Senate debates

Thursday, 15 June 2006

Australian Capital Territory Civil Unions Legislation

12:25 pm

Photo of Ron BoswellRon Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a Clayton’s marriage. In the government’s view, the amendments did not alter the substance of the ACT law. The legislation clearly undermined the institution of marriage and was an attempt to circumvent the definition of marriage contained in the Commonwealth Marriage Act. In 2004, the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party clarified the understanding that marriage is a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This was supported by both sides of parliament. A civil union of two people of the same gender cannot therefore be equated with a marriage.

So even though the federal government advised them of their lack of standing with the Civil Unions Act, the ACT proceeded regardless, for a political stunt. The ACT deliberately set out to equate civil unions with marriage, which is a contravention of the definition of the Marriage Act, for which the Commonwealth has sole authority. They knew that; they were advised of alternatives; and yet they continued to proceed down the original path. There was a way through that did not offend the Commonwealth act, but the ACT government did not choose to go down that path. Perhaps the ACT should pay more attention to keeping their schools open and their budgets in balance than playing diversionary politics.

The Nationals believe strongly in the fundamental institution of marriage, as defined by this parliament as recently as 2004. We will take the necessary steps to defend marriage and do whatever it takes. In the end, it is the ACT and its citizens who are diminished by their government’s rank amateur behaviour.

Comments

No comments