It is nearly two years ago to the day that the Legislative Assembly debated and passed the ACT Civil Unions Bill. That bill was about recognising and strengthening relationships. It was about supporting loving, caring relationships regardless of the sexuality of those involved. Unfortunately, we all know what happened next.
The federal government arrogantly intervened and vetoed that legislation. There is no doubt that the federal government had the power under section 35 of the self-government act to overturn that legislation.
The question is should that power have been exercised.
In thinking about this issue it is worth contrasting section 35 of the self-government act with section 59 of the Australian Constitution that grants the British monarch the power to invalidate within one year any law passed by our federal parliament, of course noting that that power has never been exercised and I doubt it would ever genuinely be contemplated. But it is an example of a power that could have been used by monarchs over the years. But fortunately common sense and democratic values have always prevailed.
Sadly, such common sense and democratic values are not prevailing with respect to this parliament, this Assembly, and that two years on we are back again with the Civil Partnerships Bill and the federal government has yet again intervened in the territory’s law-making process.
It saddens me to observe that when it comes to this Assembly it now appears that both sides of federal politics have determined that it is appropriate to veto territory laws. Can you imagine the reaction of the Australian people and federal parliamentarians if the British monarch overturned and sought to overturn a law of the Australian parliament?
The sad thing is that this was not always the position that was put by federal governments or by the federal parties, both Liberal and Labor. Prime Minister Rudd said only on 6 December last year that “the question of legislation of the type that you speak, it’s always been our view as the Labor Party that that lies properly within the prerogative of the states and that remains our position”.
Former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock made a similar observation, that the matter of civil unions is a matter for the states and territories. The question is what changed their minds. It is clear that the influence of the religious right is a factor. We live in a secular liberal democracy and there is meant to be a separation of church and state. However, on the basis of the experience with this legislation and some of the comments from significant players in this debate, it is obvious that hardline religious leaders have played a major role in orchestrating yet another federal veto of this legislation. It saddens me that Mr Stefaniak went so far as to say last week that the Assembly should only support legislation that was approved by the major religious leaders.
Organised religion does not have a monopoly over morality or ethics. I am concerned that we have now reached a point in Australian public life that our parliaments seemingly require the acquiescence of the major religious leaders to enact laws. Given the position outlined by the ACT Liberals in this debate, and in recognition and in all of the debates around recognition the rights of same-sex couples, it would appear that we can expect a Seselja government, should that ever occur, to adopt a very similar conservative position on a range of other issues, like abortion, adoption, should they ever form government in the ACT.
It saddens me in an agenda of social inclusion that we have seen embraced by the Rudd government that it does not appear to extend to fully including gays and lesbians in Australian life. It appears the Rudd government does not want to be seen, even in a technical way, as starting or approving the starting of gay relationships, but it is happy to recognise them if they exist. But both registration and civil unions qualify gay and lesbian couples for almost equal treatment, but civil unions, it seems, look too much like weddings and therefore, according to the federal government, they are bad.
The question must be asked why. There is no logic in opposing civil unions whilst encouraging registration. The federal government apparently does not object to gay couples or object to legally recognising them. It just objects to ceremonies. As one commentator has observed, apparently this is a problem with symbolism, not practicalities. I must admit I find that interesting from a government whose first major efforts have been to apologise to the stolen generations and to sign the Kyoto treaty. The question I would ask is why shouldn’t same-sex partners be able to stand up in front of their family and friends and receive the blessing of the state for their union? The federal government is effectively saying that some relationships are more legitimate than others, that some loving, committed, long-term relationships are, for some inexplicable reason, of lesser value.
I have it said in this place before that good governments seek to lead on important social issues. Good governments set the social agenda for their communities. They govern as leaders, not as followers. This government believes that all loving, committed relationships deserve to be treated equally and to be celebrated. To the extent that this bill, as amended, achieves these aims, it is an important step forward.
That said, I acknowledge that this is not all that it could have been and that many are disappointed that it does not go further. Some very important reforms remain in the bill though. The ACT government will be able to offer many benefits that flow from formal recognition of relationships. Partners will still be able to have ceremonies at which a representative of the ACT government presides.
Strong relationships deliver important benefits to us all. We all define ourselves in some way by those we choose to share our lives with—love, trust, intimacy and commitment are found at the heart of all good relationships. Even in its modified form, this Civil Partnerships Bill encourages, empowers and protects couples who want to make their relationships loving, long-term, stable and committed. We should embrace all such relationships; they enrich us all.
The passage of this bill is a step towards the removal of discrimination that is intensely felt by Canberrans who have been living in long-term, loving, same-sex relationships. It will help ensure that our citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, are shown the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. I also believe it will put the spotlight on other jurisdictions to introduce similar schemes and it will pressure the Tasmanian and Victorian governments to go that step further with their legislation and to allow ceremonies.
I commend the bill to the Assembly. Even in its modified form, it is better and it is a step forward from where we are now. I hope that this legal recognition will prompt more people in same-sex relationships to come forward proudly into our community. Finally, I wish all of those couples who choose to formalise their relationships under this new law long and happy lives together. I know that their commitment will be recognised and warmly embraced by the ACT Labor government and by the vast majority of their fellow Canberrans. And I thank all those who have stuck around tonight [in the public gallery] to be part of this debate.
