Page 1641 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
assumption Mrs Dunne makes that the 18-year-old in a marriage will automatically have the right to act for the 16-year-old. That is not the case. That is why the government does not agree with the arguments being made by the opposition on this point.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister Treasurer Minister for Business and Economic Development Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (9.53): I do not wish to draw out the debate on this but I am aware that this is one of the issues which has formed a certain status of significance in the minds of many of those who oppose the legislation. I think it is important to reiterate and confirm the position the government has taken in relation to this. It has been most certainly outlined by the Attorney-General but I would like to reiterate and endorse everything he said.
As has been discussed and commented on during this debate, 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. Consistent with other jurisdictions—and this goes to the heart of the discussion we are having—under ACT law as it exists, the age at which a person is able to consent to engaging in sexual activity is 16. That is the law. There is no bar to two people who are between the ages of 16 and 18 forming a domestic relationship if they wish to do so.
Like all domestic partnerships, the existence of a domestic partnership between two 16-year-olds or two 17-year-olds will depend on the facts of each particular situation or case that show that they are living together as a couple on a genuine or bona fide domestic basis. As has been indicated earlier, if there are two people in a domestic partnership they will be treated—whether they are 16, 17, 30 or 40—for many purposes in the same way as two people who are married.
Under the Parentage Act of the ACT, if a woman has a baby while in a domestic partnership her partner will be presumed to be the parent of that child. Under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act, family connections are determined in the same way for domestic partners who are not married as they are for domestic partners who are married. Under the Transplantation and Anatomy Act, a person who is under 18 but in a domestic partnership is treated as if that person were an adult for the purpose of making tissue donations.
In the context of this particular legislation, where the government has taken the decision to legislate the capacity of 16 and 17-year-olds to enter into a civil union, it was not considered necessary that one of the parties to the relationship be at least 18, as is the case if a person who is 16 but not yet 18 wishes to marry. If a person has a right to enter a civil union, that right should attach to the person and not be dependent on the characteristics of the other party to the relationship. I think that is the essential nonsense of the position that has been put.
It is illogical to say that a person who is 16 is old enough to enter a civil union if their partner is 18, or it is all right for a person who is 16 to enter into a marriage if their partner is 18, but not old enough to enter into a civil union if their partner is, say, 17½ and they are 16 or 17. It is simply illogical to suggest that a 17½-year-old may marry an 18-year-old but that two 17½-year-olds may not enter into a civil union. It is simply
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .