Tag Archives: Tony Burke

What ALP National Conference Delegates Should Hear About Marriage Equality

Posted on by

While I am a member of the Labor Party (and have been for more than 13 years), I have not been elected as a delegate to this year’s ALP National Conference, which will be held in Melbourne next weekend (Friday 24 to Sunday 26 July).

If I had been, and if I had the privilege of speaking during the Rules debate scheduled for Sunday afternoon, this is the speech I would like to give:

*************************************

It’s time for the Australian Labor Party to fully support the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

It’s time to say – without equivocation or qualification – that the relationships of LGBTI people must be treated in exactly the same way under secular law as their cisgender heterosexual counterparts.

It’s time to take the Platform position, which already supports marriage equality in principle, and make it binding on the members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.

The Labor Party can bind on marriage equality.

In fact, for more than two thirds of the time marriage equality has been debated in our Parliament, the ALP has bound its MPs and Senators on this issue – from Howard’s homophobic ban in August 2004, which we shamefully supported, until the last National Conference in December 2011, Labor MPs and Senators were bound to vote against it.

With a large majority of Party members, of Labor MPs and Senators – and, above all, of the Australian community – supporting amendments to the Marriage Act to ensure it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, there is absolutely no reason why we should not bind in support in 2015.

There is nothing so unusual or exceptional about marriage equality that dictates that normal Party processes, based on the principles of solidarity and collective action, and which ordinarily demand a bound vote, should not apply to this issue.

Despite what some delegates might try to argue, religious freedom is not a legitimate argument to reject a binding vote.

The introduction of marriage equality will not have an adverse impact on religious freedom. Under every Bill proposed to date, ministers of religion will be free to decline to officiate LGBTI weddings.

In fact, the introduction of marriage equality will enhance religious freedom because it will allow those organisations and faiths that want to marry LGBTI couples to do so.

As Tony Burke notes: “Those who want to marry will be able to do so. Those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it.”

That includes individual parliamentarians who want to oppose marriage equality simply because it does not accord with their personal faith.

If legislation sought to impose marriage equality within religion, to change the official teachings of their faith, they might have an argument.

But it does not. Again, as Tony Burke observes: “The various religious faiths will continue to have their own views and rules around marriage. The law of Australia needs to respect the freedom of people to practice their faith and it will.”

Viewed in this way, it is clear that MPs and Senators demanding a conscience vote in order to oppose equality in secular law are not seeking to exercise their ‘religious freedom’ – they are seeking to impose their personal religious views onto others.

And, as a secular political party, we should vigorously resist their attempts.

The Labor Party should bind on marriage equality.

It should bind because introducing this reform would address one of the major outstanding forms of discrimination against LGBTI Australians – and the ALP should always stand united in addressing discrimination against the marginalised.

In the words of Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek, the question is simple: “Do we support legal discrimination against one group in this country? Or do we not?”

It should bind because the ability to found a family, and to have one’s relationships recognised under secular law, is more than just a natural desire, it is a fundamental human right.

Human rights should not be ‘optional’, and their recognition should not be left up to the whim of individual Labor Party MPs and Senators, as it is under a conscience vote.

As my old boss, Senator John Faulkner, told the 2011 National Conference when this same question was being debated: “A conscience vote on human rights is unconscionable.”

It should bind because the current Party Rule – which says “Conference resolves that the matter of same-sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party” – is not only wrong, it is offensive.

Commitments to achieve human rights should not come with an asterisk.

‘Terms and conditions’ should not apply when what is at stake is the equality of people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

It is offensive that special Party Rules continue to allow individual Labor MPs and Senators to vote against those rights, that equality. These provisions should be permanently removed from our governing document.

It should bind because it is unjust to impose solidarity on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex members of the Party, and to not offer it in return.

It is unjust to demand loyalty, to make Senator Penny Wong vote against her own community’s rights for seven and a half years, and Senator Louise Pratt for three and a half – and then deny that same loyalty when the Platform position changes to one of support for equality.

Solidarity, and loyalty, cannot be continually demanded of us but not reciprocated.

Finally, it should bind because lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Labor members are sick and tired of having our rights being sacrificed as the price of ‘Party unity’.

