Page 1080 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to make a permanent commitment,” they could register after three months. All the benefits that would accrue under ACT law would flow to them from that time because registration would take effect immediately. There are provisions in relation to how they would register and there are also provisions in relation to how a registration would be dissolved. There is a 90-day period there—again very much based on and uplifted from the Tasmanian law. You can read it all in the act and explanatory statement.
Further in relation to this, we note that there is a HREOC committee currently looking at financial issues in relation to same-sex couples. On behalf of my party, I will be writing to that committee supporting the removal of any financial discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences. There are still problems there which have been brought to our attention and which no doubt have been brought to the attention of other members. I think improvements can be made federally in that regard. We believe that, if people in a loving or caring relationship are prepared to make a permanent commitment to each other, regardless of their sex, all the benefits that would flow to them if they were in a heterosexual relationship, including a marriage, should flow to them as well.
Society benefits from people being in stable relationships, no matter what sexual orientation they have. When people are in a loving and caring relationship it is unfair, we feel, that if a same-sex couple are living together for a long period and one dies, the surviving partner is not entitled to such things as a commonwealth pension, which they would be entitled to if they had been in a heterosexual relationship. We see no reason why this discrimination should continue. We have consulted with many people in the community. Even people in our community with very strong views on the institution of marriage feel that financial discrimination should be avoided and feel that improvements can be made concerning this federally. We are also of that view. Accordingly, I will be writing to HREOC putting my party’s position.
I point out that, despite some people being at opposite ends of the spectrum on this argument, the bill I am putting forward seems to have significant support from many members of our community. I would suspect it also has the support of most members, including members opposed to Mr Stanhope’s bill. There are of course some people on both sides who are vehemently opposed to this bill. I have been having a few little email chitchats with people on both sides in that regard—and no doubt people have had discussions in relation to Mr Stanhope’s bill. Whilst that is unfortunate, it is a fact of political life and we, as a party, are not going to resile from our views. We will certainly not resile from our views about the uniqueness of marriage as an institution, and we will not resile from our views that people in a loving and caring relationship should not be discriminated against.
If there is some discrimination—some people might think there is some discrimination in terms of not allowing same-sex couples to enter into a marriage or indeed a civil union that amounts to a marriage in everything but name—then so be it; we will wear that criticism. Indeed, all laws are discriminatory. For example, I know some young people who are magnificent drivers and riders of motorbikes at the age of 13 or 14 but they cannot get a licence until they are 17. I certainly know some people of 17 who are probably much more capable of voting than adults of 45, and they are certainly not able to do that. So I suppose you could say you are never going to have what some people might say is complete equality.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .