Actions Unconscionable

Before you can advocate for a Conscience Vote, you need to have a conscience; a set of beliefs that are stronger than your desire for power.

Conscience votes are rare, and usually involve controversial issues of a moral or ethical nature. Within the context of party politics, a conscience vote is a risk.

In a hung parliament, a conscience vote can be a losing vote. With tissue-thin majorities, parties need certainty. Even with a solid majority, too many conscience votes undermines the party's image and appeal: why support a party that allows its elected representatives to vote against the party line? And to vote against your party when no conscience vote has been granted is to risk being expelled from the party, if you're an ALP member. The penalties for a Liberal crossing the floor are slightly less dramatic, yet still a deterrent.

The reality is that for most politicians, there's no need to decide issues one-by-one. In many cases, there's little need to understand the issues. Just vote the party line, regurgitate the party talking points, and no-one gets hurt. Julie Bishop's ridiculous performance on Ten Breakfast this week in response to the Carbon Tax is a fine example:  

JULIE BISHOP    We can deliver tax cuts by making savings. We’ll ensure that pensioners get a fair go. You don’t have to hit them with a job destroying tax in order to do that. 
 
PAUL HENRY    Will you take the money away that they have been given to compensate them for the carbon tax? 
 
JULIE BISHOP    If there is no carbon tax they won’t need that compensation, but we'll ensure there are tax cuts and that pensioners get a fair go. 
 
PAUL HENRY    But you will take that money away from them?
 
JULIE BISHOP    They won’t need the compensation if they are not hit with a carbon tax. 
 
PAUL HENRY    So you’ll take it away from them? 
 
JULIE BISHOP    But we’ll have tax cuts. Well we won’t need the compensation for a tax that isn’t there. I mean that is just the con isn’t it? To say that you put a tax on and then you give them compensation.
 
PAUL HENRY    And then you’ll take compensation off them. 
 
JULIE BISHOP    There will be tax cuts. 
 
PAUL HENRY    You’ll take the money off them won’t you, that will come away. 
 
JULIE BISHOP    There will be tax cuts but they won’t be paid for by the carbon tax. 
 
PAUL HENRY    I love you Julie, I just do!

What about when your conscience is in conflict with the policies you're required to support, crossing the floor is not an option?

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is on record as supporting same sax marriage, yet the LNP would not permit a conscience vote on amending or repealing the Civil Partnerships legislation.  Newman is the leader of the Parliamentary LNP in Queensland, and even he is bound by the party machine, lead by Christian conservative Bruce McIver. Did the voters of Ashgrove elect Campbell Newman, or did they elect the LNP?

Malcolm Turnbull, in a curious bout of speech followed by duelling op-eds with Andrew Bolt, has urged his party leader to allow a conscience vote at federal level on the same issue. The answer from Tony Abbott  is, as usual, a flat 'no'. As the Prime Minister has allowed Labor MPs a conscience vote, it's unlikely that the current same sex marriage bills would succeed; the ALP members may cross the floor, and the Liberals may not. Turnbull, and probably others, will be required to vote against their consciences. 

If we had a free vote on the matter and, subject always to the wording of the Bill, I would vote to recognise same sex couples’ unions as a marriage. For reasons I have laid out I find the arguments against it unpersuasive.

Meanwhile, in Lyne and New England and Kennedy and Denison, where the sitting members are Independents, every vote is a conscience vote...or would be, if deals hadn't been done to form the minority ALP Government. In Lyne and New England, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are struggling. 

Why? Is it because they've lost their genuine independence, or because they sided with the dreaded ALP, and that's a bridge too far for voters in these traditional National Party seats. Perhaps it's just part of the national malaise, the all-pervasive disillusionment with politics and politicians of all flavours.

On marriage equality, Rob Oakeshott will vote to represent his electorate, as will Tony Windsor:

Looming challenges for the self-described socially progressive Mr Oakeshott include the gay marriage vote.He said that his electorate has made it clear it thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore he would vote against reforms in favour of gay marriage unless lobbyists could somehow change his community's sentiment.

In a traditional parliament, with a majority, a minority and a handful of others, Independents would be free to vote with their consciences, or with the will of their electorate, on every bill. They don't have the luxury of a party machine to "help" them form opinions and provide catchy phrases to use when interviews get tricky, yet they enjoy the freedom to vote independently.

Political parties are part of our system of government. The decision to grant or deny a conscience vote is an indicator of a leader's willingness to risk surrendering power.I wonder if those leaders and party officials who deny their MPs the liberty to vote their conscience have consciences themselves. 



“Congratulations. You have met your conscience. In my experience, the world is divided between those who have one and those who don't. And the ones with one are divided into those who will act on their conscience and those who won't. Those who will are, I'm afraid, the smallest category. They will *jeito*. It's Brazilian Portuguese. It means to find a way to get something done, no matter what the obstacles.”
― Jean Ferris, Twice Upon a Marigold



.

One In Fifty

I've been trying for months to not write this rant. Today, on this blog, I concede defeat. 


I am a straight woman in a committed monogamous relationship with my straight male partner, Rob, who is divorced. We wear matching wedding bands on our wedding fingers. We refer to each other as husband and wife. We are as close to being married (or civilly partnershipped) as you can get, without being married. We have all of the legal protection that defacto couples have, but we are not married. We're not even engaged.


One day we'll do the deed. It won't involve a white frock that looks like a cross between a toilet roll cover and a pavlova. It won't be in a church, or involve religion. There will be spectacular finger food, an incredible cake (or two: we can't decide between lemon-coconut and Black Forest...and Mum will want a traditional fruit cake, so we should plan for three cakes) and tears of joy. It will be a very special day. 


It will be a privilege to marry Rob. I know he feels the same way about me. 


But we've agreed that until every single adult in Australia has the right to enjoy that same privilege, we won't either. Estimates suggest that at least 2% of the world's population is gay. That's one in fifty people. 


In this country, not all single adults can marry the person they love. If Irene and Anne want to marry, they can't. If Adrian and Enrique want to marry, they can't. Penny and Sophie can be parents, but they can't be married. And Rob and I can. 


So I ask myself, what is so special about Rob and I that we have this privileged existence where we can partake of an ancient ritual of legal and spiritual coupledom, when the same ritual is denied our friends. What have we done to make us more deserving?


Lyle Shelton,  Chief of Staff of the Australian Christian Lobby, husband of Wendy "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children" Francis and lapsed journalist, has been stirring the pot on Twitter today. He's tweeting the Senate hearings on marriage equality.  According to Mr Shelton, aside from the obvious reason that homosexuality is against his God's law, his argument against redefining marriage to include same sex marriage is that it places one of society's feet on a banana peel. 


The ACL believes that from gay marriage, it'd be just another short lurch to the left and we'd be legalising polygamy. What does he think will happen next? Rev-heads marrying their cars? Geeks marrying their iPads? Foot Fetishists marrying their Jimmy Choos? 

Twitter identity Can_Do_Campbell was quick to point out that where polygamy exists, it tends to be within a religious structure like the FLDS.  Mr Shelton responded that it wasn't part of Christianity; it's only mentioned in the Old Testament. Does that mean we can toss out Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, the talking snake, the burning bush? 


Okay - just checking.


Despite some determined questioning - and just a little provocation, and isolated abuse - Mr Shelton failed to respond to questions about why legalising same sex marriage would have any impact on his life. In other words, what does it have to do with him? 


This basic disconnect accounts for much of the tension between religion and secularism. The religious lobby - any religious lobby - sees it as their responsibility, their divine purpose, to spread the word of their Gospel and thereby save the world. In order for religious zealots to fulfil their purpose, they must ensure that everyone follows the rules set down by their God.


Those who believe in a different God, or in no God at all, are therefore required to reject their own beliefs and follow the teachings of a God they don't believe in. How is that fair? In the case against marriage equality, it's literally using one inequality (their perception of their superior beliefs, and their right to impose those beliefs on others) to enforce another inequality.


It's not for me. Lyle Shelton and his colleagues will never convince me that I am more entitled, more deserving, more special than my friend Irene, a gay teacher, counsellor, mentor and generous friend for over thirty years. Or my cousin Adrian, one of the sweetest, most sensitive and smartest people I know. Or Senator Penny Wong, a brilliant young Australian and role model for all of us.


When Rob and I marry, I hope Irene and Anne and Adrian and Enrique will be there to celebrate with us...and I hope we'll be on their guest lists too. Until then, we have one more battle to win, and many more cake-related decisions to make.


Twitter: @Can_Do_Campbell @LyleShelton