The French Solution.

I like and admire Phil Ruddock. I met him often for three years when he was the President of the NSW Young Liberals and I was the President of the Earlwood Branch of the Young Liberals. 

I shook his hand on the night of the Parramatta by-election in 1973 at the beginning of his Parliamentary career and that was the last direct contact I had with him. 

He struck me during that period as someone who would do well in politics. Little did I realise how far he would go!

He became Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996 to 2003) and was Attorney-General of Australia (2003 to 2007). A more gracious and elegant Member of Parliament I will never know.

He was recently appointed as "Special Envoy for Citizenship and Community Engagement" and appeared on this week's "Q&A" programme on ABC TV in this capacity. During the ensuing discussion, he floated the idea that we could copy France and make marriage available only for religious institutions. The State would provide civil unions but it would not be called marriage.

For the first time in over forty-two years, I decided to make contact with him again:

---

Dear Phillip,

I have followed your entire political career since 1973 (and before) with a deep sense of admiration, even though I have sometimes not agreed with you.

This week is one of those occasions and I feel compelled to write to you about the "French Solution".

The current Marriage Act here in Australia provides that any couple can be married unless both partners are gay and of the same sex, in which case they have to make do with civil unions. That is a clear case of state-sanctioned discrimination.

Under the "French Solution", only the churches would be allowed to marry people and those who reject religious dogma would have to make do with civil unions.

I'm sorry, Phil - that would offer unwarranted privilege to religious institutions. It wouldn't remove the current discrimination, it would entrench and broaden it. 

If  ALL the major political parties in countries like Ireland, the UK and New Zealand can support the simple eliminatation of discriminatory marriage laws, then it begs the question: what has gone wrong here in Australia? 

It disturbs me that the Parliamentary Liberal Party shows no leadership on this issue. It is being dragged along behind the flow, floundering and gasping in confusion against a tide of public support for an inevitable and just reform.

I have yet to hear a sensible defence of the current definition of marriage - and it staggers me that the Parliamentary Party can support state-sanctioned discrimination in utter defiance of its own high principles of justice and equality for all Australians and the inalienable rights and freedoms of all people.

It is time to deal with it.

My warm regards,

Roger Powell

---