Page 4795 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
rights for same-sex and transgender couples. This is not as far as the debate can or should go. It is but one step along the path to equal rights for all couples regardless of gender.
Further change must occur at a national level. That campaign for same-sex marriage is being supported by my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who has tabled the Equal Marriage Bill and who is currently attending hearings in regard to the bill around the country. I might note that the number of submissions received to that Senate inquiry process in support of that bill massively outweigh those that oppose the right for marriage equality.
However, for us in the ACT Greens, who do share strongly the aspirations of our federal colleagues and Greens all around the country, we hope this debate is to be a national one and that having legally recognised ceremonies in the ACT adds to and builds on that campaign. But we must be clear here: what we are putting in place here in the ACT is not—I repeat: is not—a substitute for marriage equality.
A second issue that arises with the amendment is the potential claim of discrimination against heterosexual couples in the ACT who want to access legally recognised ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act, the point Mrs Dunne has spoken about just before my speech. On an initial reading of the proposed text, the issue of discrimination is hard to ignore. The wording will specifically exclude couples who can marry under the commonwealth Marriage Act from having a ceremony to enter a civil partnership in the ACT.
However, within that wording lies the truth about the opportunities afforded to heterosexual couples; that is, under the Marriage Act, they do have access to a legally recognised ceremony in the form of marriage. That marriage can be solemnised through either a religious ceremony or a non-religious civil ceremony. While the right to have a ceremony under the Civil Partnerships Act will be a unique legal right for same-sex couples, in effect the Marriage Act provides heterosexual couples the opportunity to formalise, through a legally binding and public ceremony, their relationship.
The amendment proposed by the government will, we believe, reduce the legal justification for the federal government to use its powers to veto this ACT legislation. The federal government, while covering the field of marriage in the constitution, has amended the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act to be between a man and a woman. Excluding heterosexual couples from accessing ceremonies under the ACT legislation gives the federal government no excuse to override on the basis that our bill is trampling on the toes of the Marriage Act.
I note that the Chief Minister has expressed optimism that the federal Attorney-General will not be stepping in, and I hope, for the rights of same-sex couples here in the ACT, that he is right. Our original goal of giving an option of legally recognised ceremonies to create civil partnerships for same-sex couples is best achieved by accepting the amendments and we do so on that basis, noting the concerns that I have expressed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video