Page 1905 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That would have, essentially, been the most appropriate path for the commonwealth to follow if it were concerned. It should have sought to have the matter agitated and determined by the High Court. But it chose not to do that. One is entitled to ask: why not? It could have done what it did on the issue of euthanasia. It could have introduced in the federal parliament, because of its plenary powers under section 122 of the constitution, legislation to remove from the territories a capacity to legislate in this particular area. One then asks, obviously, the question: why did it not do that in relation to euthanasia?
There is an interesting response to that, too, because the commonwealth, faced with the possibility of drafting legislation to exclude from state and territory ambit the power or capacity to make laws in relation to homosexual people, would have presented some very interesting issues for legislators on human rights consistency with commonwealth legislation on human rights and discrimination and the rights of all Australian citizens to be treated equally. We know why the commonwealth has not pursued that particular path. We know the difficulties that the commonwealth would have faced in crafting legislation to exclude from the ambit of territory law-making power laws on homosexuality or gay and lesbian people.
The third option, which they took, essentially the coward’s route, was to petition the Governor-General, to involve him, to embroil the Governor-General in a political dispute on the appropriateness of legislation. They have done it pursuant to section 35 of the self-government act. Section 35 (4) of that act permits or encourages the Assembly to address the Governor-General on any application which the commonwealth may make on the disallowance of an enactment of the Australian Capital Territory. It is appropriate—in fact, it is the expectation—that, under section 35 of the self-government act, the Assembly does precisely what the Attorney-General proposes today and addresses to the Governor-General our response to the issues which the commonwealth has raised with him.
It is a matter of regret that His Excellency the Governor-General will now, as a result of this process initiated by the commonwealth, be embroiled in a political issue which is being agitated between two governments and will be asked to make a decision. The Governor-General cannot now walk away from the request implicit in this address that he determine exactly what it is about our legislation which offends the Marriage Act and then advise us what it is that we may do to overcome the commonwealth’s objections vis-a-vis the alleged inconsistency between the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Act. That is what we are asking of the Governor-General. I wish we were not, but we are. And it is appropriate that we do so. The address and this motion should be supported.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.19): My colleagues have covered most of the ground on this, but I believe there are a series of questions that need to be asked of the Liberal Party, both at the federal and ACT levels. The first one is: what is it that they have against recognising and strengthening relationships and what is it about supporting, loving and caring relationships that they oppose? This government and this Assembly have made a clear statement that they believe that all loving and committed relationships deserve to be treated equally and to be celebrated. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .