Page 1620 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As stated earlier, the Chief Minister has repeatedly asked for an objective reason for the continuation of what he has labelled discrimination. Chief Minister, here it is. Further, there is nothing discriminatory about the current regime of marriage. Any person can marry; you just cannot marry anyone. But this is to say nothing of the fuzzy logic of the Chief Minister’s frequent invocation of the word “discrimination”. Perhaps no word is quite so misused in the modern political discourse as “discrimination”, and its use by the Chief Minister in connection with the Civil Unions Bill is a classic example of that.
In order for the word “discrimination” to refer, in any meaningful sense, to an evil worth eliminating it must refer to a difference in treatment. Mr Speaker, if I were, as a woman MLA, paid less than my male colleague, that would be discrimination, but it is not discrimination to deprive the Chief Minister of a mammogram. We need to have a sensible discussion in this place about discrimination so that we may eliminate discrimination and prejudice from the hearts and minds of people, rather than being bogged down in symbolism, as with this bill. The bill, even with the recent amendments, explicitly seeks to confer all the same rights on homosexual couples as on heterosexual couples. The legal species of a civil union is, in short, substantially the same as that of a marriage and therefore cannot be supported.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (8.29): Before I launch into some of the comments I wanted to make on the substantive legislation, I address a couple of comments that have been made earlier by those opposite. The history of support for non-heterosexual people by those opposite is no more starkly demonstrated than by their opposition in the last Assembly to the gay and lesbian reform bill. The vote was 11 to six. Every one of them opposed every move to remove discrimination. Let the record show it.
Mrs Burke talked about the sanctity of marriage. This is an Assembly; this is not a cathedral. We do not require the blessing of the Almighty to pass laws in this territory; we need the blessing of the ACT community. I contend that Mrs Burke has not got a clue about the provision of rights for all people. She said, in relation to the under 18s, where approval must be obtained from the parents or the courts, “Who is the guardian? What about domestic violence?” My comment is that the court is a competent authority, and domestic violence visits heterosexual couples more prevalently than same-sex couples. In any case, we have a crime committed.
The purpose of this legislation is to remove discrimination. It recognises another step in the battle by the Stanhope government against bigotry and vilification. Our government commenced this process when first elected and will continue the fight until all are recognised as equal. Opponents of this particular legislation often hide behind the so-called laws of churches or the so-called word of God. Who elected God to make laws governing my life? I did not elect him. I did not even vote for him. In fact, he was not even on the ballot paper.
Mr Speaker, you may be aware that the Catholic Church does not recognise second marriages conducted in registry offices or in parks by legally appointed marriage
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .