Page 1906 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly has stood up for what it and the citizens of this territory overwhelmingly believe in.
The other question that the Liberal Party has to answer—and I look forward to some of their members making this contribution later—is: what exactly is it about a civil union that undermines marriage? What is it about Anthony and me, living next door to all of you in this community, and our relationship that undermines yours? What is it?
Mr Mulcahy: No-one has got an issue with that.
MR BARR: There is a range of people who have an issue with that. There are some evil, religious—
Mr Stanhope: You cannot have it both ways on this issue.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Barr has the floor.
MR BARR: There are some people who are motivated by religious fundamentalism. Some of them sit in the Senate for the Liberal Party. Guy Barnett is an example. A range of those individuals are really behind this. This is all about John Howard’s dog whistle to the religious right. That is what this is about. It is not about mainstream Australia; it is not about the values that mainstream Australians hold.
That is shown time and time again in opinion polling and in the values that even moderate Liberals hold—people like Warren Entsch. He is not someone who I would traditionally say is someone who holds the view of mainstream Australia. Warren Entsch is from Far North Queensland. He is not someone that you would necessarily say would be a champion for these sorts of issues. But Warren Entsch, a sensible man, has now come forward and said that it is unacceptable that this sort of discrimination that John Howard seeks to continue by seeking to veto this legislation can continue.
I know there are a lot of people in the Liberal Party who are very uncomfortable with this proposal. Gary Humphries has expressed his concerns. It is about time some of his former colleagues, people here, got up and had something to say about that, or do they not believe in our democracy anymore? Is that it? Have you lot lost your spine? Is that really it? Is that where you are at? If that is the case, if the Liberal Party supports this federal intervention in the territory, if members opposite support that, they should resign from this place now. Go. If you do not value your role as legislators in the territory, then resign now.
Alternatively, you could get up and say why you believe that a civil union, people in same-sex relationships, ought to be treated differently. What is it about all of the consequential amendments in the Civil Unions Bill that offend the Liberal Party so? Apparently it is because of the statement in the bill that a civil union is not marriage but shall be treated under territory law the same as marriage. That is the offensive part of this legislation.
What is it about the Administration and Probate Act that makes you think a married couple deserve to be treated differently? Why would you elevate marriage for the purposes of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .