Page 1607 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for implementing civil union, but it will be a financial benefit, I am sure. International experience suggests that GLBTI couples from outside the ACT might be very interested in visiting our territory to participate in the new relationships scheme. Couples may appreciate the opportunity to make a social declaration of their commitment to one another, even if that civil union has no direct legal consequences in their home jurisdiction.
For instance, in the United States, many couples travel to the state of Vermont to celebrate civil union, despite the fact that their union will have little or no legal effect in their home state. The Vermont Gay Tourism Association reports that, since the passage of the civil union law, businesses all over the state have rolled out the welcome mat to gay and lesbian couples. A study of the fiscal impact of allowing same-sex civil unions in Vermont reports benefits of $22 million to the state’s economy. This is a novel but legitimate means by which the ACT can increase the economy, which is currently greatly exercising the minds of Assembly members.
From a legal perspective, although an ACT certificate of civil union or a same-sex marriage might not be recognised as a legal document in a couple’s home jurisdiction, any such certificate could still be used in a court of law as evidence of the couple’s relationship. Given the challenge that GLBTI people face across Australia when it comes to obtaining any form of formal document which substantiates their relationship, a non-restrictive scheme could potentially provide Australia’s gay and lesbian community with an important service. Specifically, it would give couples the opportunity to make a social declaration of their commitment to one another as well as the ability to produce formal documentation which evidences their relationship.
Much attention has been given to the federal government’s response to the Civil Unions Bill and its disagreement with certain clauses which recognised same-sex marriage elsewhere or which equated civil unions with marriage. Some of my staff attended the Good Process public meeting on this issue, debating whether or not to request the ACT government to remove references to marriage in the Civil Unions Bill. It was an emotional meeting, with members of the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community debating whether the practical achievements were more important than the symbolic achievements.
Senator Humphries also attended this meeting and had the gall at one stage to stand up and tell the community there that, if they were to have children while in their same-sex relationships, they would be engaging in socially destructive practices. In short, he was telling this community that, as senator for the ACT, he does not represent them. You can imagine the response he received and deserved.
Despite all this, at the end of the meeting the attendees voted in favour of the ACT government removing references to marriage to ensure that the federal government would not have grounds to overturn it or even remove the ACT Legislative Assembly’s ability to make legislation in this area, as they have done in the past to the Northern Territory over euthanasia laws. I appreciate that the ACT government has taken on the gay and lesbian community’s opinion on this matter and recognises that the fight for equality belongs much more to this community in this case than it does to the government to make points with the federal government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .