Page 1899 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK: The fundamental problem is you are equating a civil union with a marriage. You know that yourselves, and now you are faced with this situation. I put it to you several weeks ago, and I put it to you again, that if you had adopted the Tasmanian model, you would not have got yourselves into this pickle. So whilst we can understand what you are trying to do, we agree with the notion and support the right—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, you should not reflect on a vote of the Assembly.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst we agree with the notion and support the right of the territory to write to the Governor-General—we do not have a problem with that—I think there are some problems with the text of the proposed address and we certainly do not support the sentiments in it. Later on you will be introducing another bill, which might well be problematic, but we will leave that debate to that time.
There are a number of problems with what you are doing here, and I have an amendment that I will speak to. The fifth paragraph on page 1104 of the notice paper states:
The Civil Unions Act is a lawful exercise of the legislative power of the parliament of the Australian Capital Territory, made in pursuance of a political mandate given the parliament by the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Speaker, I do not know if I have to seek leave to move an amendment.
MR SPEAKER: No, you can move it.
MR STEFANIAK: I might as well talk to it now.
MR SPEAKER: Would you like to move the amendment, Mr Stefaniak?
MR STEFANIAK: Yes. I move:
Omit paragraph 8, namely:
The Civil Unions Act 2006 is a lawful exercise of the legislative power of the parliament of the Australian Capital Territory, made in pursuance of a political mandate given the parliament by the people of the Australian Capital Territory.”
This paragraph is, I think, one of the fundamental problems. I have already indicated that we have some problems with act that was passed, including the amendments. The federal parliament also has some problems with it. We query whether the act is a lawful exercise of the legislative power of the parliament of the ACT. There are still problems in relation to the federal Marriage Act, and there may well be constitutional problems. I do not think that is necessarily an accurate statement. My amendment would delete it.
There is one further problem, admittedly a technical one, with the text. The paragraph refers to the legislative power of the parliament of the ACT. I think it is fairly clear that actually we are not a parliament. We do not have a writ from the Governor-General. We do not have an administrator. We are, in fact, an Assembly. That point, while technical, is another problem with the motion. My amendment would delete paragraph 8 because we do not think it is an accurate statement. Quite clearly, it is highly debatable whether
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .