Page 1615 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
but civil unions would develop their own characteristics over time. The New Zealand committee noted that a few submissions did not support the bill because they contended that anything other than same-sex marriage would not provide equal rights to same-sex couples. The committee went on to note that a key distinction between marriage and civil union, de jure relationships, and other relationships, de facto relationships, was that the former represented a deliberate decision to have the relationship recognised in law.
Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify that these comments were made by a New Zealand parliamentary committee in relation to the New Zealand Civil Unions Bill, but the same comments could very well be made in relation to the ACT Civil Unions Bill because, like the New Zealand legislation, the ACT bill provides for something that is different from marriage. Similarly, the Canadian Supreme Court in the Reference re same-sex marriage case, certainly considered that there was a distinction between marriage and civil unions. The court observed:
Our law has always recognised that some conjugal relationships are based on marital status, while others are not … Marriage and civil unions are two distinct ways in which couples can express their commitment and structure their legal obligations.
Subsequent to this case, the federal parliament in Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act 2005 to extend equal access to civil marriage to same-sex couples. In explaining the reasons for extending civil marriage to same-sex couples, rather than providing for civil union, the Canadian government clearly considered that there was a distinct difference between civil unions and marriage. Let me turn quickly to the explanation that the Canadian Department of Justice provides on its web site to the following question:
Why did the Government extend civil marriage instead of using some other term such as civil union?
The web site explains it in this way:
Only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with Charter equality guarantees. Any institution other than marriage, such as civil union, is less than equal.
This Government represents the rights of all Canadians equally, and will not treat some Canadians as second-class citizens.
Rights are rights are rights—none of us can, nor should we, pick and choose the minorities whose rights we will defend and those whose rights we will ignore.
I think that the sentiments expressed by the Canadian government are certainly something we should all keep in the forefront of our minds in the debate this evening. Of course, unlike the Canadian government, the ACT does not have federal jurisdiction. The government put up a civil union model as it was the best model that was reasonably available to the government. This is not just a case of using different words. As I have clearly demonstrated in relation to experience overseas, civil unions and marriage are different constructs. For those opposite to assert otherwise would not be in accordance with the experience overseas. I think that it is something that, in particular, the federal government should have very close regard to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .