Why I could never join the Labor Party
May 3rd, 2008 by Rebecca
Labor senator Kate Lundy has also been told to stick to her principles after saying she would not back the ACT’s planned same-sex civil union laws in federal parliament. Senator Lundy says she will back any Rudd government decision to over-ride the territory’s legislative assembly.
“If it comes to the Senate, I am bound by my party position, so I am not able to do what (Liberal ACT senator) Gary Humphries did in crossing the floor [in 2006],” Senator Lundy told ABC Radio. - This morning’s The Australian
A few years ago, there was a time when I was active in university Labor circles. I met Senator Lundy a few times, and as a person, she’s brilliant, progressive, and I used to look up to her. As a legislator, though, I’ve come to the conclusion that she’s a complete waste of space. I’ve dealt with her office on LGBT issues before, and she wouldn’t even give a public statement that wasn’t quoted word for word from federal Labor party policy. That she won’t even publicly oppose either an attack on the rights of her constituents, or even the independence of the flaming territory, is a new low, even for her, but it’s not a surprise. A computer could show up, give the requisite vote with the government, and spit out the pre-written press releases - and save taxpayers the significant salary she’s getting paid.
It’s a good article though - as Kevin Rudd makes exactly clear why he loves the registry option so espoused by Croome and Morgan so much:
Despite previously arguing it was a matter for the states, the Prime Minister said today that no other state was proposing laws similar to the ACT. Instead, Tasmania and Victoria have established relationship registers, which largely involve filling out a form, rather than a ceremony or the creation of a legally binding partnership.
Which is, y’know, what I’ve been saying all along.
It’s kind of ironic that the voice of sense in this situation comes from Liberal Senator Gary Humphries. I’ve met Humphries as well; he met with a group of us to discuss his position on LGBT issues prior to the last federal election, and his position amounted to “but the children! but the children!” to the point where I nearly wound up laughing at him because it was so nonsensical. Still, at least he had the guts to cross the floor in 2006 against his own government because of the territory rights argument - which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for his supposedly progressive Labor counterpart, Lundy.
Senator Humphries said it would be hypocritical if Senator Lundy did not cross the floor to vote against any government disallowance motion.
“Labor, having voted two years ago on the floor of the Senate to defend the right of the ACT government to pass this very same legislation, (is) now standing on the other side of the chamber saying: `Actually we don’t think you do have that right after all’,” Senator Humphries said.
He couldn’t be more spot on there. It’s hypocrisy of the worst degree from Labor.
Do Labor have any plans/policy to do anything about trans stuff?
I believe that they did pledge to change the screwed up passport system, and stop forcing us onto Documents of Identity. I couldn’t say for sure, though; and in either case, it doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
Sunday Blogbord…
by matttbastard
Enjoy the following celebration of tasty links from a variety of textural chefs:
Daisy’s Dead Air: Dead Air Church: May 4, 1970
Elle, PhD: On Double Standards and Women Paying for Men’s Actions
cripchick: the terp from hel…
Given that the Senate was founded as a check on the federal government and that Lundy represents a territorry with not many people and that it’s her job to protect them from the federal government when they’re getting too involved, I’m incredibly disappointed.
The Senate is not the place for blind adherence to the policies of the government but for somewhat independent review of legislation. This is why Senators shouldn’t be ministers, while we’re at it.