Page 1634 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACT government finds hard to understand, since many marriage celebrants already perform a diverse range of civil ceremonies, such as commitments, reaffirmations and naming ceremonies. So the government does not agree with these concerns that an equality or parity between civil unions and marriage would therefore be implied. However, we recognise that marriage celebrants are registered under commonwealth legislation and we recognise the commonwealth’s wish to fully regulate these activities. For this reason, the government is moving these amendments to the bill to remove the provision authorising commonwealth marriage celebrants to officiate at civil unions.
Amendment No 3 is a consequential amendment based on amendment No 5, so I will deal with that when we come to amendment No 5. Finally, amendment No 4 is also consequential in that it simply replaces references to “authorised celebrant” with “civil union celebrant”. This is one of those amendments that really is a belt-and-braces approach. It is quite clear that the territory has no intention of trespassing on the capacity of the commonwealth to legislate for marriage, but given the sensitivities around the potential for commonwealth marriage celebrants to undertake civil union ceremonies, the government will instead legislate to provide for civil union celebrants registered in the ACT to conduct such ceremonies.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (9.25): I have some comments. The original bill, of course, envisioned federal marriage celebrants performing civil unions, which certainly caused huge problems as far as the commonwealth was concerned. As Mr Corbell says, the legislation creates a new class of ACT civil union celebrants, and that may be enough to get him through.
I am advised, however, that there are some potential problems. We are still dealing with the same process as for a federal marriage, and that includes statutory declarations, public witnesses and a licensed celebrant, albeit an ACT one. The processes are the same, except that we will now have an ACT civil union celebrant presiding, not a federal one. Again it gets back to the question: is it identical to a marriage? So there are those factors. The minister seems to have an issue with creating a new class of ACT civil union celebrants, which on its face would seem to get him over his initial problem with the commonwealth. Again, we will have to wait and see.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (9.27): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1668].
This amendment replaces clause 10 of the bill. It sets out the extra steps that a person who is 16 or 17 must take in order to enter into a civil union. This has been an issue that has been of particular concern to the commonwealth, and I am going to take a little bit of time just to explain the government’s position on this matter and also explain the amendment to members.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .