Unleashed

Robust Community Debate

Find More Stories

9 March 2010

Open letter to opposition leader Tony Abbott

Comments

Australian Coalition for Equality



Tuesday 9 March 2010
Mr Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


RE: Invitation to meet LGBTI community / Federal anti-discrimination laws

Dear Mr Abbott

I write today on behalf of the Australian Coalition for Equality in regards to your recent comments on 60 Minutes and Lateline regarding your feelings towards homosexuality.

We are deeply concerned that the alternative Prime Minister of Australia says he feels threatened by and that this feeling is shared by "so many people". Further, we are dismayed that when provided an opportunity to clarify your remarks, your explanation was to suggest that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people Australians challenge "orthodox notions of the right order of things".

In response to your specific statements, we would like to take the opportunity to refer you to research conducted by Roy Morgan's National Consumer Poll that shows in 2008 only 29% of Australians believe "homosexuality is immoral". This is hardly a basis for your statement that "so many people" feel threatened, as stated on the 60 Minutes program. Indeed Roy Morgan CEO Michele Levine was quoted in September 2009 as saying "What we've noticed over the last 10 years is that Australians are becoming more open-minded in their views about a lot of things, including homosexuality."

We note your further statements that you "try to treat people as people and not put them in Pigeonholes". While this is an admirable quality to possess, we are deeply concerned that your statements appear to imply that the majority of LGBTI Australians are somehow inferior or abnormal as they challenge the "orthodox notions of the right order of things", yet may be removed from this classification in some individual cases, based on treating the person as you find them.

In addition to being inconsistent with the view of a majority of Australians, we are deeply concerned that your comments have the potential to inflict unintended harm to a minority group within Australia.

We note that in the same Lateline interview in relation to comments on your new parental leave policy you stated "But I think that where circumstances change and your understanding deepens, the mature thing to do is to adjust your position, and that's what I've done". You noted that part of the basis of your change in parental leave policy was from discussions with "a number of people who I think are insightful in this area".

We thus write to you today to invite you to meet with members of the LGBTI community and discuss with them your views on the issues of homosexuality and more broadly bisexuality and sex and gender diversity. We hope that such a meeting could be conducted in the spirit of deeper understanding of each others perspectives. We would be prepared to work around your schedule to convened this meeting at a time and location of your choice, to ensure that you feel safe and unthreatened in the environment chosen.

We draw your attention to the 2005 paper Mapping Homophobia in Australia where the researchers comment:

"While not everyone who is homophobic engages in discriminatory behaviour towards gay men and lesbians they are more likely to contribute to a general attitude of intolerance. Thus derogatory and insulting remarks about gay men and lesbians by, for example, prominent radio personalities reinforce intolerance and appear to sanction discriminatory behaviour."

We believe that your recent comments have the potential to be interpreted by some within Australia as sanctioning discriminatory behaviour and while we do not believe your views have resulted in such discrimination occur, unfortunately there are still some Australians who share your sense of threat, and who, in some cases, treat LGBTI Australians unfairly.

In recent years the Opposition has shown bi-partisan approach to the removal of discrimination faced by same-sex couples. Indeed we note that the authoritative report that led to these historic reforms, Same Sex: Same Entitlements by the Australian Human Rights Commission was commissioned by the Howard Government. We again note our congratulations and thanks for the Oppositions enlightened approach to such matters.

Given that your comments were made in your capacity as the leader of the opposition we are alarmed that such comments may signal the end of this bi-partisan approach to key policy issues involving sexuality, sex and gender diversity. As such we respectfully request an opportunity for the Australian Coalition for Equality to engage in further dialogue with you about key policy issues remaining for the LGBTI community. There are a range of policy issues, but perhaps one of the key legislative issues is that of Federal anti-discrimination laws.

As you may be aware the Australian Parliament has discussed the issue of Federal Anti- Discrimination legislation since 1995, including a committee inquiry into a private members bill tabled in 1997. The recent National Human Rights Consultation report recommended that priority be given to anti-discrimination legislation and noted in its discussion that the absence of federal antidiscrimination legislation was of particular concern.

Federal laws prohibit discrimination on a more limited range of grounds than the state laws. There was a particular concern that discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people is not prohibited at the federal level.

Indeed the Australian Liberal Party national platform supports creating opportunities for Australians by committing itself to "oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria". In previous versions of the platform, where specific criteria were specifically included I understand the criteria of sexuality was mentioned.

In June 2009 the Australian Coalition for Equality commissioned national research as part of the Galaxy omnibus on the issue of Australian support for the introduction of federal antidiscrimination legislation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The research found that 85% of Australians support such legislation being introduced, including 83% of coalition voters.

Mr Abbott, we hope this unfortunate recent incident provides an opportunity for meaningful and productive dialogue with yourself (and your office) on issues facing the LGBTI community. I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the matters raised in this letter and specifically your response to below key questions:

1) Will you meet with members of Australia's LGBTI community and their families to discuss your fears and feelings? We would welcome the opportunity to provide our community with an opportunity to convince you that we do not challenge orthodox notions of the right order of things or are a community that people should feel threatened by?

2) Will you publicly commit the Opposition to supporting the introduction of federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that all members of the LGBTI community do not face unwarranted discrimination ?

Please feel free for yourself or a member of your office to contact me on the details listed below should require anything further

Yours sincerely
Corey Irlam



Australian Coalition for Equality

House Rules

Comments (20)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

  • Nookn :

    12 Mar 2010 9:16:54am

    Tony is playing ducks and drakes. Homosexuality is a well known litmus test on where the parliamentary Federal Liberal Party is at any point in time.

    Abbott's comments on gay relationships may, at first glance, appear to be all over the place, ranging from tolerant, insightful, spontanious and sincere when responding to a nasty Keating jibe several years ago, to the recent 'orthodox notions of the right order' remarks which reflect a carefully chosen religious sub-text form of wording that is designed to appease a particular right-wing fundamentalist faction that has an alarming influence and power within the Liberal Party of Australia and which dominates the Republican Party of the United States.

    This sinister background should be of grave concern to all Australians who seek a tolerant and inclusive nation where we all pull together for the things that really matter in life.

  • ant :

    12 Mar 2010 8:40:59am

    He's John Howard in speedos. Anyone who votes for him deserves to have him making laws: on health,on education, on Centrelink, on pensions, on women's rights, on industrial relations, on our involvement in wars - and on homosexuality. And presumably he won't have a senate that will block anything he wants to do either.

  • Realworld :

    11 Mar 2010 7:38:51pm

    Abbott heads the Coalition for INequality.

  • SeanK :

    11 Mar 2010 1:42:04pm

    Frankly I find Abbott himself defies orthodox notions of the right order of things...

  • Roger the Cabin Boy :

    11 Mar 2010 9:34:21am

    Another pre-emptive but hardly surgical strike amongst Abbott - you all recognise his star quality.

      • DocMercury :

        11 Mar 2010 10:04:43am

        That comment, Roger, might apply to those who have a fetish for hero worship and celebrity devotion, but frankly, as long as they're a vector for tinea, I can't see it. :)

  • kingbast :

    10 Mar 2010 11:12:07pm

    An open challenge to Corey Irlam. At the risk of repetition from a previous post: why don't you ask the same questions about homosexuality of Kevin Rudd? Abbott is only the Leader of the Opposition and yet is constantly pillaried for being a conservative Catholic, yet no one seems interested in asking the actual Prime Minister about his personal views on things like homosexuality, abortion etc. If you are fair dinkum about your activism surely you would be challenging the actual law maker rather than the pretender to the throne. Naturally your response will no doubt be 'but Abbott has said things I don't like'. Why don't you give the real legislator, you know the one who can actually make a difference, Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister some direct questions on these issues and give him a chance to say some things you may not like. I've got a suggestion as to where you might like to ask them. He goes to church every Sunday. Perhaps you might like to approach him as he leaves his church and with a media pack in attendance, I challenge you to ask him directly what his views on homosexuality and abortion are. This is nothing but an attempt to wedge Abbott early and paint him via inuendo as a conservative religious bigot. If you were dinkum about achieving something for your particular cause, you would be asking these question directly of PM Rudd, a similarly religious person, rather than his Opposition. Failure to do this renders you nothing but an activist stooge attempting a facile move to land early blows on what is steadily emerging as a credible threat to the present joke of a government. I don't care about your anticipated response that you are responding to specific statements by Abbott. Activists and the commentariat use this well worn tactic of ambush via statement and then drip feeding inuendo such as this stunt of an Open Letter. Why don't you write and publish a similar Open Letter to the Prime Minister? After all he is the one with the power to do things for you.

      • Alex Read :

        11 Mar 2010 12:09:58pm

        The point of the letter was that, in his capacity as a prominent Australian, Tony Abbott DOES make a difference through his comments. Whilst I am sure that the Coalition for Equality would be dismayed if Kevin Rudd was to possess homophobic views (and note I say IF, claiming that Rudd is equally homophobic is at this point merely supposition), it could hardly be said that he could cause harm to the queer community simply by thinking things.
        Why did you bring abortion into things, I did not hear one mention of it in the article?

  • Peter Anson :

    10 Mar 2010 12:23:51pm

    As I listened and watched Mr Abbott through his years in public life, I concluded a couple of years ago that he is very confused about his own sexuality.In dealing with the man, it would be useful to bear this in mind.
    His political cunning is no less than that of his mentor(Mr Howard)so don't discount that he is simply feeding the homophobe line for effect and publicity and it seems to have worked perfectly.
    The line that he is a "straight talker" and "speaks his mind" is a cover to justify his publicity seeking statements.

  • Anti Fascist League :

    10 Mar 2010 8:31:21am

    We object to the statement "orthodox notions of the right order of things" as well but in more general terms.

    Those who put themselves up as champions of a particular moral view that, in their own opinion, then generally gives them the right to discriminate, condemn or judge others for simply being different to themselves are to be condemned.

    One is reminded of the attitude of the Christian fundamentalists in the US to homosexuality to the attitude of the Nazis to the Jews and many more things both before and since.

    Of even more concern is that the sort of moral viewpoints exemplified in your quotation often become the motivations or excuses for wars and other atrocities.

  • the yank :

    10 Mar 2010 6:51:25am

    Abbott's honeymoon should be over after his comments about feeling threaten by gays.
    How can a man with such a macho image feel threaten by homosexuality? Seriously I do not get it. Can someone that also feels threaten explain what they are afraid of?
    Anyway, I hope we hear Abbott's response to ACE's questions.

      • DocMercury :

        11 Mar 2010 10:08:43am

        Tony is upset that he gets so few proposals, even in spite of his budgie smugglers.

  • Rebecca Hall :

    09 Mar 2010 9:14:20pm

    Unfortunate spelling mistake:
    "While this is an admiral quality to possess"
    oops!
    Otherwise, awesome!!

      • Observer :

        10 Mar 2010 10:32:44am

        I feel threatened by such as the writer too, and I fear the long term social consequences of this vocal minority getting too much pandering to. It may be fashionable to be gay or lesbian, It may be acceptable to many, but it is not right, and it is dangerous behaviour to the rest of the community for them to be sexually active, as the spread of HIV has shown. I do accept that HIV is in the hetrosexual community, but I believe that it entered via deviant behaviours. History says that every society which has tolerated homosexuality has been destroyed. I believe your behaviours are a threat to our survival, and require you to exercise self control and cease such activities, for all our sakes.

          • Geoff :

            10 Mar 2010 1:21:28pm

            I suppose 'Observer' that you feel threatened by immigrants, non-whites and other 'different' people, as they are not 'the natural order of things'? And 'our' behaviours...i mean please, how uneducated are you? Do you really think that they heterosexual community does anything different (e.g. recently publicised swingers parties in Melbourne) Clearly you are living in a bubble and have no concept of reality. But this is confirmed by your ill-informed comments on HIV and your historical facts (would you like to tell me the real story of the society destroyed by homosexuality, not that STUPID fable, which I would point out destroyed heterosexuals as well).

          • Barnaby Rubble :

            10 Mar 2010 3:19:58pm

            Well then 'Observer' looks like your society is set for destruction too. Perhaps you may find that writing your own eulogy now may be therapeutic, only a suggestion, as you seem blinded to the possibility of opening your mind to education and personal development.

          • john :

            11 Mar 2010 4:15:34pm

            "the natural order of things" ?

            Do you mean according to an invisible man in the sky or accoring to some poorly educated Public School twit from the 19th century ?

      • donaldoz :

        10 Mar 2010 12:18:01pm

        Ms R.Hall seems to think that only academics with impeccable grammar should grace the pages of Drum. As long as the meaning is clear, who cares? Anyhow, I agree that Abbott has once again proved himself unfit for Governmental power.

          • Wanted to help you :

            10 Mar 2010 5:36:43pm

            Perhaps Rebecca just wanted to see the letter presented at its best.

            Text produced under pressure and with limited resources does benefit from a second reading by a fresh pair of eyes. That is why mainstream publications employ sub-editors and editors as well as copy writers.

            Impeccable grammar in print is most often the product of a process that includes several editorial tiers. Good grammar is not these days an academic indicator at all, it more often indicates people with either a lot of practice or more resources.

            You needn't publish this comment, just be aware that some people really do want to help "the cause" when they spot spelling or grammatical errors.