Page 2560 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I specifically put that question in regard to amending the existing act, which still fell within the disallowance period. That is still my understanding.
However, the Attorney-General has different advice, I understand; so I think we should look at this carefully. If it becomes clear that a disallowance after the passing of this bill would strike out the existing act, I would suggest that we treat this bill as an exposure draft and look to improve it now, with a plan to reintroduce it after the election so that it can be debated as soon as possible in the next term of the Assembly.
In other words, I think it is really important to keep this issue on the table so that it can be progressed. There are other issues that need to be looked at in the context of a revision bill, such as recognising the civil unions of visitors and new residents of the ACT which the recent legislation removes. That was not a very much noticed aspect of the bill that passed this place, but it means that people who live in and come from cities where they are used to living as a recognised civil union would not have that relationship recognised here, which I think goes against the grain of the ACT’s Human Rights Act and of the government’s stated intention to establish the rights of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples who live in the ACT and who are residents of the ACT.
There may be other issues that will arise as we look at this bill. There is no doubt that we had a number of years to get it right and there is no doubt that the Labor government did make a promise that it would do its very best to get civil unions up for the gay and lesbian community. The Greens have also made that promise and we have been working very strongly with them. This amendment is a result of those discussions. It is a result of discussions with the gay and lesbian community.
The content of the bill will be very familiar to members, because we have discussed it at least twice in this place. It establishes civil partnerships notaries, exactly as first proposed by the ACT government in December 2006. Eligible people apply for registration to the Registrar General, who takes into account a number of matters, including issues of history and character.
If a person chooses to pursue a legal ceremony to formalise their partnership, they would then need to give notice to a notary of their intention to enter a civil partnership. That notice would be accompanied by a statutory declaration that they satisfy eligibility requirements for entering into such a partnership. The notary would provide them with information about the significance and nature of the legal relationship they are creating. Then, between five days and 128 days after receiving that information, at a ceremony before the notary and at least one witness—although usually before a whole heap of witnesses—the couple would make a declaration that they intend to enter into a civil partnership and that they are doing so of their own free will.
I am still struggling with the intensity of the problem that a small number of people have with this idea. To paraphrase Greens Senator Kerry Nettle in her valedictory speech, it really is a nonsense to discriminate against people for who they love.
I will seek leave in August to table an explanatory statement. Anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of the operation of the bill before them should go to the government’s own explanatory statement for the Civil Partnerships Bill which was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .