Page 4793 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is a problem with the opinion, which is an opinion. Yes, it is an opinion by learned silks and therefore it must be given due consideration, but it is an opinion. There is the capacity for every agent in this place to go and find an opinion that would come to a different conclusion. What this opinion essentially says is that because the commonwealth—
Mr Corbell: This is Vicki Dunne QC.
MRS DUNNE: From Simon Corbell QC, yes. What this opinion essentially says is that the commonwealth have legislated in a particular way which is essentially narrow and it therefore means that the states and the territories can legislate up to the point where the commonwealth have ceased to legislate. The logical conclusion of that would be—and this was an example that was given to me—that, as the commonwealth have legislated in relation to corporations and they do so to a particular degree, if someone could come up with a different model of corporations that did not impinge upon the commonwealth’s definition of a corporation then the state could legislate for corporations in that way. That is essentially what this opinion says, and that is the logical extension of that.
My concern, the concern of my colleagues and the concern of the people who advise us is that what we are doing here, in appearing to go as far as we possibly can with not impinging, is actually mimicking what is already legislated for in the commonwealth.
I understand the merit of the argument, and it is an ingenious argument, but it is not an argument that the Canberra Liberals are prepared to support by their vote. What we are doing here today is creating a discriminatory mechanism as a sort of work-around, to try and get around the issues that this Assembly is confronted with by the existence and the power of the commonwealth Marriage Act. As a result of this, the Canberra Liberals will not be supporting this amendment and will not be supporting the other amendments that go with it.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.07): The amendments proposed by the government today, and there is a package of them, are split into two distinct subsets. Firstly, there are those, which we are to come to, which clarify when a civil partnership takes effect, and then there are the amendments, one of which we are speaking to now, that set out which couples will have access to the ceremony option for entering a civil partnership.
The Greens, as I flagged, will be supporting both subsets of amendments. The first set of amendments clarifies that a ceremony under the amended act will have legal effect from the time the declaration is made before the civil partnership notary. This was the original intent of the Greens bill. The amendments simply set out even more clearly the effect of the ceremony, and I welcome that clarification.
The amendments are important because the original intent of the bill was to give same-sex couples access to a legally recognised ceremony. The current situation where a ceremony could take place but have no legal effect is unfair and confusing. As I said earlier, society places importance on officiating on key occasions publicly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video