By Tom Flanagan
A federal Liberal MP is playing a key role in the mobilisation of bigoted right-wingers in defence of Tasmania's anti-gay laws. Chris Miles, MHR for Braddon and opposition spokesperson for schools, vocational education and training, is campaigning in support of laws that criminalise a range of consenting sexual activities between adults in private, including all forms of sexual contact between men, as well as anal and oral sex between heterosexuals.
The laws' days have been numbered since April 11, when it was announced that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had found that the Tasmanian laws infringe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. The ruling gives the federal government the authority, although not necessarily the political will, to intervene under its external affairs powers.
Miles was one of the main speakers at a "Say No To Sodomy" rally, in defence of the laws, which drew 700 people to the Burnie Civic Centre on June 8. Prior to the event, Miles' electorate office posted notices publicising the rally to households along Tasmania's north-west coast.
The rally, organised by the anti-gay group Tas-Alert, was addressed by seven speakers including Miles and Tasmanian MLC George Brookes. Miles, having been warned by Liberal leader Alexander Downer that the party is not in the business of telling people how to live their lives, focused instead on opposing federal intervention against the laws on the basis of defending states' rights.
Brookes, a veteran independent whose views are subject to no party constraint, made hysterical assertions that the "real" gay agenda included the "removal of all legal restrictions on the age of consent". "Immediately they get that, paedophiles can get access to young people", Brookes said. Brookes also attacked the media for paying more attention to the "gay lobby" than to people with views such as his own.
Outside the rally, 100 people held a candlelight vigil for human rights. Made up mainly of residents of the north-west coast, the vigil also included contingents from Hobart and Launceston, as well as members of Amnesty International.
While the issue is a divisive one right across Tasmania, polls show that more and more people are being won to the perspective that gay and lesbian rights are fundamental human rights.
The Liberals' stated position is that questions of personal morality are not properly the domain of a political party. This abstentionist position with regard to sexuality doesn't take an overt stand against gay rights, but the Liberals do so covertly by opposing federal intervention on the politically more palatable basis of states' rights.
Rodney Croome of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights group points to the hypocrisy of the Liberals' position. He explains that, in 1992, Liberal members of a federal parliamentary committee on human rights supported the idea that human rights have precedent over states' rights.
Polls in the Braddon electorate, situated in Tasmania's bible belt, have shown 70% support for the anti-gay laws. This suggests that the Liberals' ambivalence has more to do with political opportunism than differences in views on either sexuality or states' rights.
In the current political climate there are votes in being perceived to be a party that respects human rights, especially in the context of a federal Labor government whose deplorable human rights record on East Timor and Bougainville is becoming widely known.
The problem for the Liberals, however, is that in Tasmania, and especially in Braddon, there are also votes in anti-gay bigotry. The Liberals' potential competitor in this regard is the newly established Tasmanian branch of the National Party.
Liberal support for federal intervention would create an opening in Braddon for a National Party candidate taking an anti-gay stand — especially in a context in which none of the major parties is likely to campaign strongly for a progressive position.
Labor is struggling to increase its support in Tasmania, which may also explain its hesitation in fulfilling its international obligations. The party, which has worn out its credibility with progressive voters, may be able to compensate for this by winning more of the conservative vote from the Liberals.
Labor may judge that it has more chance of winning conservative voters from the Liberals than winning the support of those who vote for the smaller more progressive parties.
On June 17 Green Left Weekly spoke to the federal Attorney General's Department, which is currently preparing a submission for cabinet on the issue. Apparently cabinet is due to decide its course of action in July. In response to a question whether any undertaking had been made to take action against Tasmania's anti-gay laws, the spokesperson responded "No, that's a matter for cabinet". That is, the government's action or inaction will be determined by its perception of the politics, not by legal or human rights obligations.
In April, the UN Human Rights Committee decided unanimously, in response to an appeal by a Tasmanian gay man, that gay and lesbian rights are fundamental human rights. Australia is a signatory to the human rights covenant that is overseen by the UN Human Rights Committee.
The federal government has the power to overrule the state laws. While the UN body has no power to force it to act, the federal government will be in breach of international human rights standards if it fails to do so. International human rights obligations are not something that can be responsibly subordinated to what may be judged by some to be politically expedient.