Tag Archives: Australian Christian Lobby

#QandA, Senator Brandis and LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Reforms

Posted on by

On Monday night (June 24th) I had the opportunity to attend the filming of QandA at the ABC studios in Ultimo, Sydney. As on two previous occasions, I was told that my question had been shortlisted. However, unlike those previous occasions, this time I got to ask it.

I feel privileged to have done so. I got to ask Senator George Brandis, the Shadow Attorney-General, live on national television why the Liberal and National Parties were so desperate that religious aged care facilities should be able to discriminate on the basis on sexual orientation and gender identity, that they would scupper the entire anti-discrimination reform if this exception was not preserved.

And it was also timely – the Senate had voted on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 that evening (where it was passed by the Labor Government and the Greens), and it was due to be voted on by the House of Representatives the following day (and where the numbers were also far closer).

The answer given by Senator Brandis to my question (and to my supplementary) was of course disappointing, confirming that the Liberal and National Parties do not believe that the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians not to be discriminated against is either fundamental or universal.

But it was his answer to Tony Jones’ follow-up that was truly extraordinary, particularly this exchange:

Tony Jones: But just on principle, you are saying that religious freedom supersedes the freedom of your sexuality?

George Brandis: Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Yes I am.

All Australians, and especially LGBTI Australians, should consider this statement, from the likely Attorney-General under a Tony Abbott-led Government, before casting their ballot later this year.

There was one final bonus of my appearance on QandA, and it was unexpected. On Thursday (June 27th) the Australian Christian Lobby put out a media release condemning the Government for the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill, and supporting Senator Brandis’ position. This media release included the full transcript of my exchange with Senator Brandis, as well as Tony Jones’ questions.

So, not only do I now have the ‘street cred’ of having been quoted disapprovingly in an ACL media release, but they also saved me the time and effort of having to put together the following transcript. Thanks ACL!

ALASTAIR LAWRIE: My question is to Senator Brandis. Last Tuesday you announced that the Coalition would block any LGBIT anti-discrimination bill that did not allow religious aged-care service providers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is despite the fact that these agencies themselves do not believe they need this exception. You seem to be putting a theoretical religious freedom above practical protections. Why don’t you believe that older lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender Australians, people who have grown up when their love was criminalised, who lost friends and lovers to HIV and AIDS, have the right to grow old in dignity and respect that they deserve?

GEORGE BRANDIS: It is a very important question that you ask and let me explain what the Opposition’s position is. But there was one statement in your question which wasn’t quite right. You said that the religious institutions, the churches, didn’t themselves want the exemption so far as concerned aged care facilities. That’s not right. Some said they didn’t want it. Most said they did. So don’t be misled by a misleading statement by the Attorney-General. On the broader issue, when the bill, the sex discrimination bill, was introduced into the Parliament, I took a submission to the Shadow Cabinet and to our party room which was, I think without a dissenting voice, endorsed that we should support it. And the reason we support it is because it is actually the policy we took to the 2010 election, that the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act should extend to sexuality as a protected attribute. The Government knew that they had the Opposition on board with this. In fact, the Government’s measure was itself taken from the Opposition’s report on the broader human rights and anti-discrimination bill, the bill that was abandoned by the Government earlier this year because it was acknowledged to have gone way too far. So we had, on this very tricky and important issue of discrimination against gay people, we had bipartisanship and unanimity. And then into the middle of this harmonious bipartisan moment, the Labor Party, out of the blue, threw in an amendment never anticipated, never expected, that would have caused the religious exemption issue to come into play. Now, if you want to build a consensus around this issue, that gay people should be protected from discrimination by the Sex Discrimination Act, then you would not have done that and the Labor Party, on all other grounds, in all other arenas, has said that it will respect the religious exemption. I am cynical about why the Labor Party did that…

TONY JONES: Okay, George.

GEORGE BRANDIS: …knowing that by introducing the religious exemption, it would make it impossible for that bipartisanship to continue.

TONY JONES: George Brandis, the questioner has his hand up so we’ll go back to you.

ALASTAIR LAWRIE: I would just like to pick up a point you seem to be making. In Senator Humphrey’s dissenting report to the sex discrimination senate inquiry, the two organisations that he quoted justifying the call for religious exception in that circumstance were the Australian Christian Lobby and the Catholic Women’s League. Neither of them provide religious aged care services. So in that circumstance, why are we trying to impose a religious exception to the detriment of older LGBT people for those groups that don’t actually run those services?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well, I’m very familiar with that minority report because I was one of the signatories to it and I had a lot to do with drafting it. There were many more submissions to the inquiry from other churches and religious institutions than those two. So don’t infer that because those two were mentioned as a ‘For example’, those were the only ones, because they weren’t.

TONY JONES: Okay. George, I would like the hear other people on this subject. Anne Summers?

ANN SUMMERS: Well, I’m afraid I don’t know much about the legislation. I mean I just obviously would support the principle that LGBT people should be able to go to retirement homes and nursing homes free from any form of discrimination, which I take to be the central point and I know that, you know, one of the problems with homes that are run by some religions is they have been discriminatory in the past and I imagine what we are trying to avoid is the continuation of that discrimination and I would support that.

TONY JONES: Yeah, very briefly, George, before I go back to the other panelists, shouldn’t anti-discrimination be universal?

GEORGE BRANDIS: No.

TONY JONES: Why shouldn’t it?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Anti-discrimination laws should not be universal because the right to fair treatment is one of several very important but sometimes inconsistent values. The right of people who practice or profess a particular religious faith to live their lives and to conduct their institutions in accordance with the precepts of their religious faith is integral to religious freedom and religious freedom is also a fundamentally important value.

TONY JONES: So religious…

GEORGE BRANDIS: And if I may say…

TONY JONES: But just on principle, you are saying that religious freedom supersedes the freedom of your sexuality?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Yes, I am. But I am also making a political point. There are – we in the Liberal Party have joined with people in the Labor Party to progress this agenda for years and those who wanted to see the Sex Discrimination Act extend to protect people on the grounds of their sexuality were furious that the Labor Party decided to throw in a curve ball into the debate that deprived the country of the opportunity for unanimity on this.

Julia Gillard and the ACL: Unholy matrimony

Posted on by

Two weeks ago tomorrow, the Australian Christian Lobby announced that Prime Minister Julia Gillard would be the keynote speaker at their annual conference in October. Given it was only a day after the Houston Report on asylum seekers was released, and the Government’s shameful adoption of offshore processing, this announcement did not receive a great deal of coverage in the mainstream media.

Nevertheless, it did provoke an instant backlash within the gay and lesbian community. I was among those who reacted with dismay at the decision by Gillard (or her advisers) to accept an invitation to speak at the ACL’s annual gathering. Two weeks later and I am still upset at the action taken by the ALP leader. Many others are too. Why?

By agreeing to appear at the ACL conference (which presumably also doubles as a fundraiser), the Prime Minister is endorsing the legitimacy of this organisation. Note that I am not necessarily saying she is endorsing each and every view of the ACL (because of course speakers can address audiences with whom they disagree on particular subjects). But simply by being there, Julia Gillard will be endorsing the ongoing participation of a hateful and extremist group in public debate. By turning up, she will give them her imprimatur to continue their campaigns based on prejudice and discrimination.

Make no mistake. The Australian Christian Lobby is a hate group, whose primary reason for existence appears to be founded on the denial of human rights to Australia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex and transgender community. The ACL is to homophobia what One Nation is to racism.

The evidence comes from examining the public comments made by the Lobby. An analysis of the ACL’s website, by Jacob Holman, found that the ACL’s press releases and media mentions made 122 references to campaigning against LGBTI rights over a six month period. This was almost five times more than the next most referenced issue (prostitution and human trafficking). And many more times than any other issue (like, for example, asylum seekers or global poverty and hunger).

Imagine that – denying equality to gay men and lesbians is five times more important than any other issue in the world. That is an unhealthy obsession with denying the rights of a minority group, and shows that homophobia is at the core of the ACL. This is confirmed by some of the more ‘colourful’ tweets from the ACL – including that “Legitimising gay marriage is like legitimising child abuse”, or the infamous tweet by Managing Director Mr Jim Wallace concerning ANZAC Day (“Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!”).

This alone should be sufficient justification for any political leader to rule out attending an ACL event. It certainly would be if their campaigns were against the rights of indigenous people, or people from other races. Well, just as in other matters, the LGBTI community demands equal treatment – our political leaders should refuse to speak at the events of organisations founded on gay-hate in the same way they steer clear of race-hate groups.

Even if the Prime Minister thought it was appropriate to address a christian organisation (and whether that would be appropriate is a subject for another day), it is unclear why she would choose the ACL. This is an organisation which does not speak on behalf of any particular church. It is also reticent when it comes to nominating its membership figures. Indeed, their 2011 Annual Report proudly states the number of facebook fans it has (now 3,550), and the number of twitter followers of itself and Jim Wallace (1230 and 1800 respectively, which are all low for a supposed ‘national peak body’), but does not state how many people are paid up members. This, together with its extreme views, surely makes one question just how representative the ACL is of Australia’s christians.

In fact, on the main issue on which it is active – lobbying against equal marriage – the ACL clearly does not represent mainstream christians. A galaxy poll in August 2011 found that the majority of Australians who identify as christian support same-sex marriage: 53%, with only 41% opposed. It is likely that, just as in other segments of the community, this level of support will continue to grow.

That makes the ACL a self-appointed ‘peak body’, claiming to represent all of Australia’s christians but in reality only directly representing a small number, advocating hateful policies based on discrimination. It should be relegated to the fringes of society, not placed centre-stage by a supposedly ‘progressive’ Prime Minister. That alone is enough to justify the outrage of myself and other activists. But it does not fully explain why Julia Gillard’s decision has cut so deeply.

The reason we feel so completely let down can be found by comparing the Prime Minister’s official participation at an ACL event, with her position on gay and lesbian equality and treatment of supporters of equal marriage. It is no secret that Julia Gillard is one of the key reasons why equal marriage is unlikely to be achieved during the life of this parliament – in addition to her personal opposition, she led the charge for a conscience vote within the ALP virtually guaranteeing that it would not receive sufficient votes to be passed into law.

Compounding this, the Prime Minister has, as far as I am aware, held only one formal meeting with advocates for same-sex marriage during her tenure (the ACL alone had two meetings just in 2011 – as helpfully boasted about in its annual report). Even worse, Julia Gillard took eight months to organise a dinner with same-sex couples wanting to get married, which had been won publicly at a charity auction in June 2011.

This was despite the fact it was supposed to be held within ONE month, and that the same-sex couples involved were flexible with timing, their only request being to hold the dinner before the ALP national conference last December (a request which was not met). And it is almost unimaginable to envisage the PM addressing a major gay and lesbian event or conference any time soon.

Given the issue of same-sex marriage is inevitably one of ‘us v them’, the Prime Minister’s decision to be keynote speaker at the ACL annual conference underscores just whose side she is on. A hint: it is not those who are standing up for equality under the law, and for a progressive and fairer Australia. Instead, yet again, Julia Gillard has chosen to side with the bigots and religious fundamentalists. No wonder it hurts.