Page 1647 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a nonsense. It is a different relationship. It is working in Tasmania. It is something that has the support of, obviously, a significant body of opinion in the ACT. It does not offend the federal definition of marriage, nor indeed in any way could it be said to offend federal law. There is absolutely no doubt about that—
Mr Stanhope: Who did you consult, Bill?
MR STEFANIAK: Quite a few people, Jon—probably a lot more than you did actually. And, as it turns out—
Mr Stanhope: What consultation did you do on your registration bill?
MR SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR STEFANIAK: At any rate I think you will find that there may be some very significant problems still with your bill. You have tried to downgrade what we have put up as a genuine alternative to resolve this issue. I do not know if what you are doing tonight will work, despite your amendments here. I would still commend what we have put forward, despite your opposition to it. It is something that is tried and proven. It does work. It does not in any way indicate a lesser relationship. We are dealing here, surely, with recognising longstanding relationships where people love each and want to make a commitment to each other. That is something that we should give due recognition and due support to. It is a hallmark of our society. If two people—I do not care what sex they are—make a commitment to love each other, take care of each other, look after each other and be good citizens, surely that is what our country wants.
The other benefit of our bill is that we recognise some other longstanding, caring relationships that are not sexual—caring relationships of two people who might be living together; they might be related; there may be no-one else in the world who cares for them. They are not paid as carers, they are not a drain on the state, but, equally, they provide a caring relationship, which benefits all in our community, not only themselves. That is probably the benefit of the legislation we have put forward. But it is going to go down; we can count the numbers. We will watch with interest to see what happens with your amendments—whether they do what you want them to do or whether, as I suspect, they will still be problematic.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (10.19): I wish to clarify this issue of a civil union that has taken place and been recognised in a foreign country. We are not trying to legislate things outside the ACT. What we are saying is something quite humane: if a couple have had a same-sex relationship recognised in a foreign country and they choose to come to live in the ACT, for the purposes of our law they will be recognised as being in a civil union. What is so wrong about that? That is not legislating for what will happen in other states, or what will happen overseas. It is saying that if that couple come here they will be recognised as being in a civil union. That is all it does—nothing more, nothing less.
Mr Stefaniak seems to raise the prospect of some residency requirement. But I do not think there is a residency requirement in order to get married and there is no residency requirement if you enter into a de facto relationship. But there seems to be an assertion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .