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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1293 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

organise their lives in ways that maximise their joint wellbeing, ensuring them of some degree of economic protection if things go wrong. At the same time, they encourage them to fulfil the moral obligations which arise from long-term relationships. Indeed, it may persuade couples to remain in long-term, stable relationships, where they know they will benefit from the protection of the law and can organise their financial affairs accordingly. Where there are children, it promotes a stable family environment, with more likelihood of financial and emotional stability.

The majority of states recognise same-sex relationships-it is the Commonwealth that is lagging behind in its moralistic approach. It ignores the fact that the issue is one of fairness and justice in relation to property and has nothing to do with sexual activity. In the context of that sentiment, the Commonwealth is overtly adopting a moralistic approach to this issue. It has agreed to a referral of power from all states in relation to de facto relationship property issues, yet it explicitly refuses to accept a reference from states in relation to same-sex couples.

That, of course, is the point of the amendment Ms Dundas has circulated. Ms Dundas makes the point that if the Commonwealth government is not prepared to agree to a reference of power in relation to same-sex couples, then we should thumb our noses at the Commonwealth for the sake of the principle-that we should say to the Commonwealth, "Well, blow you! We, as a jurisdiction, will not agree to the referral of any power in relation to property disposition."

Ms Dundas made a good point. She made the point that, as a matter of principle, this jurisdiction should not discriminate, and we should not be party to a circumstance which allows the Commonwealth to discriminate.

Ms Dundas, I think, suggests-and I accept absolutely the force of the position-that if you will not accept a reference in relation to property issues for all de facto couples, including same-sex couples, then really we do not want to be party to any such scheme.

There are a couple of difficulties with that approach. One of the difficulties is that, as a consequence of section 122 of the Constitution, the ACT is not engaged in a formal reference of power. We do not have the capacity to refer powers because the Commonwealth has constitutional power in relation to these issues-so far as the ACT is concerned, in any event. That is semantic and perhaps legalistic. However, it is a fact that we do not formally refer powers, because the Commonwealth has constitutional power under section 122.

There is another aspect, which is a matter of concern to me, which makes it difficult for me to support Ms Dundas' amendment, although I accept its intent and support the principle Ms Dundas is seeking to express. However, there are some difficulties in relation to it.

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