Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 28 November 2017
Page: 8959

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (12:19): There is no objection from me, but I think it's very instructive that all these amendments were deemed necessary and consequential upon any potential change to the definition of marriage, matters which the Australian people were told would not be necessary; that it was just a very simple change to a few words in the act. Now, here we have eight separate lots of amendments to other pieces of legislation, confirming that which the 'no' case said was absolutely true—namely, that there are many consequential amendments. Having said that, I don't stand in the way of them because if we do go down this track as a parliament, then it makes good sense to have these amendments. So the purpose of my contribution is to simply say that those that campaigned so heavily, asserting that there are no consequential amendments required, that it is all very simple and it is just changing a few words have now been exposed. The changes are going to be far-reaching. Having said that, I do not stand in the way.