Page 1648 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that there must be a residency requirement if you enter into a civil union. The argument is: “We want to limit the scope and ambit of this legislation as much as possible and deny this to people.” That is what that argument really is about. I do not know if Mr Stefaniak is aware of how registration works, but if you are born in the ACT you are registered in the ACT. If you die here you are registered here in the ACT. If you are married here you are registered here in the ACT. And if you enter into a civil union here you will be registered in the ACT. There is no difference. It does not matter where you come from; it is the fact that it occurs here in the ACT. It is consistent with births, deaths and marriages—exactly the same. That is what the issue around that particular amendment is all about.
I will close by dealing with the comments Mr Stefaniak raised about his Registration of Relationships Bill. The government does not support that. The reason the government does not support it is very much for the reason Mr Hargreaves highlighted—tolerance. Those opposite are saying: “The relationship is there. We had better recognise it somehow, but we won’t let you celebrate it. We won’t let you have the opportunity to have a public ceremony recognised under law to celebrate the fact that you are in that relationship, but you can register it. You can register it a bit like you register your pet or your motor vehicle. You can do it the same way.” That is why we oppose it—because it does not allow for that relationship to be not only recognised but celebrated. And, surely, if it is a loving, caring, committed relationship under law, that relationship should be not just recognised but celebrated. That is what this legislation is all about.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.23): I am glad that the Chief Minister, by way of interjection, raised the issue of consultation, because it goes to what the Stanhope government thinks it means by open and accountable government. The government, from time to time, have said that they have consulted widely on this bill, in the same way that with previous iterations of legislation this week the government have claimed they have consulted widely. But, for the most part, there is not very much hard information about the results of those consultations.
To that end, on behalf of the opposition I made a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, to the Department of Justice and Community Safety for copies of documents held by the agency relating to the preparation, drafting and tabling of this bill. It may be of interest to members to know that, although this request was made at the time of the tabling of the bill back in April, the statutory time limit has expired and the department has not complied in any way; it has not even provided one page of documentation or given any indication that it would do so.
This is one of the elements of open and accountable government in Jon Stanhope’s ACT. Another element is the failure of the minister and the government to get their act together in relation to the amendments to this—there is no denying it—landmark piece of legislation. It is significant legislation. It is important legislation. For the most part, the debate here has been civilised, courteous and thoughtful. But the courtesy and thoughtfulness were not extended by this government when they dropped, I think, 37 pages of amendments after close of business on the day before this bill was to be debated.
Ms MacDonald: Blame Philip Ruddock.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .