Page 1600 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
opposition bill would give same-sex couples the same benefits as Mr Stanhope’s proposal does, but it does not conflict with commonwealth law, it does not conflict with the institution of marriage as enunciated by commonwealth law, and it certainly does not put the ACT, yet again, at odds with the rest of Australia.
It is hard to resist the notion that this is a stunt by the Chief Minister, who seems driven by the need to get himself into the history books as the first to do something—or anything, it seems. The issues that the Chief Minister seeks to address also seem to be largely covered by existing legislation and practice. As I said earlier, we have the Domestic Relationships Act. We have a number of laws in the ACT in which discrimination has been removed by governments of both political persuasions. There is no need for the Chief Minister to take this divisive step. It is divisive, very much so in terms of complaints we have received about it, and unnecessary.
Property and estate settlement has already been substantially dealt with under existing domestic partner legislation, and my bill would refine this further because for a partnership—a de facto relationship, for example—there is a two-year provision with a registration scheme once you register. So that is a further improvement if you are worried about actual discrimination and if you are worried about making sure that people who are in a long-term loving or caring relationship can receive benefits from that.
We have concerns that the Chief Minister is using this issue as a distraction from his government’s serious self-inflicted budgetary problems and their impact on the ACT community, which may perhaps have suddenly vanished today, but I doubt it. This could be seen as part of his need to provide bread and circuses for the population.
The institution of marriage is recognised by the vast majority of Australians as fundamental to the values underpinning our society, and we note concerns expressed about civil unions undermining these values in some way. We do not support discrimination of any kind against a group on the basis of sexual orientation. As I said earlier in another debate, I think our position on the register of relationships is not going to please everyone—that is the way of politics. A lot of the letters I and members have been getting, largely from outside Australia and many of them on a set format, are opposed to both.
We accept that what we are proposing is not going to satisfy a number of same-sex groups who basically want marriage or something so similar to it that there is not much difference. We will also not necessarily please people who do not want same-sex couples to have any rights or any form of recognition. As I said, that is the way of politics. But it is a way that I think a lot of sensible people in our community have accepted as the right way to go. One group of, I think, 15 Christian pastors believe that a register sanctions homosexuality, and, as I said, some same-sex groups insist on nothing short of marriage. You cannot please everyone. But we have consulted with individuals and groups widely over a number of months. I just wonder about the government’s stance there. Our registration of relationships is certainly more inclusive of those caring relationships I mentioned, and it recognises that family relationships change, but it does not offend Christian or other religious and cultural sensibilities in the way that the Stanhope government’s bill does.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .