Page 3500 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have sought to add this text to fill out the story on Ms Berry’s motion, which I completely agree with. I think it is important, though, that we reflect the situation the High Court has placed the ACT in. It is also worth reflecting on where this definition came from and how the ACT ended up in this place. The language in the federal Marriage Act was specifically amended by John Howard’s coalition government in 2004 in order to up the act to exclude the option of same-sex marriage. The changes amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. It is an unfortunate but nonetheless historical fact that federal Labor voted to support that amendment. Federal Labor voted with the federal coalition to change the Marriage Act to specifically say that marriage could only be between a man and woman. Fast forward to 2013 and the ACT’s efforts to allow same-sex marriage, and it was this action from 2004 which was really the killer blow to our efforts.
In 2004 the Greens stood up against these changes and voted for equality. The Greens argued in the federal parliament that the marriage amendment bills were discriminatory against LGBTIQ people. We condemned both the government and the Labor Party for failing to acknowledge the change within present-day society and the makeup of couples. At the time the Greens introduced amendments to the 2004 legislation, which included provisions that acknowledged gay and lesbian unions within the definition of marriage. It also recognised these unions as marriages in Australia regardless of whether they were performed in a foreign country. These Greens amendments were not supported by the Liberal or Labor parties at the time, and that was a great shame. At the time Bob Brown spoke out about Labor’s decision, saying that its decision on gay marriage entrenched discrimination. He said it was politics over principle that failed gay and lesbian communities as well as the huge section of the Australian community which supports equality before the law for all Australians.
I have to say that although I am deeply supportive of Labor’s recent efforts on marriage equality—and certainly of the efforts of my local Labor colleagues—there is a sad irony in the fact that an amendment supported by the Labor Party was what came back to bite the ACT in 2013. Senator Brown said at the time of the 2004 amendments that Labor was cutting off its own opportunity to make future reforms in this area. I will not dwell on this topic any longer, and I want to emphasise that I support the genuine efforts of my Labor colleagues in the territory to make progress in the area of marriage equality.
We now know that the issue largely rests in the federal sphere. My Greens colleagues in the federal parliament are continuing to push strongly for change. The Greens currently have two bills before the Senate. One is to ensure that same-sex people who are married in jurisdictions overseas—jurisdictions that are more enlightened than ours—can have their marriage recognised in Australia, otherwise they suffer the indignity of checking their marriage in at the customs gate.
The second bill seeks to allow marriage equality outright by amendments to the Marriage Act. The Greens have opened this bill up to co-sponsorship. My federal colleagues are willing to work with any of the other parties or members who will join in support of this legislation. On such an important issue, it is necessary to move
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video