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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2186 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

However, in consultation with people from the community, a "marriage-like" relationship was preferred. The department raised concerns that "marriage-like" might intrude on the Commonwealth's ground with respect to its marriage powers, so we went for a de facto marriage relationship under the Coroners Act, which seemed to retain the best and avoid the worst.

The variations in the definitions throughout the body of ACT laws, some including and some excluding same-sex couples, along with different sex couples, create a highly inequitable and unjust situation for same-sex couples. As I have already said and others have already pointed out in this place, there is a need to progress law reform to remove this discrimination. The Adoption Act, the Artificial Conception Act, the Casino Control Act, the Debits Tax Act, the Evidence Act, the Land Titles Act, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1955, the Workers Compensation Act and the Transplantation and Anatomy Act have discriminatory definitions. Even the Domestic Relationships Act could be clarified.

I prefer to deal with matters in a comprehensive manner. Without anticipating debate, the motion on the notice paper from Ms Dundas is a comprehensive proposal to address this issue. But here we are with the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2002 being asked to vote in support of a discriminatory definition, and I cannot vote in support of it. Anyone here who claims to support progressing reform of discriminatory laws really cannot credibly vote to support this bill without this amendment. We have worked hard to propose a good, inclusive definition to update this language and I urge members to support this amendment.

Mr Stefaniak has raised concerns about the amendment going too far. I think that it is perfectly clear that this amendment is just an updating of the language and is totally consistent with the commitment made in this place through other legislation and in the commitment generally to progressively remove discriminatory clauses in law in the ACT in terms of same-sex couples and different sex couples. This amendment is entirely consistent with that. It is, in fact, about updating the language to reflect that reality.

MR STEFANIAK (11.13): As I have indicated, the opposition does have problems with this amendment, problems based on comments made by the Chief Minister, who concedes that this change is marginal. I would say that it probably falls over the line in terms of being a substantial change. The amendments sought in this bill to the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act of 1968 fundamentally are about renumbering. In fact, proposed section 3 (h), which Ms Tucker seeks to amend, is the old section 2 (h), as indeed is proposed new section 3 (d) the old section 2 (d), and it is in the same language as that of the original act, that is, a person who, although not legally married to the deceased person, was, immediately before the death of the deceased person, living with the deceased person as wife or husband on a genuine domestic basis. Ms Tucker has read out her amendment which will change that.

The opposition has no comment to make either way in terms of the substantive change Ms Tucker is seeking. It may well be something that the opposition would support if she were to propose it in terms of amending a raft of laws; conversely, it may not be. It is something that, obviously, we would need to look at and discuss at the time. My point is, in fact, a procedural one. It is, as the Chief Minister has said, about the need to use these

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