Page 1898 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exceptional and unprecedented request, and it will inevitably form the basis for future precedent should such issues arise again. For that reason it is incumbent upon this Assembly to propose a constructive path forward, and that is what our address today would do.
We say very clearly in this message to His Excellency the Governor-General that we stand ready to consider amending the act in accordance with any recommendation he may choose to make. Let us remember that we have already amended this act 62 times in response to commonwealth concerns.
We are not the party that is being provocative. We are not the party that is standing in defiance of common sense. We are the party—by that I mean this Assembly—that is acting within its lawful power, having regard to issues that have been raised, to make a law which we believe is in the best interests of the people of our territory and our city. It is now incumbent upon the commonwealth government to advise what further steps can be taken to address its concerns and to advise in detail.
Finally, my challenge is to all members in this place. You may agree or disagree with this legislation, but you all have a responsibility to uphold the responsibility and powers vested in this parliament to make laws for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Make that your first objective in this debate. Rise above the political point scoring that can occur and assert your rights and responsibilities as elected representatives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to make laws for the people of the ACT. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (10.49): I will move an amendment to the motion, but I want to put on the record that if the government had taken notice of what we said during the debate on the bill, indeed, in relation to the amendments, and had backed the bill we put forward, which was a registration model based on the Tasmanian model—effective legislation which does not breach the federal Marriage Act, which does not offend federal law, which has been accepted by the federal parliament as not having any problems with respect to federal law and which has been working quite successfully in Tasmania for several years—you would not have gotten yourselves into this pickle.
We put forward sensible legislation, which you knocked back, You were forced to bring in some additional amendments to your initial bill which, quite clearly—and I think you conceded this yourselves—went against the federal Marriage Act, breached federal law and caused all sorts of problems as a result. I warned you at the time that even those amendments were not satisfactory. There are still problems with them. Effectively, they are in breach of the federal Marriage Act. They are in breach of federal law, and that is a big, significant problem.
Mr Stanhope: Let us test that in the High Court, Bill.
MR STEFANIAK: Maybe Jon. Obviously there is still a problem. You have not recognised it and now you are seeking to do this.
Mr Barr: What is the problem?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .