’re missing here is that public opinion is only one of many competing concerns when discussing a conscience vote. It’s more the views of the members themselves that we need to be worried about.
The State of the Australian Labor Party
While there has been an avalanche of support in recent years for Marriage Equality, as well as a growing movement within the ALP to change the laws, the levels of support within the parliamentary party is still nail-bitingly close. At present, it is nearly impossible to predict which members of the ALP would support the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill and which members will not – any evidence of support that we have at present are at best unreliable and is generally no better than sheer speculation . There is a good deal more than just ideology at play here: For some, it is likely not to be a particularly high priority.
It is also important to remember that there is still considerable influence from the right of Labor as well as some of the more traditionally conservative unions not to change the status quo. Indeed, is it not peculiar that the Prime Minister, a left-leaning atheist who herself has faced criticism for not fitting the traditional ‘family’ image, doesn’t support equal marriage? The likely justification for Gillard’s recalcitrance on the marriage issue is due to her desire to not cause controversy with the religious conservatives in the party – and a good deal of that comes down not only to Labor itself, but to its voters;
As infuriating as it is, some equality agnostic’s fear the loss of support from key constituents by the introduction of such a controversial bill, especially one that may lead to deep divisions and rifts within the parliamentary team.
Solidarity
Another thing to take into account when considering Labor’s internal decision making process is the concept of solidarity; a principle that harks back to the party’s working-class, union roots. The very act of supporting a colleague and standing together in unity is of significant importance to many in the ALP. A conscience vote would break the loyalty and solidarity that parliamentarians have with their colleagues – something that would go against the culture of the party. In fact, to date the only thing that the ALP has allowed a conscience vote on is where an issue deals with life and death issues; namely abortion and euthanasia. It is likely that, even in the (highly unlikely) chance of a conscience vote being achieved, many Labor MPs would still feel obliged to vote along internal factional lines and many may wish not to stand out in the belief that doing so may make the government look divided in a time when a lot is riding on the image of a stable government.
The dangers of a third rejection of the bill
In simple and plain terms the situation can be summarised thus : A conscience vote will be next to impossible to achieve, and even if, by some obscenely small chance that it is agreed to by both major parties – the levels of support for it from individuals within Parliament is not reliable or even known to ensure a victory. Even if both of the major parties allowed a conscience vote on the marriage bill, the minimal if non-existent support from the Liberals combined with the fact that Labor would not have the numbers on their own to see safe passage of the bill would mean likely defeat. If a conscience vote was allowed it would likely split the Labor party and it is extremely unlikely that proponents of marriage equality would gain enough stray votes from the Liberal party (or even independents) to replace the lost votes from Labor.
Now, before you begin frothing at the mouth and accusing me of being a nihilistic buzz-kill, let me explain my apparent over-caution: Senator Hanson-Young’s bill has twice been introduced and debated within less than two years, a third failure may be pounced upon by opponents of the Bill as an opportunity to dismiss it well into the future as being frivolous and a waste of time. Given the amount of other items that are competing for time on Parliament floor, having Sarah Hansen-Young’s Bill reintroduced for a fourth time will prove to be extremely difficult.
For those who believe that failure only makes us stronger, that we can “fail forward” need only to look back to the Australian Republic debate and the last decade where this issue has suffered being exiled to political oblivion. If a conscience vote was allowed and the bill was to inevitably fail as it likely would currently, we would end up giving away a precedent that in it may be the cause of the marriage equality debate to falter yet again in the future. In that situation, every time the issue would come up in parliament, opponents would demand (and probably automatically get) a conscience vote, which may potentially lead to a vicious cycle of failure for this issue. We simply cannot afford to be reloading our opponent’s weapons with such political ammunition.
Frankly, this issue means far too much to me – and I daresay to a sizeable proportion of the GLBTI community and our allies as well – for it to be tossed out in such a manner. If we are to have a sustainable campaign that delivers what we need, we cannot afford to be distracted by red herrings. My suggestion? Our focus should not be at Gillard, at high ranking ALP members or to the Cabinet at all. We need to set our sights lower and wider, with one very clear objective: Changing ALP policy at the grass roots level.
Changing the party policy
Given that the party almost always votes according to party policy – surely our efforts should be directed not at trying to dissuade them from adhering to dyed-in-the-wool traditions and policies, but rather to build consensus in supporting and actually implementing marriage equality?
If the national policy of the Labor Party is changed in this manner, then all members of Parliament will be required to vote in favour of it – so when the issue is presented, there will be an entire Party’s worth of support for it –far more reliable the result of a conscience vote. What we need here is to build a strong consensus within the party that will deliver a bona fide result, not a reckless exercise of blind faith.
The way to change ALP Party Policy is at their national party conference, which should be in 2011. This means that we have just under a year in which to build a strong and pragmatic campaign to change Labor’s policy on marriage. We need to be targeting unions, student organisations, parliamentarians, Labor members and supporters – basically anyone in and around the ALP who will be willing to help take the issue to conference. I have a feeling that the good people at Rainbow Labor are going to have their work cut out for them, but they are going to need all the help they can get. And that’s where we, the community come in.
It is very easy to pin one’s hopes on what looks like an easy and immediate solution to inequality, and after six long years of disappointment in three different Governments the prospect of a conscience vote looks mighty promising, but in this situation, the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. There are many well-meaning activists that are holding the conscience vote up as a holy grail, not realising precisely what a risk it might entail. There is so much passion and dedication within the community for equality – and it saddens me to think that it could potentially be wasted on tilting at windmills.
In order for us to finally achieve what we have been fighting for so long we must be able to see the big picture – and most of all we must be patient enough to recognise that if this is to be done right, it has to be done well. Reforms that are built on strong foundations are reforms that last. We need to curb our impulsiveness for just a little while longer. Equality is simply too important to be thrown away on a gamble.
Kitty Hawkins
GALE Co Convenor
(With many thanks to the small army of people that helped me edit this piece!)
By Alistair Webster
