Page 4785 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.29): It will come as no surprise that the Canberra Liberals will be opposing this bill today. The Canberra Liberals have been consistently in a position that the creation of ceremonies to solemnise civil partnerships creates a marriage-like occurrence which offends against the commonwealth Marriage Act. The Canberra Liberals believe in marriage as defined in that act, and stand by the principle in that act that marriage represents the exclusive union between a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life.
When this matter was first dealt with in 2006, we held the view that the civil unions law was flawed because it was a breach of the commonwealth Marriage Act. Section 51(xxi) of the Australian constitution gives the commonwealth the power to legislate in respect of marriage. This is a point that other members in this place have failed to understand over the years. Twice since 2006, commonwealth attorneys-general of both stripes have dealt robustly with the ACT on these matters. I cannot see that anything we do here today will change that situation, and we can fully expect another intervention from the commonwealth in relation to this matter.
It was interesting to note, in passing, a constituent saying to me only recently that if we have done this twice already and the commonwealth has knocked down the provisions, why are we doing it again? I think this is an important question that the government, in particular, must ask. Why is the ACT again putting itself in a situation where it is robustly in opposition to the commonwealth, knowing what the commonwealth would do in this matter, when there are serious matters that we want to deal with with the commonwealth?
It is interesting, for instance, that just this year we have approached the commonwealth for a review of the self-government act and some of the provisions in that, and that seems to have been turned down. While we are in a position where we should be negotiating about the constitutional basis of this territory, it is unfortunate that, for a third time, we will run this argument up the flagpole only to have it knocked down by the commonwealth.
Currently, the Civil Partnerships Act allows couples wishing to enter into a civil partnership to apply to the registrar for registration of their partnership. The bill we are debating today, the Civil Partnerships Amendment Bill, seeks to extend that arrangement so that a legally binding partnership can be established upon the declaration of that partnership in a ceremony. The bill provides that a couple, regardless of their sex, can make that declaration. There are, as the attorney said, amendments afoot that will change that emphasis somewhat. This ceremonial declaration of a legally binding civil partnership is in much the same manner as a marriage ceremony under the commonwealth Marriage Act 1961, in which a man and a woman solemnise their relationship in a legally binding declaration.
As I have said before, the ACT government attempted similar provisions in 2006, at which time the federal coalition government rejected it on the basis that under the Marriage Act 1961 a “marriage” is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The federal government has continued to make it clear that it will not support legislation that challenges the Marriage Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video