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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 119 ..

Labor Party is at our function and supporting us where it counts.” At the AIDS Action Council’s AGM, I see Michael Moore and I see Kate Carnell, but I do not see any of those opposite. It is well and good to be in this place talking the talk, passing the legislation, but when it comes to supporting the community you do not see any of these people out there on the ground.

To her credit, Kate Lundy goes to those functions. To her credit, Ros Dundas goes to those functions. To her credit, Kerrie Tucker goes to those functions. I do not necessarily agree with Ros Dundas and Kerrie Tucker on a whole lot of things, but you have to respect them because not only do they talk the talk but also they will actually walk the walk; they are out there with the community and they are out there listening to you. But what we get from the people opposite—Mr Corbell—is that they do it to hide their bigotry. I am not a bigot. I am proud of who I am, I am proud of the way I support my community and I am proud of the way I participate in all of it as equally as I can. I do not care if you are gay, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu; I am here to represent the entire community and get the best outcomes I can for the community.

I will walk again in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras when I get an opportunity. I challenge all of you to come and walk and, at the end of the year, go to the president’s barbecue. I want to see you there on AIDS day and I want to see you at the AIDS Action Council’s AGM because, apart from the token efforts that we get in this place, you people do not support the gay community like you should.

You throw it back at us that we are bigots. Last year we passed with you legislation to remove what you would have to call unjust discrimination. The majority of the gay community tell me that the things they are interested in are about decision making powers—on medical decisions, on inheritance and on superannuation—and we should be supporting them on that. We did last year. But that does not mean that you have to support every segment of the community on every desire that they have. Indeed, in talking with lots of members of the gay community, they tell me that it is an element of the gay community that wants this legislation and a large part of that community does not care.

The argument seems to be that we have to remove all discrimination. Why? To discriminate is to make a difference between. Tonight the Treasurer put a bill on the table that discriminates between clubs and taverns. If you are against discrimination, remove the discrimination between clubs and taverns. Let’s go back through all the legislation you have passed in the last few years that discriminates one group against the other. We as legislators do it all the time. We discriminate against 18-year-olds because they cannot drink legally till they are 18 years of age. They cannot vote and they cannot buy smokes until they are 18 years of age. If you turn 75, you have to go and have a test to see whether you are still fit enough to drive.

There is all sorts of discrimination. We trot out the word “discrimination” as if to say that if you discriminate against somebody you must be bad. Our job is to discriminate. We are here wisely and justly to pass laws that discriminate on different issues. But the issue here seems to be that you just have to remove all discrimination. Why? Where is the case for doing so? Where is it being made that it has to happen?

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