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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 118 ..

family or anything like that—one of the reasons I chose it was that I took the view that Labor was the party that sought to give all citizens the right and, indeed, the opportunity to participate in society, regardless of their background, regardless of their wealth, regardless of their world view.

Labor wanted to allow all citizens to participate as citizens in society, to overcome the prejudice that would otherwise prevent them from doing so. So, whether it is in relation to your capacity to earn a wage or your capacity to speak English, or because of some discrimination in the community that sees you as some lesser person, Labor’s objective has always been to enable all citizens to participate and to participate as equals.

That, fundamentally, is the principle that underpins the legislation that we are debating tonight. It is about allowing all citizens to participate as equals, as valuable contributing citizens in our community. It does not take away anyone’s rights. It does not take away anyone’s capacity to be a positive and effective contributing citizen. But it does remove the view currently within the law that some types of people, to use the language from the other side, are lesser in the eyes of the law than others. That is what this legislation does; nothing more and nothing less.

My colleagues have outlined quite clearly the issues around the so-called view that children are somehow being harmed by this reform. Mr Speaker, what is important in our society is that we have sustaining, positive, fruitful relationships in our community and that the people who can provide sustaining, fruitful, loving relationships are making an enormous contribution to our society. It should not matter what their sexual preference or orientation is, just as much as it should not matter whether they speak English at home, whether their skin is of a different colour or whether they were born in Australia or not. It is the same thing, Mr Speaker.

The arguments we have heard from those opposite and others who oppose this bill around children are simply a device to hide their bigotry—nothing more and nothing less. They are simply a mask to hide fundamentally their view that some people are lesser citizens in our society. This is an important reform, one which should be supported by the Assembly tonight, and one to which I wholeheartedly give my support.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.11): Mr Speaker, the light on the hill is certainly glowing tonight. The speeches of those opposite have reminded me very much of why I joined the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party will walk the walk with you, not just talk the talk. Those opposite are very good at talking the talk, but you never see them out on the street. I have walked with members of the gay community on a number of occasions in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, but I have never seen anybody sitting opposite in those marches.

Mr Quinlan: Tokenism! We’re beyond tokenism.

MR SMYTH: Their defence is that they are beyond tokenism and that it is just a token thing to make the effort and go forth. Is it tokenism that we see very few of you at the AIDS Action Council’s AIDS day breakfast? We have seen the Chief Minister there occasionally, but only since becoming Chief Minister. We do not see any of you guys at the president’s barbecue. Every time I go up to Joe Tabone and say, “Is there anybody from the Labor Party here tonight?” He says, “Brendan, yet again, nobody from the local

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