As a self-described straight crocodile hunter from the country’s rugged and socially conservative far north, Australian lawmaker Warren Entsch does not fit many people’s mold of a gay rights activist.
However, if results of a nationwide postal survey this week reveal that most Australians want same-sex marriage legalized, it is Entsch — from the country’s leading conservative party, no less — who plans to introduce legislation that could make it a reality as soon as next month.
Entsch, 67, emerged as an unlikely champion for gay rights back in 2004, when he complained that the government had amended federal laws to make clear that marriage exists only between a man and a woman.
He was the only lawmaker from his conservative Liberal Party or the center-left opposition Labor Party to speak out, earning him the moniker “progressive redneck” from bemused media outlets.
“I got literally thousands and thousands of communiques, not from the gays, but from the broader community — family, friends and relatives of gays — saying that if a healthy heterosexual, far north Queensland crocodile-farming, bull-catching Liberal can speak out on behalf of my gay friend or relative, we want to come out too,” Entsch said.
Gay rights advocates say Entsch’s championing of the issue was instrumental in getting Australia to change about 100 federal laws almost a decade ago.
Under the changes, gay couples in long-term relationships were treated the same as married couples on issues such as taxation, pensions and welfare payments.
However, removing discrimination against gays from the Marriage Act remained a step too far for most lawmakers.
Rodney Croome, a veteran gay rights campaigner, said no lawmaker deserves more credit than Entsch for pushing the issue — even though Australian Parliament now has several openly gay lawmakers.
“A key to Warren’s success is that he’s an unlikely champion,” Croome said. “It’s meant that his fellow Liberals are less able to dismiss him as having a personal interest in it and it effectively means that they have to think of the principles involved.”
However, Entsch has not managed to win over much of his own party, which has long opposed same-sex marriage.
Fellow Liberal lawmaker Craig Kelly, a vocal same-sex marriage opponent, sees Entsch as a political maverick.
“We don’t want to make jokes about our far north Queensland cousins, but often they’re an unusual bunch,” Kelly said.
Entsch said his interest in gay rights was sparked by an Outback ranch cook he knew in the 1970s who moved to Sydney for gender reassignment surgery and became a female doctor.
Entsch retired from politics in 2007, but returned for 2010 elections, where he unseated the Labor Party candidate.
“Everybody told me I was taking a risk up here. It’s a place full of rednecks,” he said, referring to his 149,000km2 electoral district, which extends from the city of Cairns, where he lives, north to islands off Papua New Guinea.
“I don’t do it for politics. I do it because it’s right,” he said.
In 2015, then-Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a same-sex marriage opponent, committed his conservative government to holding a compulsory nationwide vote to decide whether the unions should be legal.
He was replaced weeks later by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who supports marriage equality and opposed the public vote, but eventually agreed to it in a deal with party powerbrokers.
However, Australian Senate refused to fund a compulsory vote, so the government opted for a voluntary postal ballot.
Critics say it is unlikely to accurately reflect public opinion.
Almost 79 percent of more than 16 million Australian voters posted ballots before the two-month survey closed.
The result is to be announced tomorrow.
If a majority calls for marriage equality, Parliament would vote on a bill in the final two-week session of the year.
Passage is by no means certain even if a vote goes ahead.
Kelly said he would vote against it in Parliament if a majority of responses in his outer-Sydney electoral division opposed reform.
Other opponents have said they would vote against legalizing gay marriage in Parliament regardless of the survey result.
The UN Human Rights Committee on Friday criticized Australia for putting gays and lesbians “through an unnecessary and divisive public opinion poll.”
The committee called on Australia to legislate for marriage equality regardless of the survey’s outcome.
A survey commissioned by Sydney University’s US Studies Center and published on Thursday found support for gay marriage was stronger in Australia than in the US, where it has been legal since 2015.
The poll by survey company YouGov found 60 percent of Australians support same-sex marriage, 32 percent oppose it and 8 percent were undecided.
In the US, 48 percent of respondents supported marriage equality, 40 percent oppose it and 12 percent were undecided.
The online survey of 1,009 Australians and 1,107 Americans late last month has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
Entsch called the A$122 million (US$94 million) being spent on the survey an “appalling waste of money.”
He and most gay rights advocates wanted Parliament to vote on legislation straight away.
Entsch said with opinion polls in recent years showing most Australians support gay marriage, no one should accept the result of the postal survey if the answer is “No.”
“If the answer is ‘No,’ we need to analyze it, because I believe it would be flawed,” he said.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS