Page 1632 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is the ACT government’s position and that is why we believe this amendment is a sensible one, to make it very clear that that is our position and that will be the law if this legislation is passed. As I say, we will look more closely at the advice received by Mr Stefaniak, but it would appear on the face of it that it is drawing more on the issue of section 109 of the constitution, inconsistency between state law and the commonwealth, which does not apply to the territory and that, instead, it should be drawing on section 28 of the Self-Government Act, which deals with the interpretation of inconsistency in a quite different manner.
The government does not believe that there is any problem in relation to this amendment. In fact, this amendment makes it very clear to the commonwealth and those who are concerned about the so-called attribution of the civil union with marriage that that is not what this bill intends to achieve.
DR FOSKEY (9.15): It is a shame that amendments need to be made to the Civil Unions Bill. The bill seeks to achieve equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, and these amendments do appear to diminish that. However, the Greens agree that they must be made and so does the community for whom this bill is intended, for it is better in a situation like this to be pragmatic and take the steps necessary to move forward. The decision was taken after a lot of deep and very thoughtful discussion and consultation with the community.
I concur with Mr Stefaniak’s criticism that the amendments, which are quite bulky, were delivered to us just last night. We have had a very busy day and we have not had a chance to really look at them. I am taking on trust the government’s assurance that it will retain the intent of the original bill, while avoiding the federal government’s righteous bigotry.
It is not surprising that the legal advice that Mr Stefaniak tabled reinforced his party’s view of this legislation. It is hardly likely that the Liberals would engage a lawyer that was going to present anything else. Perhaps they did, but we do not get to see that advice. The advice that we have is dated 4 April and it refers to the original bill. I do not think we have seen anything here tonight that will throw into question the bill, as amended.
I am concerned at the lengths to which the Liberal Party and the constituency that it represents on this bill will go to deny a group of people their rights. What is going on? That is the question I want to ask. If the Assembly were to pass the original version of the Civil Unions Bill, there is a real chance that the federal government would seek to overturn it. No doubt it will have its lawyers looking at the amended legislation.
Even worse, the federal government could remove from the ACT the power to make legislation regarding civil unions. We have seen the US administration do just this to fall in with the agenda of the moral right that delivered votes to them. Fortunately, we in Australia have compulsory voting. In the United States the people who turn out to vote are the ones who are prepared to sit down, time after time, and write letters and emails—so concerned that they are doing the will of God. We have seen the increasing power of that lobby in Australia. We know that, apart from gays and lesbians, they object to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .