Page 1810 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and about condoning gay marriages, and getting lots of media headlines and dividing the community. I sincerely thank all members of the Assembly for that, and particularly the Opposition. It may not happen very often that I am so fulsome about the Opposition, but in this case everyone in this parliament should think that we have done a good job. It is an important issue that we have got through this parliament.
Mr Humphries raised an issue about deceased estates. It is correct to say that there is an anomaly here in that we are extending when one is alive a right that would apply to a married person or to other defined family relationships under our intestacy laws. It is something that the Government will look at. I think it would be prudent for us to see how this operates for a period. As to the issue of two years, yes, perhaps you could say that it is an arbitrary point; but you have to have a test. Again, let us see how this operates in practice. Given that this is landmark legislation, I think the Assembly will want to keep an eye on it. Perhaps amendments may be brought back, and perhaps some committee may want to look at how it is going. I am certain that other parliaments in other parts of Australia will take a great interest in this. We may well find that other parliamentary committees want to come to Canberra to see how we, the youngest parliament in Australia, have been the first to deal comprehensively with what is, as Ms Szuty and Mr Humphries stressed, a real human problem.
Ms Szuty stressed the point that she hoped that the Bill would be brought into operation quickly, and that is our intention because we have all received letters from constituents in various circumstances. It may be the person who has been caring for the aged relative; it may be the gay couple; it may be whoever. There are real human needs out there that this legislation will address. We should be proud that, as a parliament, we have done it in such a non-divisive way. Mr De Domenico's point was really about voluntarism, and we should not be seen to be undermining it. Really, the question was best answered probably in Mr Humphries's discussion about definitions. We are talking about motivation as well as just falling within a category.
We are confident that this legislation will work, and we are pleased that we have the confidence of the rest of the Assembly. Collectively, as an Assembly, I think we can be proud not just that we are introducing and passing through this parliament landmark law reform that will meet a real community need, but that we have managed to do it in a way that has been non-divisive and non-confrontational, working for the general public good. At the end of the day, as politicians - again, Mr Stevenson, do not take offence - we should be here acting for the general good. In this case I think we have done it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .