How the Civil Partnerships Bill public hearing played out

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 12 years ago

How the Civil Partnerships Bill public hearing played out

brisbanetimes.com.au will be providing live rolling coverage of the public hearing into the Queensland government's proposed Civil Partnerships Bill.

By Staff reporters

That's it from us today, everyone. Thanks for reading!

5.10pm: The final submission of the day (is that a sigh of relief we just heard?) comes from the Queensland Law Society, fronted by President Bruce Doyle. They're not happy with the ''very short consulation period'' that they say was allotted for the bill, though they support the policy behind it.

Today the public has its say on the state government's Civil Partnerships Bill.

Today the public has its say on the state government's Civil Partnerships Bill.Credit: Nicholas Walker

They make some interesting points that no-one else today has raised, about the legal benefits of introducing civil partnerships. Determining whether a de facto relationship exists can result in a huge amount of legal costs, Mr Doyle said. If de facto couples (heterosexual or homosexual) registered their relationships, it would be assumed these cases would be reduced. Mr Doyle said the society believed there would be benefits in other areas of law as well including taxation and succession.

Mr Doyle says it's clear that civil partnerships are not a marriage and though while some advocates of same-sex marriage might hope for more, this bill was the best the state government could do within its powers.

He also said he expected heterosexual couples to want to enter civil partnerships, as well as same-sex couples, in order to commit to a long-term relationship ''without the cultural baggage of marriage''.

4.26pm: The Reverend Leigh Neighbour, who has been a pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church in Brisbane since 1980, tells the committee he has been in a relationship with a man for 31 years and has three sons from a marriage that broke down because of his sexual orientation.

Dr Neighbour's supporting the bill.

Kevin Cocks AM, speaking for the Anti-Discrimination Commission, is up now. He says the introduction of this law would be something we would be judged on positively in the future.

"The Anti-Discrimination Commission sees this as a significant step in dismantling some of the discrimination against gays and lesbians," he says.

4.00pm: From the submission from the Qld Council for Civil Liberties, presented by Michael Cope, on the value of modernisation: otherwise "slavery would persist, aristocrats would run government and women would not have the vote".

It probably doesn't need to be said that they are supporting the bill.

The councill also wants an amendment to the bill, that if a civil partnership lasts longer than two years, conciliation be attempted before it ends.

Advertisement

Dean Wells says this would make it more like a marriage contract, and doubts the author of the bill would welcome it.

3.39pm: Derek Cronin, a Gold Coast lawyer, is speaking on behalf of Queensland Association for Healthy Communities, of Rip 'n' Roll fame.

He's been in a relationship with a man for 14 years (to the day, he says) and describes himself as from a Catholic background with traditional family values.

One of his main worries is the issue of proving a relationship to hospital staff during a medical emergency when it's "family only".

Mr Cronin says while he and his partner have supportive families, and that as a lawyer he's easily able to draft legal documents giving each other powers of attorney, he's concerned for couples without that luxury.

3.15pm: All parties refreshed from afternoon tea, we resume with the Very Reverend Peter Catt from the Anglican Church of Australia's Social Responsibilities Committee.

Dr Catt's supporting the bill.

"It doesn't affect the institution of marriage. The legitimacy of marriage is not denied or denigrated by this bill,’’ he says.

"It will extend the liberty of some without impinging on the liberty of others."

Dr Catt says the Anglican Church has no official position on the issue of civil partnerships.

He says that when he went public with his support for the bill two weeks ago - "I thought I was going to be putting my head on the chopping block," he says - but his feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

A main reason for his support seems to be the issue of next of kin, stating he'd been told by hospital chaplains that people's partners were being excluded from crucial decisions.

He's now saying that marriage is a "really good thing" but was being undermined by "bad marriages", rather than issues like this.

"There's a lot of bad marriages," Grace Grace says.

Chris Foley wants him to clarify that he's speaking on behalf of the Anglican Church's Social Responsibilities Committee, not the church as a whole, and the Reverend agrees.

2.41pm: Another phoner, this time Alex Greenwich from Australian Marriage Equality. His support for the bill is mainly about legal reasons.

"This will provide Queensland couples with basic documentary evidence of their relationship," he says.

"This bill is not marriage. It should not be considered controversial. It simply gets Queensland up to date with a number of other states and territories."

He's now being questioned on his claim that the law wouldn't cost the government anything, by independent MP Chris Foley. It would surely cost the government money to set up a new body to oversee the register, Mr Foley says.

Mr Greenwich says that money could be recouped by licensing fees from couples registering their relationship, he says, as well as potentially a boost in tourism when couples from other states travel here to register their partnerships.

Does that mean Brisbane would truly become BrisVegas?

And with that, we're breaking again already. Afternoon tea. Back at 3pm.

2.32pm: The LNP's Jarrod Bleijie has a question for Linda Baccual-Petrie. If it's such a big issue, where were only 177 civil partnerships registered in New South Wales in 2010? She says she can't speak for NSW.

Next up is Shelley Argent. She's joining us by phone - "this could lead to Monty Pythonesque situations", Dean Wells warns after the earlier phone troubles. Shelley is the current Queenslander of the Year, isn't she, John-Paul Langbroek asks.

But here she is. She's speaking as the national chair of the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Association.

The legislation should be enacted to give same-sex couples greater legal rights, she says, from avoiding issues when booking hotels to dealing with hospital emergency staff.

"This piece of paper will prove next of kin," she says.

2.17pm: And we're back.

Linda Baccual-Petrie is speaking. She's an independent LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) activist, rebutting the arguments put forward by the church groups this morning by saying this isn't about marriage, but civil partnerships.

She's telling some stories of homophobic attacks in Queensland, including one on her years ago she says that left her bedridden for three months.

Implementing this legislation, she says, will send a message that "we don't hate here anymore".

1.07pm: One last witness before lunch. It's Alan Baker from the Family Council of Queensland. And it looks like he's phoning a friend - there's a phone on the desk and we're told it is calling Dr David van Gend. Except we get his voicemail.

"Tell him it's the Parliament of Queensland calling but don't call us back because we're in a meeting," Dean Wells says.

OK, we've got him now.

Dr van Gend has biological arguments opposing the bill - namely, that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, although he notes not all marriages do produce children.

He quotes an unlikely source to support his arguments, the liberal philosopher Bertrand Russell: "It is through children alone that sexual relationships become important to society."

Mr Baker is now speaking, telling us that social science shows kids raised by their biological parents do better than kids in any other situation, like blended or single parent families.

Time for lunch. We'll be back at 1.45pm.

12.41pm: Tempe Harvey and Veronica Hayes from the National Marriage Coalition take centre stage.

Ms Harvey says this bill is being rushed. She says it will be "a social version of the carbon tax, rushed and thrust on the community without an electoral mandate".

Ms Harvey has three main issues with the bill and says it will create a "commitment-free, promiscuous, commercial version of marriage".

How? Because the wording in the bill doesn't say the civil partnership would be for life like marriage is - that's commitment-free, she says.

It doesn't say "to the exclusion of all others", which, she says, promotes promiscuity. And it contains a "cooling-off period", like a purchase - that's commerciality, she says.

Ms Harvey also fears changing the definition of marriage could lead to incestuous or group marriage.

The panel asks her if their organisation is from Queensland: No, they're not registered here, she says, though she is from Queensland. This is the issue raised earlier by Wendy Francis - that submissions from outside the state not be accepted.

And, a reminder of what's to come:

12.21pm: Geoffrey Bullock from Family Voice Australia, which he describes as a Christian ministry, is the latest to speak.

He's got a reading recommendation for us - the 1934 book Sex and Culture by JD Unwin.

Unwin, a non-Christian, Mr Bullock says, found that throughout history, civilisations flourished when they valued monogamous, heterosexual relationships, and floundered when they failed to do so.

On a side note, my iPhone keeps autocorrecting monogamous to 'monotonous'. Steve Jobs was pro-marriage, right?

And our apologies to Reverend Allan Quak for the earlier (now corrected) unfortunate misspelling of his name. We'd like to blame the iPhone autocorrect, but the buck stops here!

11.56am: Reverend Allan Quak from the Northside Evangelical Church is the sixth speaker and, so far, they've all been anti-civil partnerships.

He's quoting statistics from countries that have gay marriage or civil partnerships and says that the take-up among their gay population (in marriage/partnerships) is actually very low.

"My point is, is this such an important issue that's pressing for Queensland?," he asks.

Reverend Quak also said he fears the state government is doing this with a view to introducing gay marriage.

Meanwhile, over on Twitter:

  • @Rophuine Jenny Spyve says marriage doesn't evolve. Blacks still can't marry whites and women are still property. #qldpol #civilunions

11.46am: The #civilunions hashtag is still overwhelmingly supportive of the bill, but it's hardly going off:

  • @Nadine_Zrinzo I fail to understand what role God plays in #CivilUnions... It's a matter for the state - which is why they are called CIVIL unions!
  • @nickjdalton The Rev can't provide evidence of this "social breakdown", as he doesn't have any with him, but he can get it. #civilunions #qldpol

Meanwhile, over at #qldpol:

  • @Qlder I think it says a log about the leanings of twitter folk that #qldpol is suddenly flooded with #civilunions talk.

11.40am: Next speaker is pastor Jenny Spyve, from West End's Rivers Community Church.

She says certain things evolve in society, but marriage isn't one of them.

It's an absolute wrong to kill or steal, she says, and she feels marriage is a similar absolute.

Some things in society evolve - like iPhones, "We can now carry computers in our pocket," she says - but marriage isn't one of them.

11.32am: We've now got a reverend from the Living House Family Church.

"Other nations have deviated from this bedrock definition (of marriage) and paid the price," he says.

That price being "social breakdown".

Describing marriage as being between a man and a woman isn't discriminatory, he says, but rather descriptive.

He says state Labor should respect the promise made by federal Labor - Julia Gillard's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

John-Paul Langbroek is questioning him: "Do you have any evidence of the 'social breakdown' caused in other countries by the introduction of gay marriage?"

The reverend says not with him today, but he can get it.

"I would like to see some empirical evidence," Mr Langbroek says.

11.20am: Chris Foley is asking a Dorothy Dixer question of the Reverend. He says the 'true Christians' feel love towards gays and that Christians have been unfairly pilloried as hateful towards then.

Says he's disappointed that no other religions, who might have equally strong views on the issue, are appearing today.

"The Christian faith has become the pariah or whipping boy for this argument."

However he himself has got a lot of gay friends, he says. "You might be surprised that a country town like Maryborough (where he's from) has a very high proportion of gay people."

But despite this, he is worried about fatherless kids. Kids do better with a dad and a mum.

11.08am: Meanwhile, in the Twitterverse, the #civilunions hashtag seems largely in support of the bill:

  • @NicoleLessio #civilunions technically already happen -any marriage not in a church. Has the sky fallen? Of course not! This is a natural evolution of law
  • @dawnstarau I don't understand all this hatred towards same sex #civilunions - Are they really worried it might result in zombie nazis riding dinosaurs?
  • @james_cummins "federal issue" "rushed process" "waste of resources and time" Its not fucking tax reform. It's pretty straightforward #civilunions #qldpol

11.07am: Reverend Moore is referring to single parent families as single-sex families, which makes literal sense.

He says in 40 years in his job he's never seen a "single-sex family" set up intentionally. That is, he's seen families divorce, as his own parents did, and become a single sex/single parent family, but they hadn't started out with the purpose of setting up their family that way.

There are serious concerns about where this law could lead, he says.

He knows de facto single sex relationships do already exist but we should be making them a legal relationship that mimics marriage.

Grace Grace says the civil partnerships could also happen among heterosexual couples, who don't want to get married. Is he opposed to that?

Yes, he says, because they should just get married. There are so many benefits to marriage, he doesn't see why that's not preferable.

10.58am: It seems the Reverend Kettniss is a no-show. Dean Wells says perhaps Wendy Francis would like to speak some more.

"Sure!" she says, standing up with her notes.

Oh no. He was just joking.

10.37am: We're now breaking for morning tea.

The full list of MPs overseeing the hearing are:

  • Grace Grace, ALP, Brisbane Central
  • Jarrod Bleijie, LNP, Kawana
  • Dean Wells, ALP, Murrumba
  • John-Paul Langbroek, LNP, Surfers Paradise
  • Carolyn Male, ALP, Pine Rivers
  • Chris Foley, Independent, Maryborough

After we resume we'll hear from Reverend G Kettniss from the Presbytery of Brisbane, Presbyterian Church of Australia.

10.33am: We're still on the Very Rev Dr Adrian Farrelly.

He says the bill is discriminatory in that it restricts civil unions to couples. "What if people want to be in a threesome or a foursome and register all these relationships?"

Labor MP Grace Grace laughs. "Are you advocating that?"

Reverend replies by asking if she's opposing three-way relationships. "They won't vote for you." Doesn't define who "they" are.

10.25am: Reverend says he doesn't see how it's a matter of rights. And that it seems be be redefining what marriage is.

"People have all sorts of rights... I can't see that any right to redefine what marriage is [exists]. [Marriage is] not something that's open to redefinition for the sake of some."

He says it would be like redefining a certain sport because some people wanted to play it differently.

Adds that if he wanted to declare a relationship publicly he would call all his friends together and declare it.

10.15am: Next up is the Very Reverend Dr Adrian Farelly from the John Paul II Centre for Family and Life, Archdiocese of Brisbane. He says he's never done this before and asks for ground rules. JPL tells him, "Well for a start we don't have any bastardisation." Not quite sure what that meant. Perhaps it referred to their submission?

10.09am: Ms Francis is concerned that submissions will be made by people outside of Queensland or Australia. Says these should not be counted.

Former LNP leader John-Paul Langbroek tells her they don't just tally up all the submissions that are pro the issue "like a Channel 10 phone poll".

10.04am: Wendy Francis sums up her main points:

  • that marriage is a federal issue not a state issue
  • this is an inappropriate use of Queensland's time & resources
  • it appears to be an attempt to influence the ALP national conference
  • it's undermining a child's right to at least begin life with their biological mother and father

9.59am: Queensland MP Karen Struthers just tweeted this, presumably from inside the hearing, where the Australian Christian Lobby's Wendy Francis is making her group's submission.

  • I didn't look to the bible for my views on civil unions, it came from my heart #wheredidulookwendy

9.56am: Wendy Francis from the Australian Christian Lobby begins her submission. Main concern seems to be that "the process is flawed" and that the Bill is being rushed.

It should be able to stand up the greater scrutiny, she says.

9.48am: As we wait for the Australian Christian Lobby to kick off today's hearing, here's a few previous stories on brisbanetimes.com.au about the Bill.

9.43am: For those who'd like to read Andrew Fraser's proposed Civil Partnerships Bill, you can do so here.

9.35am: Today, brisbanetimes.com.au will be providing live rolling coverage of the public hearing into the state government's proposed Civil Partnerships Bill.

Loading

The hearing, in front of the Legal Affairs, Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services Committee, is taking place at the Parliamentary Annexe of Queensland's Parliament from 9.30am-5pm.

Here is a quick rundown of the speakers:

  • 9.45am – 10.05am Australian Christian Lobby
  • 10.05am – 10.25am John Paul II Centre for Family and Life, Archdiocese of Brisbane
  • 10.25am – 10.45am Break
  • 10.45am – 11.00am Presbytery of Brisbane, Presbyterian Church of Australia
  • 11.00am – 11.15am C3 Church Australia
  • 11.15am – 11.30am Living House Family Church
  • 11.30am – 11.40am Rivers Community Church Inc. / Rock Community Care Inc.
  • 11.40am – 11.50am Northside Evangelical Church
  • 11.50am – 12.05pm Family Voice Australia
  • 12.05pm – 12.20pm National Marriage Coalition
  • 12.20pm – 12.35pm Australian Family Association
  • 12.35pm – 12.50pm Family Council of Queensland
  • 12.50pm – 1.00pm Adjournment
  • 1.00pm – 1.45pm Lunch break
  • 1.45pm – 2.00pm Independent Catholic Church of Australia
  • 2.00pm – 2.15pm Ms Linda Baccual-Petrie
  • 2.15pm – 2.25pm Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
  • 2.25pm – 2.40pm Australian Marriage Equality
  • 2.40pm – 3.00pm Break
  • 3.00pm – 3.20pm Social Responsibilities Committee, Anglican Church of Australia
  • 3.20pm – 3.35pm Queensland Association for Healthy Communities
  • 3.35pm – 3.50pm Queensland Council for Civil Liberties
  • 3.50pm – 4.05pm Metropolitan Community Church Brisbane
  • 4.05pm – 4.30pm Anti-Discrimination Commission
  • 4.30pm – 4.50pm Queensland Law Society

Most Viewed in National

Loading