Page 1616 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Civil Unions Bill is quite clear that a civil union is not a marriage. A person cannot be in both a civil union and a marriage, and an ACT civil union will always give way to a commonwealth marriage. Specifically, clause 9 (2) (a) (ii) clearly states that a person who is married may not enter a civil union, and clause 12 (1) (b) provides that a civil union is automatically terminated on the marriage of either party.
The commonwealth Attorney-General has indicated that he has some concerns with particular provisions of the bill. The government does not accept that those provisions have the effect that the commonwealth Attorney-General claims they have. I will be addressing those particular provisions in more detail during the detail stage of the debate this evening. I will also be moving some government amendments to the bill. While the government does not necessarily agree with all of the commonwealth’s concerns, I think it is important, and the government is happy, to make some amendments to address these concerns. This is essentially a belt-and-braces approach and is something that we think clarifies beyond all doubt the government’s intention not to trespass on the commonwealth’s rights around legislating for marriage.
In particular, I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to establish a registration scheme for ACT civil union celebrants rather than using marriage celebrants, as currently proposed in the bill. I will also be moving amendments to include an additional step to require people who are 16 and 17 years old to obtain a court authorisation to enter a civil union. This will be in addition to the existing proposed current provisions requiring parental or guardian consent. Finally, I will also be moving a number of clarifying and relatively cosmetic amendments.
Mr Speaker, the ACT is a self-governing territory—no one has made that clearer tonight than Mr Barr in his speech—and the ACT Legislative Assembly is a democratically elected body with the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the territory. The Civil Unions Bill affects ACT law only and, as such, it is entirely and appropriately a matter for the ACT Legislative Assembly to decide.
In comments both in an interview for ABC radio earlier this year and in recent correspondence, the commonwealth Attorney-General has clearly stated his belief that the power to make laws about civil unions belongs to states and territories, while the commonwealth has the power to make laws about marriage. Further, he has indicated that the commonwealth government would be happy to leave it to the states and territories to decide whether to legislate for civil unions. The ACT government wholeheartedly agrees with Mr Ruddock in this respect.
The government has chosen to introduce legislation to provide for civil unions in the ACT. That legislation, entirely appropriately, provides not only for a system for recording civil unions but also for the way that they will be recognised and dealt with under ACT law. For the commonwealth Attorney-General now to seek to dictate the contents of those provisions establishing civil unions and the way in which the laws of this territory apply to them is inconsistent with his earlier statements. It is also inconsistent with the position of the ACT as a self-governing territory. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .