Page 1650 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
thought through, at heart, and the intent to make sure it works. Mrs Dunne, you have said that you have that too. But, Mrs Dunne, if you are so concerned to know who the government has consulted with, I do not understand why you did not support my legislation amendment bill yesterday, which would have required the government to say who it spoke to in devising the legislation.
As you said, we do not have to agree with everyone that we consult; of course, on this matter we could not possibly incorporate the views of everyone that we consult. But the intent of the government is there. My legislation made it clear that I would like, with every bill that comes before this house, to know who it has been discussed with. Mrs Dunne, I think it is hypocritical of you to say you want that from the government when you did not support that legislation.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (10.32): I hesitate to delay finalisation of this matter much further, but I do need to respond to the suggestion or allegation that the government did not consult fully and genuinely on this legislation.
The bill that we are debating and will finalise tonight has a long genesis. This is an issue that has been consulted on over a period of more than 18 months. The government prepared a detailed discussion paper, an excellent paper, about the issues and the options it presented. We advertised publicly for submissions. There was a broad-ranging community discussion around the issue. I have done dozens—tens of dozens—of interviews. I have appeared on radio. I have responded to questions. I have been engaged in the debate, as have many of us, with the community for over a year.
We received well over 400 submissions. The government cannot be held responsible for those that do not, or choose not to, engage in a public consultation process. Every opportunity was given. We received essentially an equal number of submissions representing a range of views—some strongly for the recognition of same-sex relationships, some strongly against the proposal. We introduced legislation in March. We are debating it today. It has been a thorough and rigorous period of consultation and discussion around the proposals on the table. I reject absolutely any suggestion that we have not consulted fully, openly and rigorously on this legislation.
I will conclude my remarks this evening by responding to two points that require response. The issue around the availability of a civil union to 16 or 17-year-olds is an issue that has generated some discussion and debate. Significant concerns have been expressed. Members of the opposition have continued to express concern, drawing distinctions between arrangements that would apply to 16 and 17-year-old same-sex couples in a civil union and those for a 16 or 17-year-old person who wishes to marry.
You distinguish again and again between arrangements that will pertain to same-sex 16 and 17-year-olds wishing to enter into an enduring relationship and those for 16 and 17-year-old heterosexuals wishing to enter into a marriage or enduring heterosexual relationship. You draw now on, as you say, this “horrendous prospect” of parents being required to yield to the court. The same process applies to a 16 or 17-year-old person who chooses or wishes to marry and cannot receive their parents’ consent. They have the same capacity to seek exactly the same order from exactly the same court. You object to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .