Page 1611 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
views between those who want further recognition via the introduction of a civil union system and those who refuse to recognise the rights of anyone other than themselves, thereby showing no regard for other people’s personal relationship choices.
It must be made clear that the Chief Minister’s Civil Unions Bill, in its current form, has its flaws, as I have said. It is becoming apparent there are significant aspects of the bill that are contrary to commonwealth law in equating civil unions with marriage. The Liberal opposition would like to see the situation whereby the commonwealth takes up the option to override territory law where it contravenes commonwealth law. The federal Attorney-General has indicated his preparedness to do so. Therefore the ACT Liberals will oppose the Stanhope bill on civil unions and provide an alternative approach in the hope that a compromise can be achieved and, in turn, avoid commonwealth intervention in a matter that can be resolved amicably at the territory level.
Members must be aware that an inconsistency has emerged in the Chief Minister’s bill. Two people who are, for all intent and purposes, in a committed relationship and are both 16 years of age can enter into a civil union, with a simple parental consent or via a ruling in court. I do not know how this will sit with the wider community, as it is directly inconsistent with the age of consent section in the Marriage Act 1961 of the commonwealth.
Mr Barr: The age of consent is 16, so you can have a sexual relationship but you cannot commit to a relationship.
MRS BURKE: I heard you in silence, Mr Barr. The same legislation reflects community standards that have been longstanding, whereby at least one person who is entering into a legally recognised relationship must be 18 years or older. The Chief Minister, in his explanation for this point of differentiation, said it is based upon the provision of equal access to law to avoid discrimination based on age. As such, he is now seeking to promote the right to equal protection under law, in this case, under the Human Rights Act 2004.
I continue on in the area of young people because it is of concern to me. If somebody can answer all those questions and tell me that any aspect of what I am saying is wrong, I will stand corrected. But I have grave concerns. I am not the only one. People of law and people who stand in the middle, with nothing to gain or lose, have come out and questioned some of these things, and I want to do that now. We need to have that debate in this place. As I said when Mr Stanhope decided he was going to do this, it would open a can of worms like the Human Rights Act did. It is going to have many problems attached to it. It will lure people into a position where they think they have got something and they have really not got what they thought they were going to get.
I pose this genuine question to the Chief Minister: how will his Civil Unions Bill 2006 provide for young people in terms of adult guardianship? Who is now their legal guardian? The parents? The state? Or do they not now need one? Once the written consent is given by the parents or guardian, by a Children’s Court order, will this negate the need for a guardian? Under the conditions of the Children and Young People Act, a guardian is required for persons under the age of 18 years. What happens if anything goes wrong—for example, domestic violence or abusive behaviour by one partner to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .