Page 5740 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


I would also like to read into Hansard what I believe are some very sensible comments from Rodney Croome, a well-known Tasmanian activist, and then talk a little about how these comments need to be reflected in this debate. Rodney wrote that what is often overlooked in this debate are the feelings of those people who are already in civil partnerships. He asks:

Are the legal relationships of those couples who had partnership ceremonies under the ACT’s previous administrative arrangements less binding, less dignified, less equal or less important than those who have had ceremonies under the recently-enacted statutory provisions?

If these statutory provisions are to be amended to provide for legally-recognised rather than legally-binding ceremonies, will the relationships be of less value?

The answer to that is clearly no. His advice to decision makers in the ACT was to:

… look at the issue they face through the prism of the couples it will affect … it does mean they should be aware of the impact of constantly changing the legal landscape. It doesn’t mean they should not advocate for change. But it does mean that we should do so in a way which is respectful of ceremonies that have gone before and those that may yet come to pass.

The issue is ultimately about respecting and affirming loving couples and the choices they make. When advocates for ceremonies forsake that high ground they lose everything.

I think those comments and those emails effectively sum up the challenges and dilemmas that we in the Labor Party locally face when we are confronted with this difficult choice.

I would have to say, just as a personal reflection, that the process that was in place in the ACT prior to these pieces of legislation has had its somewhat amusing elements. For example, I had the experience of going out to the office of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships, pressing the button in the waiting room and getting ticket 136, with Anthony by my side, in the lunch break before question time on a sitting day because we had forgotten to take into account that it would take 24 hours in which to produce the certificate for our civil partnership. There are some elements of the registration process that perhaps are a little bit clunky. I certainly will be talking with my colleague the Attorney-General on how we might be able to improve that in the future.

I returned the next day and got ticket B132 to pick up the certificate and I was very pleased that we were able to have that in time for an important celebration for Anthony and me on the Saturday. Whilst we were not able to benefit from a formal ceremonial element to our commitment, it did not detract from what was a really special day for us. I suppose for many of our guests the thing that they did comment on on the day was that that element was missing. They did not get to see that formal commitment between the two of us by way of an official ceremony. That clearly would have just topped off what was almost as perfect a day as we could have hoped for.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video