Calm and pragmatic? Credit:Glen McCurtayne Would you object if your party, after fixing some areas of discrimination against a minority group of which you are a part, refused to move on the last major reform for that group because of ''tradition'' without any cogent explanation of why that tradition should remain? Not if you're Penny Wong. When Julia Gillard became prime minister, it was bemusing to hear an atheist, unmarried woman from Labor's left saying she did not support allowing gay couples to marry. But it was not surprising.

Gillard's strategy to let Tim Mathieson into The Lodge is a small-target. It is a do nothing, inspire no-one and scare no-one either strategy. But how can Wong, the only openly gay female cabinet minister in Australia's history, support her party's ban on properly recognising gay relationships because of a ''cultural, religious, and historical view'' against it? That's what she told Channel Ten yesterday: "On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect." There was a cultural view against women being politicians. There is a historical bias against lesbian cabinet ministers. Sham action on climate change and no action on gay marriage. Wong's stance on both raises the question: what precisely is she for? On what would she take a stand on? Anyone?

And I'm fairly sure few religious leaders would support lady-loving ladies in the Senate. Cultural roots, religion and history were all against Wong being elected in the first place. Does that mean she should not have been? ''The party's position is very clear and that is an institution between a man a woman.'' Asked if she was just toeing the party line, she said: ''I do respect the fact that's how people view the institution.'' Which is entirely true – if you ignore national opinion polls saying precisely the opposite. Wong's position is that her party is not prepared to argue the case to remove the last egregious piece of discrimination against people like her, and nor is she – well, not any more. In 2006, she accused John Howard of being more extreme than George Bush on gay rights; Howard had the governor-general squash civil unions in the ACT. Then Kevin Rudd achieved much the same end by threatening to do much the same thing. (Rudd's objection to registrars presiding over civil union ceremonies, such as it was, seemed to be a fear of having a government formally begin a relationship, rather than recognise an existing one.)

Shortly after Rudd's move, I asked her if that meant her government, too, was more extreme than the Bush administration. She preferred to speak of significant changes made to various pieces of federal legislation to help de-facto couples. She returns to the theme each time she is asked about it. Her mantra is: She is part of a party, and the party's position was clear. No marriage for gays. It's not her only conflicted position. Acting on climate change, like marriage, is a supposedly progressive policy that is actually conservative, given its point is to keep the environment how it is. On climate change, there was a time when she said any plan to tackle it without a price on carbon was ''a sham policy''. Now, her party's policy has no price on carbon. It failed to get the emissions trading scheme through the last parliament, but now has no plan to try again in the next. So sham action on climate change and no action on gay marriage. Wong's stance on both raises the question: what precisely is she for? On what would she take a stand? Anyone?

In the same speech in which she criticised Howard on gay rights in 2006, she said: ''I hope there will come a time when this country can look back and wonder why some in this place and some in this government were so frightened of and antagonistic to certain types of relationships. I look to a day, to paraphrase a great man, when we not only judge people by the content of their character but also where we judge their relationships by markers such as respect, commitment, love and security and not by the gender of their partners." "I look to a day when government policy and articulation is not so mired in prejudice. Loading "I look to a day when we have a government that is not so mired in prejudice that it can address these issues fairly. One thing I do know is that that will only come under a Labor government.'' Not this one.