Page 1637 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that is, the consent of both parents—
is not given, the Childrens Court may, by order, waive the requirement for the consent.
That is a problem. There are still concerns over reduced age eligibility in relation to marriage. Whilst there appears to be a strengthening process, the court can actually override the parents’ refusal. I think that is new. So there is a problem. You are being very, very inconsistent.
I think there is good logic for the federal Marriage Act. One party can be 16 or 17; one has to be over 18, with parental consent given for the 16 or 17-year-old. We are talking about the benefits of longstanding, loving relationships, and I think we all support that. We might have a few differences in terms of how we go about it, but we all support that. I am sure we would like to see some chance of these relationships continuing. People might be physically mature, but they might not be emotionally mature enough. How many of us were mature enough at 16 or 17 to go into a marriage or a longstanding relationship that lasts indefinitely? Ask yourselves that.
There is good reason for restrictions. Even you have got some restrictions, but you are making the age less than the federal act requires. Both parties can be under 18, but you are quite happy for people to vote at 18-plus and quite happy to have 16 or 17-year-olds exempt from detention under your anti-terrorist legislation. There is a significant inconsistency in this amendment. I do not think it is an improvement on what was in the original bill.
The opposition has some significant problems with the legislation—and little wonder. A lot of people in our community, whatever they think of same-sex unions, marriages or whatever, accept that marriage, or a civil union, is meant to be a loving, long-term commitment by two people. I think there is good reason why there is that distinction in federal law. It is a sensible one.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (9.38): There are a lot of furphies being thrown around in this debate. We have just heard one of them from Mr Stefaniak—that you have to be in a long-term relationship to enter into a marriage. What an absurd furphy. Last time I looked at the Marriage Act there was no time limit. It is not as if there is some eligibility where you must have been in a relationship for six or 12 months before you get married. It is just not true; the assertion is simply wrong. There is no requirement under the Marriage Act that you have to have been in the same relationship for a set period of time before you are eligible to be married. So to use that as an argument that young people who are old enough to have a consenting sexual relationship should not, according to Mr Stefaniak, be able to enter into a civil union is just wrong. That is just one of a number of absurd propositions we have heard from the opposition on this issue tonight.
There was another from Mrs Dunne. She said, “It is a real problem having people aged 16 or 17 entering into civil unions because they will not be able to deal in property.” Last time I looked, there was no automatic requirement that when you enter into a civil union
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .