Page 3497 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
power to act, but only where they expressly legislate the same sex-marriage outside the federal definition of marriage.
He goes on:
Despite the best legal advice … and the best … advice from AME in multiple meetings, ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and her Attorney-General Simon Corbell have forged ahead into certain defeat.
Presumably, the ACT government’s “strategy” is to embarrass Abbott …
The saddest part of all this is that well-meaning gay couples in Canberra seem to have been cynically used as pawns in a political game by the ACT Assembly …
The clumsy intervention of the ACT into the equal marriage campaign, in this way, at this point in time, does the overall movement in Australia a great disservice. Those responsible should be held accountable.
That is that quote. That is disappointing. The Canberra Times editorial also made the point:
Whether this rushed approach proves the bill’s salvation or its undoing remains to be seen, but in the event it is found to be invalid, questions may be raised about the government’s haste to do battle with the community.
That the Gallagher government announced it intended to legislate for same sex marriage a week after Tony Abbott’s election will inevitably lead to the conclusions that it was intent on making a political rather than a social statement.
Members, let us unite, as we did this morning, behind everyone in our community with different views, whatever their sexuality is, and, by a simple amendment, something on which we can all join together and as an Assembly, say, “We respect and we want to see continued advocacy, support for our LBGTIQ community.” And let us not have any more of what the Canberra Times and some leaders in the gay community are saying is politicising an issue. That is the last thing that they want. I now seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: I move:
(1) Insert new paragraphs (1)(f) and (g):
“(f) that the High Court ruled that marriage is legally and constitutionally a Federal matter and cannot be legislated by the ACT; and
(g) the ACT Government’s support for changes to the Federal Marriage Act and its advocacy for changes in the Marriage Act 1961; and”.
(2) Omit paragraph (2)(a).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video