Page 1757 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure it must be very galling for the government to sit there and listen to the sort of muted gloating that the Liberals were able to go on with. I must say Mr Stefaniak was somewhat restrained. Nonetheless there it was, in his voice.
I can understand Mr Corbell’s desire to give legal recognition to civil partnerships as soon as possible, for same-sex couples have already waited too long for their significant and loving relationships to be recognised. Mr Corbell did issue two very angry media releases about the federal government’s decision and the Chief Minister had a momentary outburst. But I do not really see the Attorney-General or the Chief Minister putting up a strong fight.
If the federal government was forced to veto the ceremonial aspects of civil partnership, it would be made to squirm with embarrassment, both within and outside Australia. If the Senate was forced, probably by Greens senators, to debate and vote on the disallowance, I would expect some senators to cross the floor. Gary Humphries might do it again.
On 15 June 2006, Greens Senator Kerry Nettle, in collaboration with Labor Senator Ludwig and Democrats Senator Stott Despoja, moved to overturn the Liberal government’s disallowance of our Civil Unions Act. Federal Labor was crying foul when Howard vetoed our civil unions legislation. Prominent members like Penny Wong spoke out in favour of both the legislation and the right for the ACT to self-govern. To quote Senator Ludwig:
Labor are moving to disallow this instrument because we do not believe that Mr Howard should override the ACT laws on this matter.
And let us not forget that, after 1 July, the Greens, with Nick Xenophon or Steve Fielding, will have the balance of power in the Senate. This will be a very interesting situation.
In the case of the commonwealth antidiscrimination changes, the Labor Party could actually get the changes through without the Liberal Party or Steve Fielding, if just one Liberal or National was willing to cross the floor. There are some, I believe, who would be willing to cross over—or let me say, I hope. Rudd may not have had to cut a deal with Family First about civil union ceremonies, if indeed that is what has happened.
I recognise Mr Corbell’s attempts to maintain ceremonial aspects of civil partnerships by arranging for administrative ceremonies to be conducted by the Registrar-General or her delegates. But as he himself said, these ceremonies will have no legal status. And that is the key point. If we are trying to remove existing discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, we should maintain our commitment to a legal and symbolic ceremony.
As Mr Barr said so well in this Assembly on 11 March 2006, when the Civil Unions Bill was passed:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .