Page 1079 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
enthusiastic about the legislation. It was the first of its kind in Australia and did not offend the sensibilities of those in the community who firmly believe in the idea of marriage as a union between a man and a woman but who recognised that people in a loving and caring relationship, regardless of their sex, should be afforded due and proper recognition. Accordingly, we have decided to follow the Tasmanian way and in this we are supported by a number of significant groups in the community.
There are a number of ordinary persons out there who do not have extreme views one way or the other. We are supported by such groups as the Catholic church in the ACT, particularly people like Bishop Pat Power, by the Anglican church, in particular Bishop George Browning and also by the Christian lobby led by Brigadier Jim Wallace. The two bishops mentioned could hardly be described as rednecks. They are very compassionate men who come out on a wide range of social issues, often bagging people on my side of government. I do not think anyone can accuse them of being rednecks. From discussions with them, they are very supportive of the registration scheme; they are supportive of the institution of marriage; and they are very supportive of all groups in our community. I do not think anyone can quibble with that.
I come now to what my bill does. Firstly, it will apply only in the ACT. It will not apply to registration, marriages, or whatever outside the ACT. It will apply only to people who want to use it in the ACT. There are two types of relationships here. I think this is important—and, again, we base this on the Tasmanian bill. The first one, referred to in clause 5, is a significant relationship between two adults who have a relationship as a couple, who are not married to each other or related by family.
If a significant relationship is registered under this bill, proof of registration will be proof of that relationship. That can apply to two people living together. It does not matter whether they are the same sex or opposite sexes; they will get the benefits of registration, should they wish to go down that path. The second category, under clause 6—people in a caring relationship—is also important. Although recognised in the Tasmanian bill, this is one we tend not to think much about. I think these people also deserve proper recognition. It reads:
A caring relationship is a relationship other than a marriage or significant relationship between 2 adults (whether or not related by family) one or each of whom provides the other with domestic support and personal care.
The section goes on to define that as being people who are not in a paid caring relationship who receive some recompense for it. For example, you will often find two elderly sisters, who might be spinsters—or two old friend—who have lived together for 20 years and care very much for each other. It is not a sexual relationship but a caring relationship. I think they can benefit from registration. In some instances registration would stop predatory relatives, who could not give a stuff about them, who show no sympathy for them and who are perhaps after something when they subsequently die. There are people like that in our community. I was pleased to see that recognised in Tasmania—and we would certainly like to see it recognised here.
Registration would take effect immediately. You would not have to wait two years, as do those in a de facto relationship under our domestic partners act of 1994. If a same-sex couple have been in a relationship for, say, two or three months and they say, “We want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .