Page 3499 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
privy to discussions, legal opinions and meetings where people put different views on the effect of the ACT legislation. The bottom line is that there were different lawyers with different views.
What I find disingenuous is for Mr Hanson to come in here today and say, “We need to get onto a similar page about this, stop being political about it and try and find some common ground.” I would probably respect that view a little bit more if he had not cited Brian Greig in the way he did to make a political point around the history of the issue in the ACT and then called a division over his amendment. We know why that happened, but that is a discussion for another day and not in this context.
I said to Mr Hanson earlier I did not share his view on his amendments; I had a slightly different take on it and that I intended to move my own amendment. But if you genuinely want to come in here and say, “Hey, let’s put the division behind us and acknowledge there are different views on this and move forward,” you do not need to call a division in this place. But that is what Mr Hanson did; he did it because he wanted to make sure that he has one more on the tally when he comes out with it at the end of this term and says, “The Greens and Labor Party voted together all the time.” Let’s see it for what it really is and let’s name it for what it really is. That is what that was all about today.
Trying to prosecute the fact that this was somehow done as a political stunt last year simply reflects that he fails to take account of the fact that it was a genuine commitment to try and get that done. There were different legal views; unfortunately, the legal views that said the ACT legislation would not work prevailed. But that does not mean we should not have tried, because to not try is to simply stand still and do nothing, and that is not a position I was prepared to be in on behalf of the Greens.
It is very sad that the challenge was successful in the High Court—we all know the federal government decided to go to the High Court and challenge the ACT’s laws. I note at least the legislation did not suffer outright political interference via the former power of federal veto, a power that was removed by amendment moved by Senator Brown, so at least we actually got to have it litigated in the High Court. Unfortunately the ACT government’s legal advice was defeated, but it was important that we tried.
The High Court overturned the ACT legislation on a legal basis and formed a view that the federal Marriage Act covers the field in the law of marriage. The crux of the issue is that the federal Marriage Act defines marriage as occurring between a man and a woman and that this is an exhaustive statement on marriage. That was the finding of the High Court and that is the situation we now find ourselves in. To that end, I move the amendment circulated in my name:
Insert new paragraphs (1)(f) and (g):
“(f) the Federal Government challenged the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 in the High Court; and
(g) the High Court ruled the ACT Act was inoperative because the Federal Marriage Act is an exhaustive statement on marriage and provides that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman; and”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video