Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pretty certain, as the interjection from across the chamber is uttered, that that is the government’s problem with this legislation. It is a pretty pathetic problem if they have manufactured it in that way, because I have no doubt that those are the words upon which the government and the Prime Minister are hanging their objection. The reality is quite different. The ACT presented its first draft of this legislation. The federal government, through the Attorney-General, suggested that changes be made to accommodate their views, so the ACT government made 63 changes to its bill—that is not exactly a light-hearted pencil running over a piece of paper. I believe that at that time the federal government gave a very loose suggestion that the legislation might now become a bit more acceptable. Then, of course, a different decision was taken. An objection has arisen and we now find ourselves where we are.

The federal government is claiming that this act is a replication of marriage for same-sex couples, and this is not the reality. In fact, when you look at a fact sheet published regarding this legislation—Is a Civil Union a Marriage By Another Name?you find that a civil union is not a marriage by another name. While the bill provides that a civil union is to be treated in the same way as a marriage under territory law, that does not mean that a civil union is a marriage. For instance, the ACT cannot legislate for marriage per se. They are not and cannot be the same. In my view, the ACT government has attempted to accommodate the queries that the federal government had, but that has been done in a vacuum. It is like playing ducks and drakes; it is like asking how long is a piece of string? ‘We want you to change it.’ ‘How?’ ‘We want you to change it.’ ‘How?’ The debate continues.

The ACT government want a resolution to this. The ACT government very strongly believe that there should be no discrimination against same-sex couples in this country, and this is their way of solving that problem. The issue for me is that, while the federal government party room was debating this issue—while some members of the government were in the party room putting their case that maybe this should be rethought in a genuine debate—at the very same moment the federal Attorney-General and the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads were at Government House in Yarralumla organising the very deed to disallow the bill under section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988—a highly unprecedented action.

Beyond all of this, of course, is the basic question of discrimination, fairness, basic human rights and equity in our society as we see it. Personally, I just cannot understand the threat that this act appears to be posing to some of its opponents. I cannot see why some people, in particular the Prime Minister and his government, feel so strongly that heterosexual couples can choose to marry, can choose whether or not to have a religious based ceremony, can decide to have that union recognised and celebrated by their family and their friends in law and in a societal way, but at the same time homosexual couples cannot.

I want to finish by quoting Andrew Barr, a newly elected MLA and an openly gay person. He said:

What is it about loving, caring relationships that they oppose? What is it about Anthony—

Barr’s partner—

and I living next to you all in this community? What is it about our relationship that undermines you?

He also said:

This bill affords us equality under the law. … It allows us to hold our heads up high as equal members of the community and to celebrate our relationships.

…       …            …

I do not think anyone’s marriage is undermined because Andrew and Anthony living next door to them will have their relationship recognised in law.

(Time expired)

See this speech in context