Page 1638 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
or a marriage you have to go out and buy a house. It is neither a requirement of entering into a marriage nor a requirement of entering into a civil union. What an absurd argument. Mrs Dunne raised several furphies around property law, transactions and entering into agreements around property because there might be problems with that. It is an absurd assertion that that therefore negates the ability of two people to enter into a meaningful relationship and have it recognised by society. That is all this provision does.
The same arguments were made by Mrs Dunne around inheritance. She said, “This raises all sorts of questions. If two people under the age of 18 have entered into a civil union and one of them inherits, what is going to happen?” Nothing different is going to happen from what happens when someone under the age of 18 who is not in a civil union inherits. It is exactly the same; there is no difference. I do not see how that in any way creates the so-called problems Mrs Dunne asserts in relation to the provision for people who are 16 or 17 to enter into a civil union.
Mrs Dunne also raised the issue of the other parent: who is the other parent in a civil union where one party has given birth to a child and their partner is not the genetic father, for example. That is no different from a heterosexual relationship where a child from another relationship is brought into a relationship between two heterosexual people. There is no difference whatsoever.
Mrs Dunne: No; that is not true. That is not the point I made.
MR CORBELL: It is exactly the point you made, Mrs Dunne.
Mrs Dunne: Nor is it pertinent to this section. It is about the amendments to the Parentage Act in the schedule at the end. Relevance, Mr Speaker.
MR CORBELL: These furphies have all been thrown up. I have to say that, unfortunately, this is the sort of moral majority position that we hear from the Liberal Party. These are exactly the same sorts of arguments that we heard from the Liberal Party when they opposed every single one of the bills in the last Assembly that granted equality between people who were in same-sex relationships compared to heterosexual relationships. They are furphies—absolute and complete furphies.
I think the Liberal Party need to stand up and explain why they think it is all right to enter into a consenting sexual relationship at the age of 16 but not all right to enter into a meaningful relationship at the same age. The provisions in the bill make it quite clear that in those circumstances there must be both parental consent and a court order. Those are appropriate safeguards. It is pretty difficult for the Liberal Party to argue that the age of consent for sexual relationships is okay but that the age at which you can enter into a meaningful relationship and have it recognised by society should not be the same. It is a weak position on the part of the Liberal Party.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (9.43): The attorney raises a fair point in that there is an inconsistency between the Marriage Act and the position, to some extent, the Liberal Party takes about the age of consent versus the provisions in the Marriage Act and the issues in relation to majority. That sits uncomfortably with me. The point I made in the in-principle stage is that, for the most part, we do not encourage our children to engage in sexual activity when they are 16. Mr Stefaniak addressed issues about emotional and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .