Page 1907 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Discrimination Act, the Evidence Act and the First Home Owner Grants Act? What is it about that legislation that you need to put marriage on a pedestal?
Is marriage such a weak institution that it cannot stomach, and it will all fall over, if same-sex couples are given the same legal rights for the purposes of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Act, the Testamentary Guardianship Act 1984, the Legal Aid Act 1977 and the Land Titles Act 1925? Will all of that undermine marriage? Is that the end of the world? It is unbelievable. That is the practical effect of the legislation. The practical effect of the legislation is to deliver equality across all of those acts. They are all the consequential amendments. That is what is meant when we make the statement that a civil union will be treated the same under territory law. They are the territory laws that are being talked about.
What is it—and this is perhaps a question that John Howard needs to answer—about a civil union and a same-sex relationship being treated the same under the First Home Owner Grant Act? I understand it is commonwealth policy and that in fact they will recognise a same-sex relationship under the First Home Owner Grant Act because it involves handing out money. That is terrible. For taxation purposes, for superannuation purposes, my partner of seven years does not exist. When I fill out my tax return I have to declare that I am single. It is that sort of discrimination that is unacceptable.
No-one is prepared to get up and say why. No-one in the federal Liberal Party and no-one here will get up and support that sort of discrimination. That is what it is about. That is what this parliament, this Assembly, is trying to get rid of in our society. No-one here on the Liberal side of politics is prepared to get up and defend that discrimination. It is an outrage.
I fully support this resolution going to the Governor-General. It is very, very important that those who are seeking to overturn this ACT legislation state clearly why that is so and what it is that is fundamental about marriage that means it has to be treated so differently in territory legislation like the First Home Owner Grant Act, the Legislation Act, the Powers of Attorney Act and the Sale of Motor Vehicles Act. What is it about that legislation that means marriage needs to be elevated? They do not have an answer to that. They are not prepared to get up and defend that sort of discrimination in our society. They are gutless. That is why.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Members, there are too many conversations going on. Mr Barr has the floor.
Mr Stefaniak: You are wrong. Check out the 2003 legislation.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, that includes you.
MR BARR: It takes more than marching in the mardi gras. I know Mr Smyth has done that. I welcome that. That is a good thing, and I am pleased he did it. But what really matters, Mr Smyth, is how you vote in this place and how you argue within the Liberal Party about how you—
Mr Smyth: Have you missed the point? We are voting for the motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .