Page 3505 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We will be supporting the amendment. It is really just a factual element; it just informs the motion better.
With regard to the reflections on why we divide and why we do not divide, if I move something in this place, it is because I believe in it and I think it is a reasonable position to have. What happened was a bit disingenuous. I spoke to Mr Rattenbury, gave him an advance copy of my amendment and asked for his support—as I did with Ms Berry; I gave her an advance copy of the motion and asked for her support. So clearly, this was not some tricksy political manoeuvre to try to get people to vote against it. I genuinely wanted support for my amendment; I thought it was a good amendment. But that being the case, I do not think that we should not then divide on it. If we moved something that we did not then support, that would be a very odd position to have.
Mr Rattenbury says that this is part of some long-term agenda to try and present him as being part of the government. People understand that he is a part of the government. If you are a cabinet minister, people are probably sold on the fact that you are part of the government.
Other than that, I just reflect again that this may be something that comes to pass in the federal parliament. But it is worth reminding people that from a legislative point of view, the High Court has made it very clear that this is a federal issue and that now it is only the federal parliament that can legislate on this. If people feel strongly one way or the other, I would encourage them to speak to their federal representatives, should they want change or not. That is perhaps the best approach rather than trying to play out necessarily a federal legislative issue in the ACT Assembly.
MS BERRY (Ginninderra) (5.44): I will speak to the amendment and close the debate. We will be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, and I thank him for bringing it to the Assembly today. It does include some factual comments, and it is important to have those included in the motion.
On Mr Hanson’s amendment, no, it was not a good amendment, because it took out the part where it says that the ACT government will “continue to voice its support for changes to the Federal Marriage Act and advocate for changes to the Marriage Act 1961”.
We on this side of the place will maintain our rage and enthusiasm to push for change, to continue to promote debate and to make sure that marriage equality does not just fade away. Mr Hanson, I invite you to join with us in that regard.
I have to comment on a couple of things that you said in your speech, Mr Hanson, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that Mr Rattenbury and Mr Barr reflected on these as well. It is fantastic for everybody to hear today that you stated your and Ms Lawder’s support for and ongoing lobbying of politicians in the federal parliament, but then you go on and say other things that make it hard for us to believe that you really do want to get behind this and continue to support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video