Page 2760 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would add as a note that this was something that was fairly consistent in the military long before it took place within civil society, where couples, gay couples, were able to move into married quarters together and so on. So I think that is a pretty important point. I took it that that was the point Dr Bourke was going to be making today, on which we could have had a unanimous position here in the territory and certainly in this Assembly.
It is a point that I have certainly given some thought to, and it is a different aspect from that of marriage, which is not referenced or commented on in the title of the matter of public importance. On this side of the chamber we also have a very clear position on that, in that the Marriage Act is a federal act and we should have a nationally consistent approach. Just as we have taken that approach to euthanasia under section 23 of the self-government act, I think that it is appropriate that it is something that is dealt with federally. Certainly, with the ACT being such a small jurisdiction and this being such a small parliament, it is not the place to make these laws.
I question very strongly whether we would actually have the ability to do that. As Barry O’Farrell has said, even if laws are passed, they will be subject to some degree of appeal in the High Court. I am not sure that we really want to be in a position where we are going down that path and that process.
There are mixed views about same-sex marriage in the Liberal Party. I think that is well documented federally, and it is the case in the ACT. Within the Liberal Party here, there are a broad range of views as to whether it should be something that we should have in Australia or not. But ultimately, what we all agree with here on this side of the chamber is that it is a federal issue. That is a very consistent position that we have held for some time.
Again we seem to be debating something that belongs in the federal domain. We did that this morning with Mr Rattenbury’s motion about refugees, and we are again talking about gay marriage, which is in the federal sphere. I think that it would be better for this place to focus on what it should be doing well, rather than trying to get into the business of the federal government and trying to lecture them on what they should be doing, which is essentially the intent of Mr Rattenbury’s motion and I guess it is what Dr Bourke is getting at today.
With respect to this debate, obviously it is something that we do pay attention to. I reflected on a relationship that I had with a gay couple. When I grew up in the UK I used to get Christmas cards and birthday cards as a child from Uncle Mike and Uncle Ian. I did not really reflect on the meaning of that; it was just something that was. Uncle Mike and Uncle Ian are a gay people who have been in a relationship for 43 years. They actually visited Canberra within the last few years, whilst I have been a member of this place, and I took them on a tour of the Assembly. So they have been in this place and we have talked about a number of these issues.
Knowing that this debate would be brought into the Assembly this year, I wrote to them and said, “What’s your view on this stuff? You’ve been in a same-sex
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video