Download PDF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP
NEWS RELEASE
Location: ABC Local Radio, Canberra
Date: 7 February 2007
________________________________________________________________________
Topic: SameâSex Unions
________________________________________________________________________
Interviewer: Ross Solly:
Good morning AttorneyâGeneral: General.
AttorneyâGeneral:
Good morning Ross.
Ross Solly:
And thanks for your time.
AttorneyâGeneral:
Pleasure.
Ross Solly:
Why have you knocked this on the head?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well we think the Bill is still one which because of the provisions that are contained in it likens it to marriage and our view is that while it continues to do
that it doesnʹt meet our view which is that civil partnership issues ought not to be addressed as being like marriage.
Ross Solly:
The new laws though, it removed the line which stated quite plainly that civil union would be treated in the same way as marriage. That lineʹs gone.
AttorneyâGeneral:
Thatʹs right. I mean there were some changes that were appropriate. There were others that in our view should have occurred and havenʹt.
Ross Solly:
Like?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well Iʹll mention two of them but there are a number of others. The first is that it involves a formal ceremony. If youʹre having partnership agreements and youʹre registering them you donʹt have to have a formal ceremony which is marriageâ like with a celebrant. I note that theyʹre not requiring marriage celebrants to do it but they can do it and it provides for registration of other celebrants. There are also provisions in relation to minors. I mean this is not a partnership arrangement involving adults. It involves the potential for minors in the same way that the Marriage Act does to have a court or parental consent, and it uses the
marriage model directly.
Ross Solly:
What is wrong with having a formal ceremony using a celebrant? I mean these are two people who presumably love each other. They want to show that they love each other. They want to have it formalised in some way. What possible damage can it do to heterosexual marriage and the status of that in society by having a couple of the same sex with a celebrant overseeing it marking the occasion and measuring their love for each other?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well, I mean, what itʹs doing is equating it with marriage. And other states have arrangements like this. They donʹt provide for celebrants or a ceremony.
Ross Solly:
But what damage does it do to marriage to have a setup where youʹve got a celebrant overseeing a same sex couple?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well I think the point I would make is that marriage is an issue that is dealt with in accordance with the Constitution by the Commonwealth and the law, the Marriage Act, implements that power. It ensures that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and thatʹs the way in which it is defined. To put in place arrangements which give you what purports to be, to all intents and purposes, a marriage undermines that institution.
Ross Solly:
But laws are changed all the time and that law has been in place for some time. Do you think society has changed since those laws came into force? Have we become a more tolerant society? Have people recognised now that these relationships do exist and maybe should be recognised?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well weʹve got no problem about the recognition of them. The fact is in Tasmania they are recognised but merely registered, and they donʹt purport to have a ceremony which puts it more on a par with what is in fact a marriage.
Ross Solly:
Is your main concern here that people in heterosexual relationships wonʹt consider marriage to be as sacrosanct because people of the same sex are able to join together?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well, I mean our position has always been clear that we want to deal with a range of issues that discriminate against people in same sex relationships, but we donʹt intend that same sex relationships should constitute a marriage in the form that the Commonwealth regulates those matters. And our view is that if you put in place arrangements which bring it in line with what constitutes a marriage
then itʹs not an issue of just removing discrimination. Itʹs a matter of equating it with marriage and in our view thatʹs not appropriate.
Ross Solly:
Why? Because it cheapens the status of marriage?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well I think marriage is always a form of cultural institution, if I might call it that, for our society to provide a proper basis in which children might be conceived and brought up and provided proper support. Our view is that families ought to be supported and the institution of marriage should be supported.
Ross Solly:
Do you believe that a sameâsex couple can have the same level of love for one another as a couple in a heterosexual relationship?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well our principal concern is to â and Iʹm not being judgmental about relationships â our principal concern is to where we can to remove discrimination and weʹre seeking to do that. We donʹt think putting those relationships on all fours with marriage is the appropriate direction to go.
Ross Solly:
Thatʹs discriminatory in itself though isnʹt it?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well, marriage is a cultural institution for our society in which there are anticipated specific arrangements for them and itʹs never been the case that sameâsex relationships are a marriage and our view is that the discrimination that may exist where it can be effectively removed ought to be, but not to put them on all fours.
Ross Solly:
I know youʹve got to go. Youʹve got a meeting.
AttorneyâGeneral:
No. Iʹve got to introduce some Bills into the House at nine.
Ross Solly:
Okay. Can I just ask you? Do you have friends who are in a gay relationship at all?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Yeah.
Ross Solly:
And do you look at their relationship ...
AttorneyâGeneral:
Do I value their friendship?
Ross Solly:
No, no. Well. Do you consider their relationship to be as strong and as important as say you and your wife who have been together for a very, very long time.
AttorneyâGeneral:
Look, I understand that people can have longstanding relationships and the relationships between them are very strong and Iʹm not judgmental about those matters, but I donʹt expect them to be entering into marriages.
Ross Solly:
Have they lobbied you at all on this?
AttorneyâGeneral:
I mean there are lobby groups but amongst those that I know they havenʹt raised it. They generally raise matters of greater substance to them in terms of the way in which their personal affairs are organised and where they think there is discrimination.
Ross Solly:
What would you say then to those friends of yours and to other people here in the ACT who have been pinning their hopes I suppose and looking forward to
the day when their union can be recognised? What would you say to them today?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Well Iʹd say what Iʹve been saying to you, that we will continue to work positively to remove aspects of discrimination but weʹre not about to make same sex relationships a formal marriage.
Ross Solly:
This decision, is it yours alone or someone in your department? Who do you seek advice from on this?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Look, I mean I didnʹt speak to you the other day because the matter was to be considered by Cabinet. So, in these matters theyʹre Cabinet decisions.
Ross Solly:
So it was a Cabinet decision?
AttorneyâGeneral:
Mm hm. I donʹt do these things on my own.
Ross Solly:
Were there any dissenting voices in Cabinet?
AttorneyâGeneral:
If there were I wouldnʹt be able to tell you. Nice to talk to you Ross.
Ross Solly:
Yes, thanks very much. AttorneyâGeneral: General Philip Ruddock this morning on his reasons for knocking this on the head.
Simon Corbell, the ACT AttorneyâGeneral, has been listening in. Good morning Mr Corbell.
Simon Corbell:
Good morning Ross.
Ross Solly:
There you go. Thatʹs the reasons for it. Youʹre building up the hopes of people here with obviously from Philip Ruddock, what heʹs saying, you had very little chance of this getting through.
Simon Corbell:
Well Ross, I think the issue really is the Commonwealth Government needs to give some substantive reason as to why this law shouldnʹt progress and I think from your interview with Mr Ruddock just now what substantive reason was he able to give?
It was a very weak and very vague argument that we really donʹt like this so weʹre going to overturn. Well to be quite respectful but nevertheless assertive about this, itʹs up to the ACT to decide how it legislates in the area of sameâsex relationships. It may not agree with Mr Ruddock or Mr Howard or others and it may be something they donʹt agree with, but these are matters for the ACT.
If a state was to legislate in this area it could do so without interference. We have the same legislative powers as a state would in this matter. Thatʹs quite clear. And the only reason they can intervene is because weʹre a territory. Surely Canberrans shouldnʹt be treated as children in this matter simply because Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock donʹt personally agree with the policy position we are taking.
Ross Solly:
Well speaking of children that was one of the issues that Mr Ruddock raised â the treatment of minors in your legislation and also heʹs also concerned and heʹs raised this before so why is it still there Simon Corbell:? He is concerned about a formal ceremony using a celebrant. That was something he raised with the first Bill. Youʹve put it back in there in different wording but itʹs still there, heʹs concerned about it. I mean if he said the first time heʹs not keen on that why would you put it in a second time?
Simon Corbell:
Well two things Ross. First of all I did write to Mr Ruddock on two occasions about our new legislation. He declined to enter into any dialogue and raise these
matters with us. The first the ACT was aware of this decision was when the press release was issued yesterday.
Ross Solly:
But you did know, you did now that he wasnʹt ...
Simon Corbell:
But coming to the substantive issue. The provision in the legislation is for the two parties to enter into a civil partnership before an authorised person. Now nowhere in the legislation does it specify a requirement for a ceremony.
But if people ... indeed in the same way as in the Marriage Act there is no requirement for a ceremony, simply for an undertaking to be witnessed by an authorised person. So our legislation does not require or impose or set up the need for a ceremony, but ...
Ross Solly:
It leaves the door open.
Simon Corbell:
Indeed, in the same way that the Marriage Act does but itʹs entirely up to individuals. If they choose to have a public ceremony is a matter for them. All we ...
Ross Solly:
If you keep saying that Simon Corbell:, if you keep saying ...
Simon Corbell:
All we require Ross is that the two parties enter into an undertaking, which is witnessed by an authorised person.
Ross Solly:
If you keep saying though ʺin the same way as the Marriage Actʺ, every time you say that itʹs another cross going next to your name because that is what the Federal government doesnʹt want to hear.
They donʹt want to hear you comparing it with the Marriage Act because the Marriage ... every day a heterosexual marriage is sacrosanct and you comparing what youʹre doing with what happens in the Marriage Act is whatʹs causing all the dramas.
Simon Corbell:
Well I would say Ross that we as a society are required to make certain undertakings before authorised persons all the time. Whenever you sign a statutory declaration you have to do it before an authorised person.
I mean this is a standard legal process and thatʹs the mechanism that our society has in law to recognise the validity of a formal undertaking whether itʹs in signing a statutory declaration, entering into a civil partnership or a range of other actions. And what is wrong with that? What is fundamentally so objectionable of that that Philip Ruddock and John Howard believe this law
should not proceed?
It just beggars belief that we have a Commonwealth Government that really isnʹt able to give any substantive argument and just says well, we think it offends the institution of marriage. Well what does that mean? And I think Mr Ruddockʹs interview this morning really highlighted that he canʹt explain what that means.
Ross Solly:
Youʹve said now that youʹre tempted to just leave this on the Bill paper. So you wonʹt go back, rework it and have a third attempt at this?
Simon Corbell:
Well itʹs important to stress Ross this legislation hasnʹt been debated or passed by the Legislative Assembly and quite clearly the Commonwealth are not interested in any genuine dialogue. Let me stress again I wrote to Mr Ruddock on two occasions following the introduction of our new legislation last year. Heʹs declined to answer or engage in any discussion. Heʹs simply in a highâhanded and arrogant way said thatʹs it. Donʹt even bother. Weʹre not going to accept it. Now that might please some in the community but I know it will make many others very angry.
The approach I think the government now needs to consider is well, maybe we just leave this lying on the table in the Assembly, seek to get the Commonwealth to give us better reasons. Iʹll be looking forward to reading Mr Ruddockʹs letter
to me this morning which I understand arrived late last night, and Iʹll be seeking better and more particular â better particulars from him on this matter. And letʹs hope that later this year we have either a new federal AttorneyâGeneral: General or a new federal government thatʹs a little bit more willing to allow the ACT to legislate for its own citizens. I mean and thatʹs what this is about at the end of the day.
We should be entitled to make decisions for how we regulate our own affairs in the same way that states are entitled to and in the same way we are entitled to under the Self Government Act.
Ross Solly:
Simon Corbell: thanks for your time this morning.
Simon Corbell:
Thank you Ross.
Media Contact: Michael Pelly 0419 278 715