To:
Prime Minister, The Hon Kevin Rudd
Attorney General, The Hon Robert McClelland
Minister for Human Services, The Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Social Inclusion, The Hon Julia Gillard
Minister for Health and Ageing, The Hon Nicola Roxon
Member for Sydney, The Hon Tanya Plibersek

Dear Honourable Members,

First let me say thank you for the reforms that have recently come into force giving my same-sex partner and myself most of the rights available to other couples. We are both in our forties and have been out as gay men for over 20 years. We have been together for over 16 years and are out to our families, friends and workmates.

I am writing on behalf of older same-sex couples who have not declared their relationships and may be forced to by the reforms.

Until 25 years ago it was illegal to have homosexual sex in NSW. In other states the reforms have been more recent. Only 30 years ago the police were regularly being violent towards gay men and lesbians at Mardi Gras parades and in many other places. Fortunately I am too young to have experienced much of this, but those of our community who are now in their retirement would have had many such experiences in their formative years.

I ask you to imagine a same-sex couple who have been together for 40 years. If they were an opposite sex they would be happily married and everyone would know them as a couple. Being a same-sex they initially would have hidden their relationship from everyone but their closest friends. They may still choose to do so.

That their relationship was not recognised back then was the least of their concerns. Even the act of making love was illegal for them. Many were victims of discrimination and violence, including from the police. Their clubs were regularly raided and so had to operate “underground”, often by organised crime. Coming out was only something done by the bravest. Many others chose to remain in the closet.

This particular couple would have had to hide their relationship from officialdom, from family, from workmates, and from all but the closest friends. They would have set up separate bedrooms and created other elaborate facades to protect themselves and their love for each other. If they were prominent or in certain occupations they would have had to be even more careful, possibly with only their partner to confide in.

While the same-sex reform legislation is great for the majority of our community, it has the potential to destroy the lives of these older same-sex couples.

Imagine that someone from Centrelink decides to investigate two aged pensioners living at the same address to determine if they should be receiving couple benefits. The investigator has the right to interview friends and relatives, etc. If this is a closeted couple then such an investigation has the potential to destroy their life. Being outed after such a long time hiding their relationship would have profound psychological effects, including suicide. Being investigated will prompt questions from friends and relatives leading to destruction of relationships, of families and friendships, yes, even in our enlightened age.

I urge you to find a way to exempt such elderly couples from either investigation by Centrelink, or from relevant parts of the act. If a couple over, say age 65, chooses not to disclose their same-sex relationship, then they should not be forced to do so. Not to family. Not to friends. And definitely not to a government that treated them as criminals in their earlier years.

Refusing to acknowledge the effects of forcibly outing such a couple is as bad as refusing to acknowledge the effects of the forcible removal of children from their indigenous parents. I, along with many many other Australians, rejoiced at the apology to the Stolen Generation delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd just under a year ago. I am sure you will continue this compassion by addressing this issue.

Since this legislation comes into force in July this year I urge you to treat this as a matter of urgency.

<sarcasm>
Surely he is. He was a politician, and we all know politicians are dishonest. Just look at Wollongong-gate.
</sarcasm>

Replace the word politician with homosexual and the word dishonest with paedophile and you get the gist of what Jeff Kennett, former Victorian premier, is reputed to have said. (Source)

It’s the same if you have a pedophile there as a masseur, right?

This was said in defence of the sacking of veteran football trainer Ken Campagnolo after it found out he was gay.

I have just found some Victorian crime figures. (Source) This is from the section on the crime rape:

Victoria Police recorded 1,270 rape victims during 2006/2007, an increase of 11.3% on the 1,141 recorded in 2005/2006. There were 1,161 female victims (up 12.3% compared with last year) and 107 male victims (up 5.9%). Nearly a third (403 or 31.7%) of all victims of rape recorded during 2006/2007 was under the age of 18 years.

Lets examine these figures and see if we can guess about victims of paedophilia. I will assume that all the victims of rape under age 18 were victims of paedophilia. If we the assume that equal numbers of males and females made up the under 18 victims as the total then there would be 368 female victims and 35 male victims.

So females under 18 are 10 times more likely to be raped than males. But if homosexuals are paedophiles, then who raped these 368 female victims?

Even if all the male victims were under 18 then females under 18 are still 3 times more likely to be raped.

I wonder if Jeff Kennett can answer why these homosexual paedophiles are raping girls and young women.

Rather, he has just shown himself as a homophobe.

In my last post I slammed Ruddock for his response to Labor’s amendment to the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 (pdf). This time I’ll give Labor a serve.

Ms Roxon (Gellibrand) in moving her amendment said:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

““whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the Opposition believes that the bill fails to give equal treatment to all judges by not treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses, and calls on the Government to amend the bill in order to give judges in same-sex relationships equal treatment”.

The intention of this amendment was to delete the whole text of the bill and replace it with a condemnation of the Government. Ms Roxon’s amendment would have done absolutely nothing useful. Our Liberal supporter Warren Entsch rightly called it a stunt.

It has been left to the Democrats to introduce the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007 (pdf) last Tuesday (p22 Hansards pdf).

Further, on browsing the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill I can’t see any instance of the word “that” that lends itself to Ms Roxon’s amendment.

Someone posted this on Pinkboard’s Equality Graffiti Wall:
1st Class Citizen = full equal rights including marriage
2nd Class Citizen = access to de facto right only
3rd Class Citizen = relegated to interdependent only

Mr Ruddock has confirmed that it is the government’s intention to treat us as third class citizens. This is from Monday’s Hansard (PDF p79)

Mr RUDDOCK— … The committee is also considering the issue of reversionary benefits to those in interdependent, including samesex, relationships with members of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. …

That’s right, he classes us as merely interdependents. This took place during a debate about a bill to amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 where Ms Roxon moved an amendment calling on the government “… to give equal treatment to all judges by … treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses …” (Hansard p74). Yes, they amend amendments, but in this case Ms Roxon’s amendment was defeated 76 to 46. The unamended bill was then read a third time, which means it passed the House of Reps.

Ruddock continued (before the vote and the third reading):

… But I would just make the point that there are a range of defined benefit schemes in which the Commonwealth participates. The member wants to deal with one in isolation — the one that deals with judges. … It is in the context that we are dealing with defined benefits schemes that the totality of them and the arguments relating to that issue need to be addressed. Those matters are being considered by the government, but it is our view that it is inappropriate to single out members of the judiciary for special treatment in advance of the consideration of the members of other defined benefit schemes.

Don’t you wish they would talk the same language as the rest of us? Well, Ruddock is now saying it is inappropriate to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. Look at what he said “only a short while ago” “… the Government will consider making further changes to the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis.” (Media Release 116/2007 21 June 2007 by The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock MP).

But wait! There’s more!

Those matters will be the subject of consideration, but they will be the subject of consideration in the broader context to which the opposition pays no regard — that is, defined benefits schemes involve additional outlays if you introduce a new class of beneficiaries. That has quite significant impacts over the longer term.

Yes, Ruddock again from the same speech, saying that giving us equal rights is going to cost.

I notice that the opposition claims to be fiscally conservative these days. A fiscal conservative would want to know what the impact of a measure of this type might be, particularly in the context of the class of beneficiaries that are involved—that is, those who are beneficiaries of defined benefit schemes. …

Then he lays into Labor for not knowing how much this will cost. Well, the Government has, on a number of occasions, refused to release documents that details the costs of giving us these rights. I’ll research those refusals for another post.

Hello and welcome to the newest blog on the block. I have been running Pinkboard for many years, which has provided an outlet for many people and many opinions. These are my opinions.

I have chosen the word Mandate to be part of the title of this blog for a few reasons:

Being gay I date men. This hasn’t happened in a long time though as my partner would get a bit upset if he wasn’t included.

Mandate is also one of those words that our beloved Prime Minister has been abusing. Mr Howard did receive a political mandate at the 2004 election (with 47% of the primary vote). By political mandate we usually mean the right to govern. Howard seems to have interpreted it, however, as the right to make decisions for all Australians. I would have called this carte blanche.

The subtitle of this blog is If you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear from the Pet Shop Boys song Integral. The song continues

If you’ve something to hide you shouldn’t even be here
You’ve had your chance now we’ve got the mandate
If you’ve changed your mind I’m afraid it’s too late
We’re concerned you’re a threat
You’re not integral to the project

This song is a comment on the introduction of the ID card in UK, but is equally relevant anywhere that civil rights are being devalued in the name of security.

Mandate is also an Australian Male Review, but they are no relation.