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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS