Page 3558 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Madam Speaker, the director of Australian Marriage Equality is reported as saying:
According to the legal advice we have received, the current amendments don’t go far enough to protect the ACT bill from being overturned by the High Court …
This process is deeply flawed. The question must be asked why the government is seemingly making complex and difficult law on the run.
Furthermore, these amendments are in defiance of our standing orders, which require, in accordance with standing order 182A, that an amendment to be proposed by the government to its own bill must be considered and reported on by the scrutiny of bills committee before it can be moved. This has not occurred, because these amendments are being rushed through by the Attorney-General. The amendments are not urgent, and they are not minor or technical in nature. It is a leap of faith now to accept Simon Corbell’s assurances that the amendments will make this bill lawful when he spent the last few weeks arguing against the need for any such amendments.
The Canberra Liberals have a different view about the role of the ACT Legislative Assembly from that of the Labor Party and the Greens. We do not see the ACT Assembly as a vehicle to drive national agendas on social issues, whereas the Labor Party and the Greens do. We are Australia’s smallest parliament, in a small jurisdiction, and we do not think that a majority of one person in the ACT should change the definition of marriage for a country of over 23 million people. Many people that I speak to in the ACT, whether they support same-sex marriage, oppose same-sex marriage or have no strong opinion on same-sex marriage, tell me that they do not think that it is appropriate for this Assembly to be the body that defines what marriage is for all Australians. And I agree with them.
I note that an eminent group of faith leaders have joined together to sign a letter calling for this process to be examined further. Jewish, Muslim, Christian faiths and others have called on the government to refer this issue to a committee. Given the latest advice regarding this legislation, and the last-minute, rushed amendments, this may be a sensible course of action, and it would have our support.
It is clear, however, that this legislation will pass today, with the support of Labor and the Greens. When it does, Katy Gallagher and Simon Corbell will take. ownership of the consequences.
The federal Attorney-General has very reasonably requested that same-sex marriages not occur in the ACT until the High Court case has been resolved. That is in everyone’s interest. In Senator Brandis’s own words:
It would be very distressing to individuals who may enter into a ceremony of marriage under the new ACT law, and to their families, to find that their marriages were invalid. It would be better for all concerned if the ACT government waited for a short time until the validity of the proposed law was determined by the High Court.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video