Page 5745 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
act, and in particular the invidious and undemocratic executive veto that sits within that act. It is because of that undemocratic colonial mechanism that sits within our self-government act that we are here today with this bill before us.
We must, collectively as an Assembly, if we believe in the principles of self-determination and democratic self-government, say to our colleagues in the commonwealth parliament that that invidious, undemocratic mechanism must go. It must go. Let us use this debate to refuel that argument and agitate that argument against those who seek to overturn the fundamental issues of self-determination that we should all hold dear in this place.
I urge the Liberal Party to follow the lead of their federal senator in this territory, who argues strongly that we should be allowed to agitate for these matters and determine these matters for ourselves without the veto. He is to be commended for his principled stand on these matters. I urge his colleagues here in this place to follow that lead. Regrettably, to date we have seen none of it from them.
Let me turn to the issue of the bill itself. The support of members today locks in two very important reforms that we have never been able to achieve before. The first is the provision for a legal ceremony. The second is a provision for a legally authorised official to witness those ceremonies and conduct them. That has been a major call from the gay and lesbian community in Canberra to be addressed. By passing these amendments today, we guarantee that provision. We guarantee the provision of those ceremonies with the celebrant who conducts those ceremonies.
It is interesting that those who most vehemently oppose these laws, such as the Australian Christian Lobby, are deeply unhappy that those ceremonies and those officials remain in our legislation. But those of us who are progressive on these matters, and who regret and lament the fact that we are not yet able to pursue these matters to the extent we wish, should reflect on the fact that those who oppose us in this debate are angry that they have lost. They have lost on the issue of ceremonies and on the issue of celebrants. We should take great solace in that. We have achieved a reform, and we should build on that reform into the future.
The provisions of the bill have been described in some detail. I will not go into those again except to say that I note that there have been some comments from the scrutiny of bills committee. In particular, the committee asked whether the amendments to paragraph 6A(b) of the act unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties. This relates to the provision that excludes heterosexual couples from the provisions of the act.
I make the following observations. In 2004, it was the commonwealth government that distinguished between heterosexual and homosexual couples when it amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples were therefore expressly excluded from marrying under that act. Our Civil Partnerships Act 2008 made no distinction between couples on the basis of gender, although it was not possible for any couple to undergo a ceremony as part of the official formality of their union. Provisions in the Civil Partnerships Bill 2006 for ceremonies of that type were removed, as we know, at the insistence of the commonwealth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video