Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1288 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Following work done by my Greens colleague in Western Australia, Giz Watson MLC, which led to the comprehensive law reform package there, I asked for a briefing on the status of ACT laws. In the briefing, I learnt that the project of law reform in the ACT to remove discrimination against same-sex couples had commenced some years ago. I am not precisely sure, but it may have been during the term of the third or fourth Assembly.

A range of discriminatory clauses having been identified, that work stalled. As I understand it, there was a lack of resources on the scale necessary to prepare amendments across all the laws. Someone who was involved in that process may be able to shed more light on what happened. If it was a lack of resources, then perhaps we need to re-resource our public service to a level to enable us to complete these important projects.

That work discovered quite a few surprising instances of discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples. For instance, ACT law does not prevent single or lesbian women from accessing IVF. Under ACT law, a woman who is the partner of an IVF mother would not automatically be recognised as a parent to her partner's child, whereas a man in a similar situation-that is, not genetically related to the child-would. There are numerous instances where the law is entirely silent about same-sex partners, thus denying same-sex couples the consideration and responsibilities for each other that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Even when it comes to the Coroners Act, when people are dealing with the death of their partner, same-sex partners are not seen to be family members, and are therefore not necessarily consulted about many of the decisions necessary at that time. When it comes to adoption, surely we ought to be looking for a safe and loving home environment-something same-sex couples are as able to provide as a heterosexual couple.

There are examples of this in the Guardianship and Management of Property Act, section 35; the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, section 3; the Debits Tax Act, section 16; the Evidence Act, section 57; the Land Titles Act, section 79; the Transplantation and Anatomy Act-various sections-and the Workers Compensation Act, section 8. I have a list of further examples, if people want to see it.

As recently as the 1950s, homosexual life was portrayed as an aberration or illness-something to be ashamed of and hidden-to be cured with, for instance, electric shock treatment. As a society, we have slowly moved away from persecution and discrimination but, sadly, some people still hold these views. We have benefited from the great courage of the men and women who have struggled to attain equity in personal and political arenas and led the way, through gay and lesbian rights movements.

Acknowledging the commitment already made by the Chief Minister and the Labor Party to progress law reform for same-sex couples, I commend this amendment to other members as a statement of our support for the completion, as soon as possible, of this important work.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .