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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 888 ..

amendment which re-orders the three separate categories of relationship that he wishes to put into law. I think there are a number of things wrong with the amendment, irrespective of whatever order the categories appear.

Firstly, it is particularly insulting to view same-sex domestic relationships and opposite-sex domestic relationships as two separate types of relationship under law. It does appear that the Liberals have missed the point of this legislation by trying to say that same-sex relationships should not be discussed in the same breath as heterosexual ones.

While the debate has been going on I have been trying to think why we would want in our legislation the changes proposed by the amendment. Unfortunately-or perhaps fortunately-the reason that springs to my mind is so that we can perhaps say later, "Well, under subsection 2 (c) this type of relationship can have this type of rights. They can adopt, they can enter into a civil union, they can access IVF treatment, but those under subsection 2 (a) cannot."That is perhaps the only reason I can come up with why we would want to have separate categories. I truly find it abhorrent that someone would want to put in distinctions that we are working so hard to take out.

I also think it is disappointing that this amendment has been moved at all. I do not think it does anything to further equality for queer members of the Canberra community. I think it is an attempt to water down this legislation with a view to preventing further GLBTI reforms, such as those that are presented in the issues paper and that we will be discussing later in the year.

This legislation needs to be passed. One of the reasons why it is felt that different categories of partnerships should be separated is that we have not had enough consultation. It appears that the Liberal opposition believes that consultation involves discussion throughout the media. I can think of a number of times when debate around discrimination against the queer community has been in the media over the last 12 months.

When I moved my amendment in August there was media coverage in the Canberra Times, on TV and I believe on radio. There was discussion of this legislation in December when the discussion paper was issued, and just 11 days ago there was discussion of this in the Canberra Times when I went to Mardi Gras. There has been an ongoing debate in the letters to the editor page of the Canberra Times, not just the printed version but the online version. Some quite strong views have been put and much discussion has ensued. Even one of my favourite websites at the moment, Riot Act, has discussed the issue of the removal of discrimination. So, my understanding is that there has definitely been discussion of this in the public sphere.

To say that we need to adopt distinct classes of (a)-type relationships, (b)-type relationships and (c)-type relationships, in whatever order, really does undermine the work that has been done. I call on the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition to take a stand against those in our community that preach hatred and wish to entrench legal discrimination against queer Canberrans.

I call on them to stand up and say that they are unequivocally opposed to discrimination against GLBTI people. They should not be trying to set up false distinctions between

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