Doug PollardRod Swift - Conscience Vote
Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Rod Swift discusses the gamble of a conscience vote on equal marriage with Doug Pollard on Freshly Doug 11/11/2010
DOUG: Joining me in the studio now is a good mate, Rod Swift from the Australian Coalition for Equality. Hello Rod.
DOUG: It is; listening to you reading the news the other day.
ROD: [laughs]
DOUG: Your dulcet tones comin’ out of my radio. But you’re here to talk today about “the marriage issue” – we talked with Rodney Croome a little earlier on and we pretty well covered the ground fairly thoroughly about same-sex marriage Bills, equal marriage Bills, gay marriage Bills - you know there’s a lot of different terminologies floating about here – at state level, but with you I wanted to talk about this whole issue, about – well, two things; what the Greens are up to in parliament particularly Adam Bandt, and in particular the prospects for a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage and whether that’s a good idea or not so, let’s begin at the beginning and say we have a Bill in parliament. Brought in by Sarah Hanson-Young - - -
ROD: That’s right. It’s before the senate.
DOUG: Which is before the senate and just sitting there at the moment, nothing happening with it – what’s this new measure which Adam Bandt is bringing in?
ROD: Okay; Adam Bandt’s put through a motion – or attempting to put through a motion in the House of Representatives - to ask all MPs to go and survey their electorates and have chats with constituents about the issue of marriage equality, and whether their communities support it. So that’s a motion he’s trying to get up - - -
DOUG: M’mm?
ROD: - - - basically, asking all MPs to go and ask their electorates what they think about marriage - - -
DOUG: Okay – so, I’ll stop you just there. ‘Point One’, is: is this going to have any kind of force at all; because, surely an MP can say ‘you’ve asked me and I’m not going to,’ and ‘Point Two’, since this is an issue of obviously, great public interest surely they’re talking with their constituencies already?
ROD: Well, you’d think they would but then again if you take the hypothetical of this motion and let’s say it passes – and again, he’s asking for a conscience vote on this motion, to go and speak with your electorate – can you imagine MPs like Bob Katter for example going to his northern-Queensland electorate? He’d have to try and find a gay couple who might want to get married. He of course said quite famously, there are no gays living in his electorate – of course, down the road from his electorate office a café that’s run by a couple of - - -
DOUG: I’m sure they’ll be flocking to his office - - -
ROD: - - - [laughs]
DOUG: If this motion does pass I’m sure every gay in Queensland will be flocking to Bob Katter’s office to try and see him.
ROD: You’re right. MPs should already be listening to their electorates and putting the feelers out about how the community feels about this issue. Now, we’ve got polling numbers that suggest the community’s around-about – you know, 63 per cent in support of marriage. Or two-thirds of the country, m’mm, when you take out the “undecideds”(sic) about two-thirds of people support marriage. But of course, that won’t be uniform. It’ll be higher in metro areas and I’d say decidedly less in extreme rural and isolated areas.
DOUG: Forgive me for being cynical but I seem to have noticed quite a few federal politicians – senior Labor Party members, faceless men etcetera, etcetera – state leaders, etcetera – popping out-of-the-woodwork over the last couple of weeks, saying they support equal marriage. Now forgive me for being cynical but doesn’t that mean they’re already doing their own polling on this issue and it’s showing its running our way?
ROD: I’m sure that’s exactly why this motion’s been put up, the politics behind it I think is that the Greens want a bit more traction on this issue; they know that they – they think – they are on-a-winner with this one. Regarding public policy. Let’s not forget there are a number of elections coming up, there’s one around-about two-and-a-half weeks away and there is one around-about – m’mm, four-and-a-half months away in New South Wales - and the Greens obviously want to solidify their position as being the Party to vote for if you believe in this particular issue; Labor is hearing that as well, from their research. That it is causing the left of their side of politics to move to the Greens, they’re now losing votes in this Green-slide-to-the-left - - -
DOUG: Who was it who said they wanted to bring forward the Party Conference ‘cause we can’t have the Greens beating us around the head with this issue for the next X-years or - - -
ROD: I think that was Mark Arbib - - -
DOUG: - - - yeah.
ROD: But Mark Arbib and Paul Howes, even, have come out – all these people, saying – and the thing Labor has come out and said is they want to accelerate their National Conference – and to deal with a number of issues that obviously, the Greens are getting some traction on. But this is primarily, one of them. I think that when you have all sides of the Labor factions coming out, saying – you know, these power brokers saying ‘we really need to re-visit this issue’, one would think the next National Conference is lined-up to have a policy change, from the Party policy being against marriage and that marriage is only between a man-and-a-woman. So, against marriage equality towards having a conscience vote, would probably be the most, if you could read the tea leaves now, would be the most - - -
DOUG: [laughs]
ROD: - - - educated guess as to where Labor’s wanting to go on this one.
DOUG: It is a question of reading tea leaves isn’t it – because, I mean – I saw Penny Wong yesterday on TV and she made the nearest thing to a positive statement on the issue of gay marriage, I’ve seen, from her so far. Which was to say that she did advocate on this issue inside the Party but outside of it, she wouldn’t talk about it – which amounts to talking about it, outside the Party. M’mm [laughs]
ROD: [laughs]
DOUG: I thought that was a particularly – kind of, weird way of letting us know that she’s onside. But she’s not going to say she’s onside.
ROD: Also interestingly on Q&A this week we had Bill Shorten coming out and talking about why he thinks that marriage as an issue – you know, a decade from now – two decades from now – will review what’s happening now in history, will wonder what all the drama was about so - - -
DOUG: But his line was pretty woolly all round though, wasn’t it – I mean, the way he was talking and the impression I got was – sort of, well, we’ve got to hang around for a few years to wait for these old fuddy-duddies to die off.
ROD: But at the same time, it’s softening up – again – from Labor’s perspective. Softening up the community to that message that they are starting to look at moving on this issue and moving forward – and away, from their current policy on the issue.
DOUG: God – you don’t mean they’re actually demonstrating some leadership, here?
ROD: Ah, ‘follow’-ship(sic) - - -
DOUG: That’s good.
ROD: - - - leaders lead. Not follow.
DOUG: I was going to say leadership might be a bit too much to ask for. But there’s certainly movement on the issue in general terms, within the Labor Party.
[station announcement(s)]
DOUG: This is Doug Pollard, moving us toward the top-of-the-hour and we shall have some news – and then, the Afternoon Show with Gazza. But right now, I’m mulling over the subject of gay marriage and in particular, conscience votes, with Australian Coalition for Equality’s Rod Swift.
There’s been a major stoush going on, on-line, between two factions amongst gay activists. One side typified I think, by Brian Greg. The former Democrats senator from West(ern) Australia has been saying: yes, we really ought to have – bring on this conscience vote on gay marriage in the parliament – ‘we’ll lose it but it’ll advance the cause’. The other side I suppose, most forcefully put by Matthew Loader who’s associated with the Labor Party over in South Australia – or was in South Australia, I should say – is saying: ‘no, no – if we have a conscience vote and then we lose it that’ll take the issue off the agenda for the next 10-years’. So, it’s letting the right-wing of the Labor Party off-the-hook and what we want to do is get the Labor Party to get behind the whole issue, with equal marriage. I think that fairly summarises it, doesn’t it Rod?
ROD: It fairly does - - -
DOUG: Pretty much, where we’re at. Now. What’s your take on all this?
ROD: - - - m’mm - - -
DOUG: Do you think it would be a disaster if we had every MP in the federal parliament, voting according to their conscience on the gay-marriage issue?
ROD: I’m of two minds because I can see both-sides-of-the-fence on this one and that’s not me sitting-on-the-fence, here. It’s I can see both sides of this particular argument and both the positive and negative arguments of a conscience vote.
Now, the positive side(s) of a conscience vote is that yes, we do get to start looking at which MPs are already in-the-bag. Which ones need to be worked on, which ones might be being talked-to by conservatives within religious circles so we can try and – you know, engage with them, and of course by having a conscience vote it puts it on the agenda like it has been; the talk continues to happen basically, it’ll start that process of literally divide-and-conquer – dividing the community into who-does-and-who-doesn’t support and then hopefully, from there we’ll have MPs starting to jump one side or the other based on whether they’re on the wrong side of the argument. Or whether they need to change their viewpoint - - -
DOUG: Okay - - -
ROD: - - - so it’s brute force.
DOUG: Yeah. It’s brute force and it also keeps the bandwagon rolling.
ROD: That’s right, yeah.
DOUG: That’s the argument.
ROD: The other thing also – is though, that the negative side - - -
DOUG: M’mm?
ROD: - - - is that its cathartic and if we have a vote – and the vote is lost and it’s lost quite magnificently, then it may put-off this particular item on the agenda. For five or 10-years – or however long it does take - - -
DOUG: So, the opponents might get up and say: see, told you so – the public’s not ready for this, the Australian public won’t wear this – ‘we’re not going to talk about it anymore’ – and try and bury it.
ROD: Well, that’s right and: ‘we’ve already visited this we now need to take five or 10-years before we re-visit it’. It’s a definitive outcome; so - - -
DOUG: A bit like the republic referendum took the republic off the agenda for – well - - -
ROD: Nearly 15-years.
DOUG: 15-years [laughs]
ROD: Yes.
DOUG: It could turn out to be a roadblock rather than an item of progress?
ROD: That’s right and now, the analysis of whether it is a roadblock or whether it’s a continuing movement along, on a bandwagon is only a speed bump will be the planning that’s required and the thinking which’s required to take on and tackle what will be the opposition, to this particular idea. So - - -
DOUG: Because if this starts becoming anywhere closer to reality you can expect the opposition to come roaring out of the blocks with all guns blazing, can’t you?
ROD: Well not necessarily. Some opposition MPs including Warren Entsch and people like that who’ve actually said ‘I welcome a conscience vote - - -’
DOUG: I don’t mean the parliamentary opposition; I mean opposition, to the Bill.
ROD: - - - but – yeah, in opposition to the Bill, yes – you will have opposing points and already the Australian Christian Lobby for example, has come out welcoming Julia Gillard’s opposition to a conscience vote, because they’re as worried about this issue being brought to a conscience vote – but if it is they are, I think – more organised to be able to speak-out about it and - - -
DOUG: That I think is probably the big danger point isn’t it because regardless of the fact the Australian Christian Lobby does not speak for all Christians and is only a very small organisation, they are very well organised and whilst we probably have the numerical superiority over them we are bloody ill-organised.
ROD: It’s not that we’re ill-organised it’s just we don’t have that position at the table, yet. In Canberra. Whereas the Australian Christian Lobby is - - -
DOUG: We’re not well organised either, are we – really? I mean we’re very fragmented.
ROD: There is fragmentation. So from my perspective if I was to look at it as an issue right now it’s like a landmine under a very thin amount of dirt. It depends on where you’re tapping around - - -
DOUG: [laughs]
ROD: - - - as to whether it’s going to blow-up in our faces. Or whether it’s going to be a fantastic piece of fireworks, a huge victory – I think that the biggest movement that will help-out the cause is this movement from state governments to be pushing along federal Labor because that particular momentum keeps the issue alive and the dialogue happening - - -
DOUG: M’mm.
ROD: It’s the dialogue that is the most important thing on this issue – not necessarily the vote and that’s why if there was a conscience vote I think it would be better later, rather than sooner. Because if it happens sooner - - -
DOUG: So you’re not in favour - - -
ROD: - - - m’mm?
DOUG: Of the Labor Party bringing forward its Conference and changing its policy - - -
ROD: No, no. That’s good. Because that’s conversation; that’s talking about the issue, I’m talking about actual vote - - -
DOUG: Right.
ROD: - - - in the parliament, yeah.
DOUG: Do you think the Labor Party will bring forward its Conference?
ROD: I think they will - - -
DOUG: To next year?
ROD: I think they will for and it’ll be latter-half of next year for one reason only; if it’s the expected blood bath in the New South Wales election then there’ll need to be some bloodletting - - -
DOUG: Or even if they get a fair knock in this state?
ROD: - - - even still but I think, the writing’s-on-the-wall for the New South Wales states - - -
DOUG: Well, yeah.
ROD: - - - annihilation – now, if it’s an annihilation in New South Wales then there will be calling: ‘why did it go so wrong’, where have we lost our way – why have we departed from Labor Party principles – if those sorts of questions start coming up and you’ve got - - -
DOUG: (and)It’ll detach an awful lot of right-wing power brokers whose power base happens to be in New South Wales.
ROD: That’s what I was about to say.
DOUG: [laughs]
ROD: The New South Wales right does have this power block and if they’re going to get questioned: why are we straying so far away, why are we losing elections ‘cause we’re following the right-wing’s viewpoint of the Labor Party – because – let’s-face-it, that’s how the federal election went so wrong for Labor; there’ll be this bloodletting and I think there might be a resurgence of - - -
DOUG: Oh, dear.
ROD: - - - leftist values, in the Labor Party.
DOUG: Well, that’s what we can hope for – well that’s what I hope for; there you go, nailing my colours to the mast again.
ROD: That might be the only reason they can think of to try and [indistinct] the stem that’s occurring toward the Greens across a number of states, now.
DOUG: Indeed; thank you Rod, very much, for joining us this morning.
ROD: Thank you, Doug.
DOUG: We shall doubtless, be speaking with you again on these issues and of course you and I are going to be doing the election broadcast, again – come the election night. Here, in Victoria. When you’re going to be playing psephologist . .
ROD: Yeah.
DOUG: - - - once more - - -
ROD: The numbers man will be back.
