Page 3745 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To the extent that this motion is regarded by Mr Stefaniak as a stunt, or alleged to be a stunt, by Ms MacDonald and the government in its support for the motion, one might equally respond that the commonwealth is here engaging in a range of stunts. It chooses the commonwealth Liberal Party’s political position on issues to posture, to beat its chest, and to show its opposition to issues such as civil unions legislation as a simple philosophical, ideological position of opposition which might be utilised, with a bit of luck, to wedge the federal opposition on a difficult and potentially divisive social and political issue such as respecting the relationships of gay and lesbian couples within this community.
That is the stunt and it is an odious stunt. It is an odious stunt to the extent that our democratic right would be impugned for the sake of political posturing around a potentially divisive issue such as an issue involving a minority and, more often than not, a marginalised minority within this community and within the broader Australian community, namely, our decision to respect and to be prepared to celebrate the relationships of gays and lesbians.
That is the stunt and it is an odious stunt. It is odious to the extent that any parliament or any political party would seek to further marginalise a marginalised group for the sake of a political position when it is none of their business. It is no business of the commonwealth parliament what this parliament decides to do in relation to the recognition of the relationships of gays and lesbians. It is none of the commonwealth parliament’s business. They made it their business because in the first instance they wanted to posture around their so-called support for marriage and, in order to show how strong and muscular they were on that issue, they sought to further marginalise a marginalised minority within our community. That is the stunt.
You can restrict this debate to that, but at its heart—and I am sure it is a position that the Liberal Party is not prepared to stand and oppose—the people of the ACT have every right to expect that every member of this particular Assembly will fight to the death for their democratic rights. Members opposite, by not supporting this motion, are sending the signal that they are all for democracy, but wish to make a few exceptions to that. That is what they are doing. They are saying, “We are here as the democratically elected representatives of the people of the ACT, but we are prepared to trade away this or that little bit of your democratic right where it does not suit our particular philosophical position.”
I used previously the example of euthanasia. I am one of those that does not support euthanasia. I do not support it. It is not a position that I have spoken about publicly, but if somebody were to introduce into this parliament—were we able to do so—legislation to legalise euthanasia in the Australian Capital Territory, I would oppose it. But I will not have the opportunity to do so. I, as the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, I, as a democratically elected representative of all the people of the Australian Capital Territory, cannot vote on a subject of some public importance. I do not have the capacity because the commonwealth has decided that we cannot be trusted.
The rest of Australia can be, except the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. New South Wales can be trusted, Tasmania can be trusted, South Australia
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .