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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 128 ..

lobbied me in the community are that there has not been enough time for such a far-reaching, broadly encompassing bill with such significant social ramifications to be given proper consideration. Three months is not enough time to meet constituents, do the relevant research and reach an informed conclusion, especially given the intervening Christmas and New Year break. But I can count and I knew that this bill was going to go through with the support of the Greens and the Democrats.

As much as I wanted to have more time to consult with the community and allow the community to consult with me, I felt that the next best thing to do was to put through an amendment that allowed six months after the notification date of this bill for the government and the interested parties to get together to try to formulate a clearer and more acceptable path, although I do not feel that a fully acceptable path will ever occur in its entirety.

My concern with this debate has been as follows: at the moment in the gallery we have two very strong lobby groups. Some will call them right, some will say that they are wrong, some will say that they are superior, some will think that they are inferior, some will think that they are better, some will think that they are worse, some are to the left and others to the right, both are passionate and both have their own belief system.

I would like to pay tribute to Jim Wallace and Liz Keogh. Both represent people who have a passionate belief in what they feel is the right way to go and the path that they feel is the right path to follow. I know both of them and know that they are both fine people. It concerns me to hear comments from people in the gallery that they do not want to hear from people who have an opposing view or a differing view. It also concerns me to hear comments from members of this place that consider this bill is not important, because it indicates to me that we have diametrically opposed views like those that existed between black and white people and with regard to the groups that migrated to this country and were treated like lesser citizens because they did not have blond hair and blue eyes, spoke different languages and ate smelly food that was different from that of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Celtics, although I think they would have looked funny to the Aborigines when they got here too.

My concern with this bill in assessing my position on this bill was not that I had a fundamentalist position, because I have never liked to discriminate against people. One of the things that I admire about the Chief Minister is that he has an open mind about ethnic groups in this city and is highly regarded by these ethnic groups. That is one of the things that I am on record as having said that I respect about him. I have never seen one iota of racial discrimination from this man towards the community.

However, I do understand the position of groups like the Australian Christian Lobby. I understand their sense of family values. I understand that they believe that a family is a mother, a father and everything else that comes below that. I have spent a third of my life living in countries where mothers and fathers have represented a family. I have also lived in countries where that has not always been the option and where there have been two women or two men, not necessarily gay, in a family bringing up a child.

I am in the privileged position as a legislator of having been privy to information about heterosexual families which have not always done the right thing by their children. I have also been in the privileged position of seeing heterosexual families being

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