Page 1809 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a sort of homophobic gay-bashing exercise; there could have been rhetoric about undermining the sanctity of the family. This could have been portrayed as a radical and dangerous piece of reform. I would like to pay particular tribute to Mr Humphries for the way that the Liberal Party has dealt with this legislation.
Mr Berry: Take it easy.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Berry, I know that this is a fairly unusual thing to be doing. This Assembly is often looked at by some in the community and some who write and observe us as a bit of an amusement. The sandbox and similar analogies have been used. People in other places in the major capital cities often regard the ACT Legislative Assembly as a bit of a joke and I have heard us referred to on Sydney radio as the toy town parliament.
Parliaments in other parts of Australia will look at this landmark legislation with interest. As much as the legislation, they will look at the way that this community has dealt with this issue. We produced a discussion paper; we brought it into this Assembly; we had a debate so that views were outlined before the final legislation was brought in. The various groups in this parliament - it is an unusual parliament in that it has a high proportion of Independents, although that is perhaps not so unusual, looking at New South Wales - have been able to conduct a debate that has been rational. We have avoided extremist rhetoric. We have avoided the temptation to score cheap political points over what is an important community issue.
The issues that could be raised in terms of a fear campaign against this Bill were run through by Mr Humphries in his speech, and he answered each of those points. I need to add little to what he said. There are concerns about the breadth of the definition. Yes, it is drafted in a broad way because we do not want to focus on just sexual relations. We do want to catch the broader range of domestic relations, but you do look for the motivation. We are confident that this is not going to be overly broadened. We are confident that it is not going to undermine the family. It is neither an endorsement nor a refutation of anyone's personal lifestyle choices. We are not about making those judgments. We are saying that everybody should have easier access to what is, after all, an existing legal remedy.
A doctrine of equitable trust or equity has developed over centuries. The High Court has said that it can apply in the types of relationships that we are applying it to in this Bill. But, in order to secure justice, you have had to go off and hire lawyers to conduct litigation in the Supreme Court, with no guarantee of success. It is a high cost and risky exercise. People's access to justice should not depend on their access to expensive legal advice, and it should not depend on a State parliament making judgments, moral or otherwise, about whether they favour or do not favour the type of relationship that they are in.
At a time when there is international interest and extensive debate about the way another small parliament, that of Tasmania, has dealt with issues of homosexual law reform or the lack thereof, it is of credit to this community and this parliament that we have been able to run a debate on this issue and to run it sensibly; to talk about extending access to justice and the ability to enforce a right, instead of racing off on a tangent about gay marriages
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .