Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

What I am arguing here is that there is a level of bigotry in this government—pure and simple. But Minister Ruddock is a much more sophisticated politician than that. He has answers to these questions, but he is prevented from giving them because it does not suit the stratagem of this government to proceed in that way.

What we have here is clearly a case where the Australian Capital Territory does have the power to make laws such as it has made. These laws do not breach the criteria that I mentioned: they are not there to protect corruption; they are not there to defend discrimination; and they are not there to prevent people from enjoying equal rights. We have a situation here where the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory ought to be able to exercise their rights to make a judgment as to the adequacies of the Stanhope government with regard to its implementation of the proposition which it took to the last election, which it has sought to refine through a consultation process with the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, and which it has now enacted by way of legislation. And, as I say, that bill was amended 63 times in an attempt to respond to the Commonwealth.

The people of the Australian Capital Territory are the ones who ought to judge this question. They are the ones whose rights are being denied in this regard—as well, of course, as those who are directly affected by the instrument that the government has used via its executive fiat to repeal the Australian Capital Territory Civil Unions Act 2006. There is a clear and simple message here. There is an enormous danger in this parliament allowing this government to act in such a conceited way to undermine these basic human rights. What we have here is a clear device that this government is proceeding with in an attempt to pursue a policy that will apply to a very small number of people. It is aimed at a strategic political advantage and not at advancing the protection of its constitutional responsibilities—because they are not in question. (Time expired)