Page 1610 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
great compassion. I am also a person who believes deeply and passionately, therefore, about the preservation and the sanctity of marriage.
The quandary is: do I support Mr Stanhope’s bill and help fulfil the dream of a minority group of people in our community or do I support my colleague Mr Stefaniak’s bill that ensures equity and dignity for people wanting to enter into a formal relationship whilst protecting and not diminishing in any way the true intent of marriage as defined under commonwealth legislation? The Liberal opposition has sought to cut a path that provides equity and distinct recognition for people who wish to have their relationship, in whatever form that may take, recognised by the ACT community.
Contrary to the fairly nasty assertions made by the government and the ALP, the Liberal Party in the ACT does not seek to discriminate—absolutely not. If it means we are discriminating because we are not allowing civil union or that we do not want it to be anywhere near marriage, then you can call that what it is. As to discrimination at true point of law, that is not true. Rather, it is seeking to instigate incremental change to law that would be easily implemented and in no way gives impressions that such changes would impact negatively upon current federal legislation, nor seek to elevate the rights of one sector of our community above another.
Through the bill proposed and put forward by Mr Stefaniak, it is quite obvious that the ACT Liberal Party does not wish to denigrate nor degrade the relationships of two people who are genuinely and truly committed to one another. The use of statements such as “caring relationship” and “significant relationship” must surely signify to the ACT community that inclusion has remained a high priority.
Given that the issue of civil unions is an emotive one for people and that we are debating its finer points from both perspectives, I have encountered some strong views for and against the bill put to this Assembly by the Stanhope government. As such, it should be apparent that the ACT Liberals are now seeking middle ground. Why? Because we do not want to discriminate but we will not in anyway draw back on our line in regard to marriage. We have to protect the sanctity of marriage, as under law. A sensible first step, as members would be aware, has already taken place in Tasmania. It was an important debate that had to be had in that jurisdiction. The Liberal opposition is of the belief that the model that was adopted should be implemented in similar form as a first step for the ACT.
It has been alluded to that the Liberal opposition has made no real public comment to support the Stanhope Civil Unions Bill or oppose it outright. However, we took a cautious approach and sought to consult widely and listen carefully to constituents who held strong views either way. That was borne out today by the petition tabled with some 1,600 signatures. That is by no means a small number. How many times do we see petitions of that magnitude tabled in this Assembly?
After this consultation, the opposition decided to introduce a bill to establish a register of relationships based on the Tasmanian model. We did not simply throw out of hand Mr Stanhope’s bill and the desires of a minority of the community. No, we thought it through. We believe that what we are offering has that way forward and in no way diminishes or degrades the status of those people. It is understood that it will not appease everyone. This is a simple reality faced by any political party, given the polarisation of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .