Page 3579 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
against because the right to vote was not relevant to them. During the Victorian 1864 elections it was discovered that the definition of “person” in the Victorian Electoral Act had inadvertently allowed women to vote. Apparently, the concept of a person who should be entitled to vote in the election was at that time considered to apply only to men. The definition was linked to ownership of property. It appears that the government realised its mistake when female property owners arrived to vote. The Victorian act was amended with the explanation that including women had not been intended when the law was made.
This story from our history demonstrates both the absurdity and the seriousness of the situation we are in. It is absurd because the story illustrates the arbitrary operation of discrimination. The right to vote is a useful comparison to the right to marriage equality. Before the right to vote was given, opponents were warned that it would ruin families and asked why women would want a right that belonged to men by right and nature. In response, many asked why such a right would be limited on the basis of sex and gender. Why indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is regrettably the same question that we ask ourselves in this debate today.
The ACT, the New South Wales Standing Committee on Social Issues and the Tasmania Law Reform Institute have all concluded that there is no doubt the states and territories can legislate for same-sex marriage. The constitution gives the commonwealth the power to make laws for marriage, but it is a shared power. The constitution does not give the commonwealth the power to legislate for de facto relationships and the commonwealth has apparently been satisfied for the states and territories to legislate for same-sex relationship registration and recognition in other ways.
Mr Hanson, in his comments opposing this bill today, quoted the New South Wales Standing Committee on Social Issues report Same-sex marriage law in New South Wales. Mr Hanson quoted the report where it said:
… many submission-makers asserted that only the Federal Parliament has the power to legislate in respect of marriage.
But Mr Hanson did not quote the next sentence:
The Committee has found this to be an error of fact. There is no doubt that the New South Wales Parliament can legislate on the subject of marriage, including same-sex marriage.
We, of course, agree. It is not whether or not we can make this law. It is whether or not we can make the law capable of concurrent operation, and that will be the question ultimately tested in the High Court.
The institution and the notion of marriage change over time. While in 2004 the commonwealth amended the Marriage Act to insert a definition of marriage, which was actually first formulated by Lord Penzance in 1866, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether the notion of marriage has any application to modern Australian society. In 2010, 121,000 marriages were registered in Australia. Sixty-nine per cent of these were civil marriages, not religious ones.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video