Page 5455 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (7.41): I thank Mr Rattenbury for bringing this motion forward this evening. It is a timely opportunity for the Assembly to put on the public record its views in relation to marriage equality.
I have circulated a set of amendments to Mr Rattenbury’s motion, just to give a bit more detail around what might be contained within an amendment to the federal Marriage Act, that would achieve a significant change in terms of equality for Australians but also go to protect an important element of religious freedom that is often raised in the context of this debate and used as a reason not to support marriage equality.
The amendment that I intend to move would replace the words “provide for marriage equality” with “ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples, irrespective of sex, who have a mutual commitment to a shared life”. These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I also intend to move to include a part (3) to Mr Rattenbury’s motion, calling on the Liberal Party to, at the very least, grant a conscience vote to its members of parliament on this particular issue. I will return to that point shortly.
In terms of the fundamental issue of principle in relation to marriage equality, my views on this matter are well known and the views of the ACT branch of the Australian Labor Party are well known. They were most recently ratified in an all but unanimous resolution at our annual conference in July of this year. The ACT branch of the Labor Party has always been at the forefront of progressive law reform; we have seen that demonstrated in this place through more than a decade of substantial law reform to address areas of inequality within territory law.
That goes back to the late Terry Connolly, the Labor Attorney-General in the 1990s, who was responsible for the introduction of the domestic partnerships act in 1994, which was the first of its kind to recognise same-sex relationships. Then Jon Stanhope, in his time as Attorney-General, oversaw two important pieces of legislation in his first term that sought to eliminate discrimination across more than 70 ACT laws.
The debate has, as Mr Rattenbury has indicated, moved on to areas of federal law. I am very pleased again to put on the public record that the Rudd government, in its first term, sought to remove a further 58 areas of legislative discrimination within the federal statute book that covered a range of important things like tax, superannuation and immigration status, amongst others.
The one remaining area of significant legal discrimination in this country is the federal Marriage Act; it is undoubtedly time for that final piece of discrimination to be removed. In order to achieve that, 76 or more members of the House of Representatives and 39 senators will need to step up and vote for equality. It is my view that the Labor Party will provide the bulk of those members and senators, but, if you look at the current composition of both the House of Representatives and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video