Doug PollardTranscript of Interview with AG Shadow George Brandis
Transcript of last weeks interview with the Shadow Attorney General
Doug: Well, this is Doug Pollard. We’re in our last segment of the show and joining me on the line I have Senator George Brandis, the shadow attorney general – Liberal senator there; good morning senator, how are you?
Doug: I’m very well – now, we’ve been trying to find out from a variety of sources what the Liberal party’s gay and lesbian platform is, to put in shorthand – kind of thing - - -
George: M’mm?
Doug: - - - we’ve had some responses sent to the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and so on – and a number of questions have arisen, which I wondered I might put to you?
George: By all means.
Doug: The first question is on the issue of anti-discrimination law - - -
George Yes.
Doug: - - - your leader Mr. Abbott, on this show not very long ago declared in-principle support for federal anti-discrimination laws including protected attributes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. If your party is elected to government will you commit to introducing those laws in your first term?
George: Ah – well, we will. That is our position and we will – m’mm, introduce such laws; I would expect that that would be in the first term, I’m going to stop short of making a commitment to being in the first term. Only because there are – you can never say what the legislative agenda will be. But I would fully expect it would be in our first term. It’s something that I feel very strongly about and I think when Tony was on your show recently, I’ve reviewed a transcript of what he said and I don’t think he could have been more unequivocal about it. So, that’s – that’s a ‘yes’.
Doug: Right, okay. Supposing you lose and another party introduces a similar bill, would you be supporting it?
George: Look, you’d have to – you’d have to see what the terms of the bill were but our position is – let me state it as clearly as I can, the Coalition believes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be included among the categories of discrimination in federal legislation.
Doug: Okay – what about gender identity and expression; trans people, cross dressers and so on and so forth?
George: I think there are definitional issues but I don’t – my view is that when I speak about sexual orientation and forgive me if I’m not using these terms - - -
Doug It gets complicated.
George: - - - I know, it is – I’m aware of that. But I mean to comprehend with that the whole issue of gender identity.
Doug: Right, good. That’s good news; now, the senate legal constitutional affairs committee recommended expanding the current Sex Discrimination Act’s marital status protections on the basis of relationship status to include same-sex relationships. Because same-sex couples are not at the moment, protected from discrimination on the basis of their relationship – are you going to address that issue also?
George: Look, that’s not our current policy – m’mm – and it – this is not an issue in relation to same-sex couples. This is an issue in relation to the question of marriage itself. Now, I know that not all members of the gay community are pleased with this but it is the Coalition’s position that – and as I made it clear, pretty explicitly for instance earlier in the year when Senator Brown’s bill was before the Senate – m’mm, is that we do believe that society accords a special and privileged status to the marital relationships and that one can’t have a conversation about marriage in isolation from historical and customary issues. Now, I think almost all Australians would regard marriage as a status between a man and a woman. Therefore – m’mm, the Coalition’s position is to equate same sex domestic relationships with opposite sex domestic relationships which have not been solemnised by marriage.
Doug: Okay. So, basically you’re saying that would come too close to recognising same-sex relationships as being equivalent to marriage?
George: Well, I don’t put it quite that way – what I say is that the whole issue of whether marital status as opposed to relationship status is the – m’mm, is the legal category recognised in the legislation is a difficult area not because any desire to discriminate against gay people. But because of a desire to draw a distinction between marital relationships on one hand and permanent, loving domestic relationships which haven’t been solemnised as marriages on the other hand.
Doug: Basically, you could say you’re in favour of positively discriminating in favour of marriage but not negatively discriminating against gay couples?
George: I suppose you could put it that way.
Doug: - - - Linda has messaged in saying: “If you come to power will you leave the 85 laws that Labour changed, untouched – or will you be rolling any of those back”?
George: When you say: “the 85 laws” I take it you mean the removal of – m’mm, discrimination - from that suite of Commonwealth statutes concerning superannuation and other entitlements - - -
Doug: Yes.
George: Yes, we – we wouldn’t – we supported that legislation - - -
Doug: Yeah. Yes, I know. You spoke in it’s favour - - -
George: - - - and I spoke very passionately in favour, both in the party room and in the parliament – and we certainly wouldn’t be winding it back. No.
Doug: Good – Sally, wants to know – it sounds like another trans issue, here – m’mm, there’s a report called: The Sex Files Report – which the Human Rights Commission delivered recently. “Will the Coalition implement the 15 recommendations in relation to federal areas?” and “working co-operatively with states and territories”?
George: I can’t – I’m not going to give a commitment to do that; what I can give a commitment to – m’mm – and indeed, have already done is to look carefully at these recommendations. Now, there are complex issues arising – you know, in particular in relation to re-assignment of gender, for example – and it’s implications for the status in relationships that arise from that report. If the Coalition is elected then obviously, we will consider carefully those recommendations. But I’m not in a position to go further than that, at the moment.
Doug: Okay, fair enough. There are a few issues around the whole – as you say, definitions of sex and so on, in relation to transgender, I should say I beg your pardon – get my terminology right, here; for example, there’s been an instance that we’ve heard of – of a trans man, sometimes referred to as a female-to-male transsexual who had his birth certificate changed and then had a medical problem which was a cyst on an ovarian tube and couldn’t get a Medicare rebate for that because that was a female-only operation and he was told that Medicare couldn’t pay for it because he wasn’t female anymore. How can we address those sorts of issues?
George: Well – m’mm, can I make the point that of course, these issues are issues that are very much at the margin. They affect very few people. But having said that of course, they do matter to the people whom they do affect - - -
Doug: Indeed.
George: In the context of considering the Sex Files Report that’s one of the issues which that report throws up and it’s an issue that particularly is(sic) definitional questions and entitlement questions that I have to look at very carefully.
Doug: Okee-dokee – the Greens recently announced their GLBTI policy and they announced they would support federal funding for a national peak body of some kind, representing the LGBTI community sector. You know we have one for aged people we have one for youth and so on and so forth but we don’t have a single – sort of, point of contact in the same way for LGBTI people. Would you fund a similar body?
George: Well – m’mm, it’s not our intention to do so and I must say I wonder whether it would be uniformly the view of your community that such a body is necessary or even desirable. I know there would be many members of the community who would say ‘yes’, I’m sure there would be many members of the community who I think would – would have hesitation about that. Can I tell you though, Doug, that since I’ve been the shadow attorney general I’ve had extensive dealings with representatives and advocacy groups of your community. ...... I’ve had extensive dealings with advocacy groups on behalf of your community – in particular with Corey Irlam, the Coalition for Equality.
Doug: Yeah – I’m not aware of any huge division on that point – I mean, there seems to be a groundswell coming through from where I sit, in favour of some kind of peak body and also in favour of – for example, including GLBTI issues in social inclusion which is a whole-of-government agenda and even to the point of possibly having a minister with responsibility for the GLBTI community – again, in the same way as you have a minister responsible for indigenous Australians, senior Australians and so on - - -
George: Yeah – well, I mean – that’s not our policy or our intention and I must say that although members of your community particularly transgender and intersexed people have – do have very, very discrete and unique issues because of their – because of who they are. People I know in the gay and lesbian community, what I might call – sort of, the broader gay and lesbian community – I think would be a little hesitant about that. I mean, the definition in my view of success in any anti-discrimination policy is for people to wake up one morning and say: ‘well, this is no longer an issue’. ‘We no longer need an advocacy body’ because it’s just no longer an issue because community acceptance - --
Doug: I wish we were at that point.
George: - - - is absolute.
Doug: I wish we were at that point but I think we’re a long way off.
George: I – look, I – and I’m not being flippant either, Doug. I think we are long way off but I – I am sceptical about whether an agency of the kind you describe is the best way to get there.
Doug: Okay, couple of other points; I just want to squeeze in and then we’re going to have to go – m’mm, when we talked about anti-discrimination on of the big, contentious issues is religious exemptions. Obviously, a lot of the community think this should only cover (reads): “direct, religious practise and properties – and employment(s) for religious purposes. Not religiously owned, profit-making businesses”, what would be your position on that?
George: I think you have to look at that on a case-by-case basis – I mean – and I think, again, most people I’ve dealt with in the gay community – not all, but most are understanding of the exemption in s.3 of the Human Rights Commission Act and the extent – I mean, I understand as well, there will be borderline cases between direct religious practise and commercial activities of churches. Where do you draw the line, though – for example, is a church school an aspect of religious practise or is it a commercial activity? Well, in a sense it’s both.It’s a feature of that church’s ministry so, I think it’s very difficult to answer questions like that, in the abstract – although, I do acknowledge that there is a material difference between the two.
Doug: Okay, one last quick one and then we’re going to have to go – this is from Joe: “Would you support the formal recognition of GLBTI elderly people as a special needs group for the purposes of aged care?”
George M’mm, I’m not quite sure what he means by a: “formal recognition … as a special needs group”
Doug: Well, to set up a national GLBTI aged care plan.
George [Indistinct] particular statute in mind but – but I do believe that people in the GLBTI community – you know, as they get older and need to interface with the aged care sector, do have special needs.
Doug: Okay – well, we’re going to have to leave it there because we’re fresh out of time. Thank you very much for joining us today, Senator.
George It’s a pleasure, Doug. ‘Bye.
Doug: That was Senator George Brandis, the Liberal senator and shadow attorney general – sorry, we didn’t have any more time with him and sorry for all those of you who sent in questions I wasn’t able to ask him. I have actually bundled all those up and sent those off, to him – m’mm, in the hope and with the question that he will in fact, give us some kind of written response.
ENDS
