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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 105 ..

Everyone here today is quoting what their favourite constituent has said about this bill. I will just leave you with one quote from a resident from Aranda, “The late ACT Labor—out of control and out of touch.”

MRS BURKE (8.14): Much has been said and many points have been covered, but I am absolutely flabbergasted that the Chief Minister continues to push forward with this legislation when it is clear that the majority of the people in the Canberra community are so against the legislation. They are not against the people that sit before us in the gallery. This is not about personalities. This is about the rights of the child. The Chief Minister espouses rights very strongly. Where are the responsibilities? He stands there telling the people on this side of the house about the rights of children. Why isn’t he thinking about them in this case? This legislation, of course, is not about the rights of children, is it, Chief Minister?

Mr Stanhope: Yes, it is. Absolutely.

MRS BURKE: It is about pandering to his political factions and minority radical groups. He has been known to say that to people and he cannot deny it. Why is the Chief Minister driving the push to fundamentally change the way humanity best functions? It has been good enough for thousands and thousands of years. Why would we now want to socially experiment? The Chief Minister is on a very dangerous track. He can laugh all he wants; he is on a dangerous track.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, such as where a marriage breaks down. That happened to me. I was a single parent at one time and I can relate to that. The normal and accepted best practice model for a family unit is a father and a mother. Much has been talked about it, many statistics have been shared about that. If that is not the case, I ask: why then were we created males and females? Perhaps that is too simple a thing to come to terms with; I am not sure. One of the reasons, of course, is to reproduce, but I am not going to go into that debate now.

Children should not be subjected to a situation where they do not have a say. Is the Chief Minister going to tell me that children will have a say in all cases? Of course they will not. Is he going to tell me that in years to come we are not going to be faced with young people saying, “Why did you make me go into this arrangement, when my friends have a mother and father? I have been told, or I was told, I had to grow up with two mums or two dads.” Are you not concerned about that consequence? It is already happening. The Chief Minister can laugh and scoff all he wants.

Mr Stanhope: Only because people like you look down on it. You are the cause.

MRS BURKE: Who on earth are we to use children in this changing structure? Ms Dundas referred to society as a changing structure. Does that mean we have to accept everything that people’s flesh wants? Do we pander to everybody who wants to do everything that they want to do with gay abandon? Probably. It seems that in your book that might be the case. Children are made up of both male and female, and both sides of a human being need motherly and fatherly love.

Let me read a few extracts from the people who have contacted me and others in this place. First of all, I refer to a news release from Good Process:

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