Granting a conscience vote on marriage equality should not be a ransom that is paid to parliamentarians who threaten to quit the Party rather than be compelled to vote to recognise the love of LGBTI couples.

If denying the legal equality of others is more important to them than adhering to Party solidarity – something they expect of others, but are unwilling to offer themselves – then they should leave. The rest of us should no longer give in to their blackmail.

The Labor Party must bind on marriage equality.

It must bind to finish the job that was left half-done by our predecessors in 2011, who voted to change the Platform, but narrowly failed to make that position binding.

That failure has had real adverse consequences – a bound vote in September 2012 could have seen marriage equality passed last term, putting an end to the painfully long wait of LGBTI couples simply to enjoy the same legal rights that are taken for granted by others.

Had the last National Conference decidedly differently, some Australians need not have died waiting for their relationships to be recognised by their own country – as some inevitably, and tragically, have done.

Adopting a binding vote now would demonstrate that we acknowledge we got it wrong in December 2011, and, in doing so, we apologise.

But this is about more than making up for past mistakes – it is about the present, too.

We must bind to ensure the Australian Labor Party does everything within its own power to support marriage equality in 2015.

We cannot control what Tony Abbott, and Warren Truss, and their respective Parties do on this issue – if we could, they would have adopted a conscience vote during the three and a half years in which we have already had one.

What we can control is our own Party and its Rules. What we can control, by adopting a binding vote, is ensuring as many ALP MPs and Senators as possible vote in favour of marriage equality the next time it comes before the Parliament.

That is what we are accountable for, and should be judged on accordingly.

And we must bind for the future. If marriage equality is rejected this term – and that remains a genuine possibility – the Australian Labor Party must be able to go to the next election telling the people that, if elected, it will pass marriage equality as quickly as possible.

The only way that it will be able to make that commitment is by adopting a binding vote at this Conference.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians have waited long enough already – too long, actually – and, if legislation is unsuccessful this year, and we win in 2016, they will be looking to us to finally pass this reform.

If, as a newly-elected Government, we are unable to do so because too many Labor MPs and Senators exercise a conscience vote against the rights of their fellow citizens, we will left looking completely ineffectual – and, much more significantly, LGBTI Australians will be let down yet again.

Labor must be able to promise to introduce marriage equality next term – and, just as importantly, it must be able to deliver it.

Because only in that way can the Labor Party truly claim that it will represent, and govern for, all Australians.

Only by adopting a binding vote can we say that the famous ‘Light on the Hill’ shines for everyone – and that we will use its light to overcome the darkness that is homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia, both in the law and in society.

Only by adopting a binding vote can the Australian Labor Party say that it is whole-heartedly committed to creating a country that is free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

It’s time to make that commitment, here at this Conference, and then again later this year on the floor of Parliament.

Delegates, it’s time to bind in support of marriage equality.

Senator Penny Wong at the 2011 ALP National Conference in Sydney

Senator Penny Wong at the 2011 ALP National Conference in Sydney

What Tony Burke gets right, and what Anthony Albanese gets wrong, about Marriage Equality

Posted on by

Let’s be honest, when I started this blog almost three years ago, that’s not a headline I ever imagined writing.

And nor is the following sentence – thank you Tony Burke for committing to vote for marriage equality the next time it comes before Federal Parliament.

Mr Burke’s announcement last Sunday (24 May)[i], that his “stance on this issue has developed considerably since the last time we voted on marriage equality” (September 2012), was, to say the least, unexpected.

It is also incredibly useful.

Not just because his vote in the House of Representatives will come in handy later in 2015, when, as seems likely, marriage equality will have its best chance of passage this term.

But also because, as a right-wing MP, and someone who is factionally-aligned with the Joe De Bruyn-led SDA, Mr Burke has demonstrated that even people who have traditionally opposed LGBTI equality can recognise that marriage equality is both a social good, and inevitable.

Indeed, it has been a long journey from voting against an equal age of consent in 2003 when he was a NSW Upper House MP, to supporting the equal right to marriage irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

If Mr Burke can make that journey, then so can his factional colleagues. He has set a powerful precedent that people like Senator Joe Bullock should follow.

Nevertheless, the most important part of Mr Burke’s conversion was the statement announcing his change of heart in which he inadvertently makes an excellent case for a binding vote within the ALP.

This is because he makes it very clear that there is no intellectual basis to vote against equality.

First, as marriage equality advocates have argued consistently from the very beginning, Mr Burke acknowledges that changing the marriage law will affect nobody other than the additional people who would be allowed to marry.

From his statement:

“The time has now come for the conversation in communities like mine to move to the fact that this change will occur. We need to get to the next stage of the conversation to explain why those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it” (emphasis added).

“The laws around the care of children have already changed. The laws around the treatment of de-facto relationships have already changed. These all occurred with little fanfare. They delivered a benefit to those who were directly affected and went largely unnoticed by those who might otherwise thought to object.”

And he reiterated that “[t]hose who want to marry will be able to do so. Those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it.”

Second, Mr Burke also made it very clear that the recognition of marriage equality in Commonwealth law would have exactly zero negative impact on religious freedom.

Again, from his statement:

“It is a long time since the law of marriage matched the various religious views of marriage. There are some laws that precisely match principles that are enshrined in religious faith. There are other religious principles such as turning up to a church, mosque, temple or synagogue each week which no one in Australia would remotely suggest should be enshrined in law.”

“The various religious faiths will continue to have their own views and rules around marriage. The law of Australia needs to respect the freedom of people to practice their faith and it will” (emphasis added).

“But the days when the law of Australia can limit access to marriage in ways that are so far removed from the modern community view have long since passed.”

So, according to Mr Burke’s own words:

  • This reform affects no-one other than lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians who are currently prohibited from marrying but, if marriage equality passed, would finally be allowed to do so, and
  • This reform has absolutely no adverse impact on freedom of religion.

If that is the case, and it should be said I agree with his assessments, then on what possible basis can anyone argue there should be a conscience vote within the Australian Labor Party on this issue, rather than a binding one?

Answer: they can’t.

Perhaps, then, as well as outlining to the citizens of Watson why he supports marriage equality, Tony Burke could also spend time between now and the ALP National Conference in July with some of his factional colleagues “explain[ing] why those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it.”

Tony Burke, an accidental advocate for a binding vote on marriage equality.

Tony Burke, an accidental advocate for a binding vote on marriage equality.

At the other end of the ALP’s factional spectrum, another Anthony made his own contribution to the marriage equality debate this week.

On Tuesday, senior Left figure and long-time marriage equality supporter Anthony Albanese made a ‘constituency statement’ to the House of Representatives following the victory for equality in the Irish referendum[ii].

In it, the Member for Grayndler reiterated his personal support for LGBTI equality, by noting that:

“Giving one group of people the rights they have been denied does not, in any way, diminish the rights that currently exist for the rest of us” (emphasis added).

“I fail to see how the institution of marriage is weakened if more people have the right to participate.”

Which, like Mr Burke, is a welcome recognition that marriage equality would not directly affect anyone outside those who would now be able to participate in it (and of course their family and friends who would be able to join them for their celebrations).

If only ‘Albo’ had left it at that.

Instead, he went on to attempt to make the case for a conscience vote within the Australian Labor Party. And in doing so, he made a number of unfortunate errors.

Mr Albanese started by saying that “I strongly believe there should be a vote in this Parliament this year. It should be a conscience vote. That would enable parliamentarians to have a mature debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

“Whilst I have strong views in support of marriage equality, I respect those who hold a different view. You cannot promote diversity and tolerance whilst not showing tolerance for those who disagree with you” (emphasis added).

Leaving aside his implication that the only way to have a mature debate on an issue in Parliament is through a conscience vote (and if that is the case, I assume he will be moving to make all ALP positions conscience votes in future), Mr Albanese then mischaracterises marriage equality as concerning ‘tolerance and diversity’ rather than something more profound – the fundamental equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

Perhaps he should have listened to his factional colleague from the neighbouring seat of Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, when, back in April, she framed the issue in this way:

“Labor has always been a party that is opposed to discrimination… It is a clear question. Do we support legal discrimination against one group in this country? Or do we not?”[iii]

Viewed like this, while we can all acknowledge and respect the fact that ALP MPs and Senators have a diversity of views about marriage equality (and that those opposed shouldn’t be chased with pitchforks for holding that opinion), that alone is not sufficient justification to allow individual parliamentarians to actually vote against the legal equality of their fellow citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Mr Albanese, as a stalwart of the Left, should understand that a very high threshold is required in order to abandon the standard operating procedure of a political party based on solidarity and collective action – and simply invoking the words ‘tolerance and diversity’ in a speech doesn’t even come close to clearing it.

Albo went on in his statement to claim that: “I have argued consistently that the Coalition needs to allow a conscience vote on this issue. It is inconsistent to argue something different within the Labor Party.”

Which many people might think is a reasonable point to make but, upon further analysis, is also not true.

As both Mr Burke, and Mr Albanese in his own speech, have made abundantly clear, the only people directly affected by marriage equality are LGBTI couples.

In that context, it is entirely rational to say that nobody should be compelled to vote against the equality of their fellow citizens. Which is justification to argue that the Liberal Party should move from a bound vote against marriage equality, to allowing their parliamentarians to have a conscience vote on this issue.

But there is no equivalent argument the other way – if legalising marriage equality does not negatively impact on anyone else, including those with strong religious views on the subject, there is no valid reason why an MP or Senator should not be compelled to vote for it.

And, as something that would help achieve legal equality for a marginalised group in society, there is a case for compelling parliamentarians to vote in favour.

Which provides the justification to simultaneously argue for a bound vote in support of marriage equality within the Australian Labor Party – a position that would also be consistent with how the Party approaches 99.9% of issues that come before Parliament.

Therefore, arguing for a conscience vote within the Liberal Party and a bound vote within Labor isn’t ‘inconsistent’ – in fact, it is philosophically sound, because both are in pursuit of fundamental human rights.

Unfortunately, the calibre of Mr Albanese’s argument only goes down from there. From his statement:

“In 2002, as a member of the ALP National Executive, I dealt with a report to resolve the issues surrounding the use of conscience votes in a process which included Labor’s pre-eminent authority on our internal history and processes John Faulkner.”

“There have been conscience votes on a range of issues over the year [sic] including the Family Law Bill 1974, euthanasia in 1996 and the Marriage Bill (1961).”

“The ALP National Executive decided unanimously that “the most appropriate model is the case-by-case, political model, but with consideration and tolerance of other factors relating to religion, the party platform and precedent.””

First, it is pretty brazen of Mr Albanese to name-check my old boss, former Senator John Faulkner, and his involvement in an internal 2002 process which looked at conscience votes within the ALP, thereby potentially encouraging readers to assume he would agree with him on this issue today.

The exact opposite is true – when the question of a conscience vote versus binding vote was debated at the 2011 ALP National Conference, in Albanese’s words “Labor’s pre-eminent authority on our internal history and processes” was one of the most passionate speakers in favour of a bound position.

In his speech, which is accessible on YouTube (and which I highly recommend watching[iv]), Senator Faulkner powerfully argued that “I take the view that a conscience vote on human rights is not conscionable.”

Second, simply citing 20th century examples of ALP conscience votes was not persuasive when then Prime Minister Julia Gillard adopted this tactic at the same Conference[v], and it is equally unpersuasive when used by Mr Albanese now.

How are conscience votes from 54 years ago, and 41 years ago, respectively, particularly relevant when determining what to do on this issue now? After all, marriage has changed enormously from the time Robert Menzies or Gough Whitlam occupied the Lodge.

One example: even in the past two decades, the proportion of people married by civil celebrants has risen from 42.1% in 1993, to 72.5% in 2013[vi]. It is clear that the Australian population has moved on from seeing marriage as a religious institution.

And it is also difficult to see how the ALP’s approach to the Marriage Act in 1961 – which was 14 years before the first Australian jurisdiction even legalised homosexuality – or in 1974 – which was 34 years before the recognition of same-sex de facto relationships in Commonwealth law – have all that much to say about how Labor should approach the question of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex equality today.

But perhaps most pertinently, why did both Prime Minister Gillard and Mr Albanese completely overlook the ALP’s much more recent, and directly relevant, history of a binding vote on marriage equality, from August 2004 (when it supported Howard’s homophobic ban on marriage equality) until December 2011?

The issue of marriage equality didn’t fully emerge on the international stage until the Netherlands became the first country to introduce it in April 2001. In the 14 years since then, the ALP has had no formal position for three years, a binding vote (opposing marriage equality) for seven and a half, and a conscience vote for only three and a half.

This shows that, if we are to look to the ALP’s past for an answer to this ‘dilemma’, there is much more of a precedent for binding on this issue than there is for a conscience vote.

Third, and finally, even applying Mr Albanese’s own test – “the case-by-case, political model, but with consideration and tolerance of other factors relating to religion, the party platform and precedent” – a binding vote in favour clearly passes it.

Politically, the vast majority of the population, Labor voters, the ALP membership and the caucus all support marriage equality, and nearly all of them (us) have long since reached the point of frustration, simply wanting our parliamentarians to ‘just pass the damn thing already’.

A binding vote on this issue would demonstrate to everyone that Labor takes this issue seriously, and will do everything within its own power to ensure it becomes law.

As we have already seen, it also satisfies the ‘religion’ criteria – remembering even Tony Burke argued that “[t]he various religious faiths will continue to have their own views and rules around marriage. The law of Australia needs to respect the freedom of people to practice their faith and it will” (emphasis added).

As for the Party platform – well, we amended that to support marriage equality at the National Conference in 2011, and there does not appear to be any substantive reason for making support for that part of the platform ‘optional’ on the part of MPs and Senators.

And, as described above, a binding vote on marriage equality would be in line with historical precedent, with the ALP having already adopted a bound position from 2004 to 2011.

Does Anthony Albanese's argument for a conscience vote pass his own test? Nope, nope, nope.

Does Anthony Albanese’s argument for a conscience vote pass his own test? Nope, nope, nope.

All-in-all then, it is fair to say that Mr Albanese’s arguments for a conscience vote are unimpressive – and certainly far less impressive than Mr Burke’s rhetoric.

Although, it should be acknowledged here that making such a distinction between the two is somewhat of a false dichotomy.

Despite observing that marriage equality does not directly affect anyone outside LGBTI Australians, and certainly has no impact on freedom of religion, Mr Burke does not follow his own arguments through to their logical conclusion.

Instead, Mr Burke too believes that the right of his parliamentary colleagues to vote against marriage equality is more important than the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians to actually get married.

Which means that, in substance, both Mr Burke and Mr Albanese are half-right and half-wrong.

Half-right, to personally support marriage equality and to commit to voting that way when it next comes before the Parliament.

Half-wrong, to argue that the fundamental human rights of LGBTI Australians are not worth binding for.

It is the same half-right/half-wrong position the Australian Labor Party as a whole has adopted since the 2011 National Conference, when delegates voted overwhelmingly to change the Platform to support marriage equality, but also voted (albeit much more narrowly) to make the issue subject to a conscience vote.

The delegates to this year’s Conference, to be held in Melbourne in about eight weeks’ time, still have the chance to change that equation, and ensure that, on marriage equality, our Party finally gets it completely right – that, to adapt the words of Ms Plibersek:

Labor has always been a party that is opposed to discrimination. When asked the clear question whether we support legal discrimination against one group in this country or not, the answer is an unequivocal no.

If we seize this opportunity, and make support for marriage equality binding on our parliamentarians, then it will be a proud moment in our Party’s history.

But not nearly as proud as being able to say, whenever marriage equality finally passes the Commonwealth Parliament, that members of the Australian Labor Party voted unanimously in support.

There’s still time to make that happen. There’s still time to bind.

[i] Full text of Mr Burke’s announcement here: http://www.tonyburke.com.au/tonystaff/statement_24_may_2015

[ii] Full text of Mr Albanese’s constituency statement here: http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/constituency-statement-marriage-equality

[iii] From the Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April, “Plibersek push to make Labor MPs vote for same-sex marriage”: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plibersek-push-to-make-labor-mps-vote-for-samesex-marriage-20150427-1mteon.html

[iv] To view Senator Faulkner’s 2011 National Conference Speech, go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmiIFvxbh8c

[v] Full text of Prime Minister Gillard’s speech against a binding vote at the 2011 ALP National Conference here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/julia-gillards-address-to-the-alp-national-conference-on-a-conscience-vote-for-gay-marriage/story-fnba0rxe-1226213001184

[vi] From the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Marriages and Divorces, Australia: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3310.0

LGBTI Refugees and the 2013 Federal Election

Posted on by

It appears that my previous post on LGBTI asylum seekers was overly optimistic (well, to be perfectly honest it wasn’t that optimistic to begin with – it’s just that the reality has turned out to be even worse than the already dire situation).

After more than 9 months of trying to get an answer out of the Commonwealth Immigration Minister (first Chris Bowen, and then Brendan O’Connor), when I eventually received a response from the Immigration Department instead in June, it failed to answer whether the criminal laws against homosexuality of Nauru and Papua New Guinea applied to refugees in processing centres there.

This omission clearly implied that the criminal laws do in fact apply. However, the letter left open an interpretation that refugees who were LGBTI, and feared persecution (or prosecution) in these countries, could apply to the Minister to be transferred to Australia, on the basis that their rights could not be guaranteed in those countries.

Unfortunately, that no longer appears to be the case. In the time since that response the Prime Minister changed, and within a month of Rudd’s return he had announced the ‘PNG Solution’, with a similar deal with Nauru revealed shortly afterwards. These policies moved beyond offshore processing, to include the permanent ‘resettlement’ in those countries of any and all refugees who arrive in Australia by boat.

Now, let me say from the outset that I completely oppose these policies, and believe them to be unconscionable, inhumane, and probably contrary to international law. Australia should not be in the business of abrogating its responsibility to offer protection to people who are fleeing persecution by simply dumping these people in other countries. And my opposition applies to the ‘resettlement’ of all refugees, irrespective of the grounds of their persecution (eg race, religion, nationality etc).

However, as a gay man, and in particular as a passionate advocate for LGBTI rights, I find policies that involve the resettlement of LGBTI refugees in countries that criminalise homosexuality particularly abhorrent. That is exactly what Australia is doing – taking any LGBTI refugee who arrives by boat and sending them to countries which make male homosexuality a criminal offence, liable to up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

I know that many other people agree with me – in fact, the only pleasing thing arising from this horrible situation has been the emergence of a variety of voices condemning these policies. This has meant that the Labor Government has been unable to avoid questions on this particular topic (something which they had largely managed to successfully do in the previous 10 months).

But it doesn’t make the answers given by Government Ministers any easier to stomach. On 8 August, Serkan Ozturk of the Star Observer reported that the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus (an intelligent man who really should know better): “confirmed the government intends to send all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat without a visa – including LGBTI people fleeing persecution and people living with HIV – to Papua New Guinea (PNG) for processing and permanent resettlement despite laws criminalising homosexual sex, high rates of HIV infection and limited medical and social infrastructure on the impoverished island-nation…

When questioned by the Star Observer on whether LGBTI asylum seekers would be sent to PNG, Dreyfus was unequivocal.

“You’ve outlined an aspect of PNG law which is of general application but as I say we are not ruling out any group,” Dreyfus said.

“At the same time our Minister for Immigration, Tony Burke, has made it very clear that those transfers won’t occur until there is appropriate accommodation and appropriate circumstances for everyone who is sent.”

Pressed on whether that meant the Australian government would be placing pressure on PNG to reform legal codes, Dreyfus said he would not be drawn “giving a running commentary” on the laws of neighbouring countries, including PNG, Indonesia or Malaysia.

“We don’t think that’s necessary in order for Australia to comply with our international legal obligations and the obligations we have under the Migration Act.””

The fact that the Government is aware of this situation, and specifically the potential consequences of sending LGBTI refugees to these countries, but has continued on along this path irrespective of the dangers, is damning.

Sadly, the Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, isn’t any better. On 6 August the ABC reported (from what I believe was a response to an oursay question from Senthorun Raj) that Senator Carr similarly confirmed that homosexual asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be resettled in PNG despite facing prison under local laws, even though those laws conflict with contemporary Australia values.

“I am concerned about… what we see as a grotesquely outdated, legal position applying in PNG. I understand – and I know this is little comfort – but there have been few if any charges laid or prosecutions made under laws prohibiting homosexual activity in PNG,” he said. You are right on one thing, Senator Carr: that is little comfort.

Tony Burke, the current Minister for Immigration (and the third person to hold that post this year), also believes that this policy is appropriate. However, in one of the most Orwellian moments of the 2013 federal election campaign (or indeed in recent Australian politics more generally), he stated that he had been advised that ‘no part of the caseload so far’ had arisen (ie no LGBTI person had been sent to Nauru or PNG so far).

The transcript, from a media conference on 1 August, is as follows:

Question: Sorry Minister, just to go out to Manus Island for a moment. Given that homosexuality is still considered a crime in PNG, but our government has pledged to transfer all asylum seekers regardless of their sexuality, what efforts have been undertaken to make sure that those transferred will not be persecuted for their sexuality, either as detainees, or if they are then settled in PNG?

Tony Burke: In the first instance we have no part of the caseload so far where this issue has arisen, no part of the caseload where this has arisen. In…

Question: So does that mean…

Tony Burke: Please, please, when other people were talking over you I made sure you got the run so allow me to answer your question.

I’ve been very careful throughout all of this to not carve out any exclusions from the policy. And I explained the implications of that with the specific reference to what the Opposition have attempted to do with women and children. There are very deep implications if we start carving people out. And if you do that, you are by no means taking a – I’m saying you, but anyone doing that is by no means taking a compassionate response because of the automatic reaction that people smugglers will engage in.

My language on this has not changed, which is people will be sent when we are confident they will be safe, when we are confident that appropriate accommodation and services are in place, and I’m not going to define it further than that.”

Which raises far more questions than it provides answers. It is possible that what he meant to say was that no-one sent to Manus Island has lodged a refugee claim on the basis of persecution of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. But that doesn’t mean those claims won’t emerge at a later point (it is definitely possible that a LGBTI refugee will not disclose their status in the limited time after arrival in Australia and before transfer, but that it would instead emerge at a later point).

And it ignores the fact that someone who is seeking refugee protection on the basis of race, religion or other grounds can also be LGBTI (even if just as someone who has sexual intercourse with someone else of the same sex). This would not be immediately apparent to an interviewer and there are foreseeably several reasons why they would NOT disclose their particular circumstances (especially if fleeing as part of a family group where their family is unaware of their sexual orientation).

But the most obvious flaw in Minister Burke’s advice is that all refugees who arrive by boat, including children, are being ‘resettled’ in PNG and Nauru. Those children could grow up to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, or they may have been born intersex, and it may not be known to that child, their family or indeed anyone else at the time of resettlement. It does not make it any more acceptable that as a country we exposed that child to future criminal prosecution (or at the very least, societal discrimination), simply because we didn’t know of their status.

We DO know that this policy is wrong and should be stopped, which means that we are collectively responsible for what happens in the future as a result of it.

Unfortunately, while some of the positive reforms of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor Governments will be dismantled by the incoming Abbott Liberal-National Government it seems there is bipartisan agreement on the idea of resettling refugees in South Pacific countries. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, and Shadow Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison, both appeared to welcome the announcement by Rudd of the PNG policy, while they have also announced their own plans to resettle refugees in Nauru (aka “tent city”).

It should also be pointed out that, last September, at the same time that I wrote to the Immigration Minister (and Prime Minister and Attorney-General), I also wrote to the Shadow Minister, Opposition Leader and Shadow Attorney-General, raising the same concerns about the processing or resettlement of LGBTI refugees in countries which criminalise homosexuality. No-one from the Opposition ever responded to these letters, which perhaps indicates how seriously they take those concerns.

The fact that, as it stands, both major parties endorse this policy means that, no matter who is elected on Saturday, the incoming Government will continue to abrogate its responsibilities to offer protection to all refugees, including refugees who are LGBTI. That it will inevitably continue to be cheered along by sections of the press will make it even harder to endure.

Perhaps the only ray of hope in this awful mess is that the High Court might do what the public should (but won’t) on Saturday – tell our MPs, from both the ALP and the Liberal-National Coalition, that resettling refugees in PNG and Nauru is unconscionable, inhumane, and, hopefully, unlawful. So, to our distinguished High Court Justices I say: no pressure, but it seems this is now entirely up to you.