Page 1635 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the Civil Unions Bill the government took the approach that if two people were old enough to form a relationship, they were old enough to formalise that relationship. Allowing such a couple access to the law promotes the rights of equal protection of the law in accordance with the Human Rights Act. I am sure all members are aware that the age of sexual consent is 16 and it would appear, and the government’s view is, that if you can enter into a consenting sexual relationship at 16, you can enter into a formal relationship under the Civil Unions Bill at the same age. It would appear to be the commonwealth’s position, and it would appear to be the Liberal Party’s position, that it is quite okay to enter into a meaningless sexual encounter at the age of 16 but not to enter into a meaningful relationship. That is the contradiction that we have from the commonwealth and the Liberal Party on this issue.
Although a sexual relationship is not essential in order for two people to be in a domestic partnership, it is clear that the establishment of a domestic partnership often involves two people who have a sexual relationship. That is just commonsense. Consistent with other jurisdictions, under ACT law the age at which a person is able to consent to engaging into sexual activity is, as I have already indicated, 16. There is, therefore, no bar to two people who are both between the ages of 16 and 18 from forming a domestic partnership if they wish to do so. Like all domestic partnerships, the existence of a domestic partnership between two 16 or 17 year olds will depend on whether the facts of the particular situation show that they are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.
In recognition of the fact that there is a continuing obligation to ensure that the interests of a 16 or 17-year-old person are appropriately protected, the Civil Unions Bill provides that such a person may only enter a civil union with the consent of each person who has responsibility to make long-term decisions for that person—a parent or a guardian. In light of the concerns that have been expressed about allowing young people to enter into a civil union, the government is moving amendments to include additional requirements to ensure that the interests of young people are protected. In addition to obtaining the consent of their parents or guardians, a person who is 16 or 17 will now also require an authorisation of the court. That is the intention of this amendment.
I find it a morally difficult position to argue that you can enter into a consenting sexual relationship at 16, but you cannot enter into a formal union of that relationship at 16. The commonwealth Marriage Act, which provides that one party must be 18 but the other can be less than the age of 18 and between the ages of 16 and 18, would appear to be inconsistent. It would appear to be a hangover from a time when you had to marry off the child bride, if you like, the teenager who had got pregnant and needed to get into a marriage to be seen to be legitimate in the face of society. Maybe that is the reason why that clause is there. But there does not appear to be any sound, logical reason for the requirement that, to enter into a marriage, only one of the two parties has to be 18. Of course, under the commonwealth Marriage Act, one of the two parties has to be 18 and there must be a court order, as well as the consent of the parent or guardian. So the only difference between what is in the commonwealth Marriage Act and what is being proposed under the Civil Unions Bill is that both parties can be between the ages of 16 and 18, rather than one party needing to be over the age of 18.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .