Page 3567 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Anyone who asks why this government are determined to legislate for marriage equality need only consider our record of social reform. In 2003 we amended the Adoption Act to remove barriers preventing same-sex couples from being considered as adoptive parents. In 2004 we passed the Parentage Act to make sure courts could make parentage orders solely in the best interests of the children, without discriminating in relation to a person’s sexuality or relationship status. In 2006 and 2012 we passed the Civil Unions Act.
Some further argue that the views of 17 members in this place are somehow not representative of a community view. I disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that we are one of the most representative parliaments in the country.
Finally, I want to address the concerns of those who believe marriage equality is at odds with their religion. Some believe marriage is and can only be a religious sacrament. While I respect these views, I do not accept them as just cause to preserve such plain discrimination against some members of our community. And I do not believe this bill in any way challenges, diminishes or undermines the religion or faith of any individual.
As the Attorney-General and I have repeatedly said, there is no compulsion and no obligation in this bill. No minister of religion will be required to solemnise a same-sex marriage. In fact, no minister of religion will be allowed to under this law, unless they are authorised under the law. Nor will any church or place of worship be required to host these marriage ceremonies.
I accept that, for the religious beliefs of some, these arguments are not sufficient. Well, if we are to be judged by a higher being on this law then let it be so. We are not rewriting religious doctrine; we are simply legislating to improve outdated human-made laws and provide greater freedom, equality and choice for everyone. I acknowledge today the many people of faith, some here with us today, who support this important reform.
Turning to the impending High Court challenge, we have had our right to legislate in this area challenged before. Unfortunately, it looks like we will now have it challenged again, but we are not deterred. We understand this creates some uncertainty ahead, but that should not deter us, it does not rattle us and it does not change our path. I am very disappointed by the confirmation from the commonwealth that they will challenge the bill in the High Court. The commonwealth say they consider the bill to be inconsistent with the Marriage Act, an act they say was “clearly intended to cover the field”.
Yesterday the government agreed to move amendments to the bill to make it absolutely clear that our laws can operate concurrently with the commonwealth Marriage Act and also to respond to views of stakeholders who have fought long and hard for marriage equality. We stand by our advice and our view that this can occur. We stand by our view that we are not acting above our station.
The ACT government will defend the law in the High Court. We will continue to encourage the commonwealth to correct its own marriage law. It would give me great
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video