Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 884 ..

The Assembly voted -

Ayes, 5			Noes,10

Mrs Burke 	Mr Berry 	Ms MacDonald
Mr Cornwell 	Mrs Cross 	Mr Quinlan
Mr Pratt 	Ms Dundas 	Mr Stanhope
Mr Smyth 	Ms Gallagher	Ms Tucker
Mr Stefaniak 	Mr Hargreaves	Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.

Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 4.


(Leader of the Opposition) (4.06): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 895]. Mr Speaker, my amendment to proposed new section 169 is, of course, about definitions. Contrary to what the Chief Minister has said, we would agree with the majority of what is in the rest of the bill. Our concern is about getting the definitions right for the future.

Some people will not agree with the definition that I have put forward. Yesterday we had a meeting with Good Process and the Australian Christian Lobby, and I think it would be fair to say that Good Process was not keen on this model; they did not like this option. But I think it is a good option because, as you can see, the three components canvas and cover all the arrangements that one may have. There may be a marriage, there may be a couple of the same sex, and there may be a couple of the opposite sex. We believe that it covers all that needs to be covered.

It will be claimed that the amendment seeks to establish a hierarchy. There is no intention to do that. The three components fit neatly into subsection (2). I think the three options reflect the arrangements that people currently live in.

This definition would also be consistent with federal law. It will not contradict some of the federal law, and hopefully this will make the legislation work in a much smoother way. Until such time as work on the discussion paper is summarised and other amendments are brought forward, I believe that this is the best definition.

Before the suspension for lunch, the Chief Minister said something about the definition being limited. I would ask: who does it exclude? In what way is it limited? I think it is quite definite in its intent. It outlines the relationships that one may be in and it is a reflection of what goes on in the community. I think it covers all options. There is clarity in the definition that does not exist in the current definition that the government would put forward.


(Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (4.08): Mr Speaker, the government will oppose this

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .