Page 808 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
parent’s consent. Perhaps under Mr Stanhope’s new law, you might be able to have a civil union.
Mr Stanhope: You will still need consent.
MR STEFANIAK: That is right. You will still need parental consent and perhaps there are a few issues around that. But you are deemed to be an adult. I am not sure if the Army and the armed forces still have this rule or not, Dr Foskey, but whilst you can join up at 17 there certainly used to be, if it is not still there, a rule that you would not be sent overseas to a combat area until you were 19. That certainly applied in Vietnam and elsewhere. I am not sure whether that still applies—I think it probably does. So whilst you certainly can join the services at 17, I think there may be restrictions on when you can go to a war zone.
There are any number of landmarks in a person’s life when you can do certain things. At 18 you are legally deemed to be an adult. From 16 to 18 you have different sorts of rights. I think in that age group you are regarded as a young person—it is a child now, is it not?—and until recently there was some differentiation. Then there is differentiation in terms of people under 16. So there are some significant obstacles for Dr Foskey to overcome when this matter goes before the inquiry. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely appropriate that this be looked at. It might also be somewhat difficult for the ACT to go it alone were there to be a view that something like this should be advanced. There certainly would be big problems if voting were to be voluntary, as this is not how the rest of the country votes. I am unaware off the top of my head whether there would be any constitutional issues but I suppose there may be. There would certainly be a need for detailed discussion and investigation if this idea were advanced any further.
This matter could go either to the Legal Affairs Committee or the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People. I have no dramas about this. The Legal Affairs Committee has about five ongoing inquiries. I am not sure what the education committee has. It is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Whilst it comes within the purview of the Legal Affairs Committee, it also is very much a youth issue. Dr Foskey would probably have a lot more flexibility if this matter were to go to the education committee because she could appear as a witness and push whatever points she wants to make there, and I think that is probably entirely appropriate.
We would have grave difficulty in supporting the original motion to establish such a scheme. It needs a lot more work and, I too, like the Chief Minister, can see a large number of problems. We certainly have no problems with this matter going to a committee. We support the motion that has been very heavily amended. We now have the final version of the amendments put forward by the Chief Minister which seek to omit from the first paragraph the words “support the” and substitute “notes some support for the” and to send the matter off to the education committee. I am sure there will be very interesting and perhaps at times lively discussion before that committee.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (5.40): Mr Speaker, I rise to support Mr Stanhope’s amendments. Last Friday I had the opportunity to meet with a group of year 10 students at a high school in my electorate who are studying politics. I began by telling them a little about why I got involved in politics and why I joined the Labor Party. The session was then opened to questions from the floor. I answered questions on matters ranging
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .