Bills

Statutes Amendment (Legalisation of Same Sex Marriage Consequential Amendments) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2019.)

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (15:40): I rise today to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Legalisation of Same Sex Marriage Consequential Amendments) Bill and to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the bill. Labor will be supporting this bill; we are proud to do so. The changes contained within this bill are required following the federal parliament's legalisation of same-sex marriage, which was preceded by an extraordinary debate and campaign undertaken for equality by a huge number of people in our Australian community.

They are also changes that speak directly to the step forward towards equality that we have taken as an Australian community, a step of which we can all be proud, a step which speaks to who we are and to what our nation values—inclusivity, equality, acceptance and diversity. It is a step that speaks to what binds us and to what we in unity can achieve.

All of us in this house could recollect the sometimes utterly moving and inspiring and yet, devastatingly, sometimes unkind, sometimes heartbreaking public discourse and debates on same-sex marriage. It was a very long process—far too long—but thankfully it culminated in a victory for common sense, for love and for equality despite some awful scaremongering, absolutely not driven by love and acceptance, by some sections of our community and, indeed, by some sections of politics.

It was a victory that was made possible by the courage and relentless campaigning of individual community members and groups who believed in equality, in love and acceptance and in marriage equality, who were prepared to speak up about those beliefs. In doing so, they generously gave of themselves, sometimes at personal cost. A number of activists had campaigned for this with resilience and determination for literally decades. I pay tribute to all of them and in doing so I particularly highlight a local southern group, Pride of the South, who had repeated conversations with community members about what marriage equality meant to them and why, for our local community, supporting equality was so important.

Thank you to Shayne Glasgow, Llewellyn Jones, Marc Roberts, William Rattley, Rex Moulds and Michael Tomas and all members who took to Christies Beach Coles, other shopping centres, local parks and telephones to talk with local people about their views and to encourage them to return their vote. They are local people talking with local people about the kind of community we want to be, about why love should always triumph over hate, about the need for acceptance.

I commend these courageous, lovely people for their voices, for their endurance, for their care for one another and for their determination to engage our local community in this debate. Their work was outstanding and their ongoing work significantly contributes to our local community being a kind, inclusive and accepting place where LGBTIQ+ people are celebrated and where their rights are advocated for and advanced.

In the south, we were very proud of the vote in the federal seat of Kingston: 68.1 per cent, the third highest affirmative vote of any electorate in South Australia and 6 per cent above the national results. South Australia has a strong and proud history of progressive and groundbreaking legislation. South Australia became the first place in the British Empire to legalise trade unions in 1876. In 1894, South Australia became the first state in Australia where women successfully fought for the right to vote, and became the first place in the world to also grant women the right to stand for parliament.

Don Dunstan, South Australian premier through the 1970s, brought about social reform by introducing consumer legislation, anti-race and sex discrimination legislation, lowering the voting age, decriminalising homosexuality and supporting the Women's Liberation Movement. We have a lot to be proud of.

This bill is non-controversial and largely technical in nature, replacing gendered language in 19 acts with gender-neutral language. When two people, regardless of gender or how they identify, love each other they should be able to make a publicly and legally recognised declaration of that love. Because equality triumphed, same-sex couples across Australia now can, and because same-sex marriage has been legalised South Australia must also modernise its legislation to reflect that change, for example, by changing the words 'husband' or 'wife' to 'spouse'. I do not think any person could have significant or indeed any concerns about that.

It is also worth noting that, in the ordinary course of events, where state and federal legislation is inconsistent the federal provisions would succeed over the state provisions. I understand that would likely be the case in this instance also. These changes really are inevitable and irresistible.

I conclude my contribution simply by saying, again, that Labor is proud to support this bill and I commend it to the house.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (15:46): In this opposition I am the shadow minister with portfolio responsibility for LGBTIQ+ inclusion, and I am really proud to hold that position and advocate on behalf of this community in policy matters on this side of the house. While Labor has a proud record on LGBTIQ+ rights, we do recognise that also many people from the other side of the chamber—the Liberal Party—and many people from other parties have made significant contributions to advancing equality, and this bill is just another example.

It has been more than a decade since the parliament last considered an omnibus bill that affected same-sex couples of the scale that this bill presents—the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill 2006. This, of course, was prior to my joining the chamber, but in reading Hansard and hearing from those involved it seems to have been a debate that was tortuous in its twists and turns, a debate characterised by many sneaky tricks as opponents vainly sought to place obstacles in the way of change.

It took three bills, two rounds of public inquiry and an intervening election to finally see the parliament embrace South Australia's same-sex couples and afford them equal standing as domestic partners for the purposes of state laws. Indeed, so protracted and prolonged was the debate that South Australia ended up being the last state to recognise same-sex couples. We were quite literally the ‘wooden spoon’ state as the Let's Get Equal campaign at that time called us—an extraordinary position for a state which so proudly led the way in decriminalisation of homosexuality over 40 years ago, an anniversary which this chamber acknowledged only a few years ago.

I would like to acknowledge former and current MPs in both chambers from all parties who led the way in that tumultuous and tortuous debate. Of course, there is Steph Key, Frances Bedford, Isobel Redmond, Mark Brindal, Michelle Lensink, Ian Hunter, Kate Reynolds, and I am sure I have missed some names there, too. Most particularly I would like to acknowledge the LGBTIQ+ community leaders past and present who brought passion, energy and urgency into the business of this parliament.

This omnibus bill, while perhaps not as long as the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006 with its 228 amendments, I think will have much plainer sailing through this parliament. Perhaps that in itself is a metaphor for the social change that the last decade has seen for LGBTIQ+ South Australians. Capped by the enactment of same-sex marriage after a long and gruelling national debate, this has been a proud decade that has seen much achievement: equality for same-sex de facto partners, national anti-discrimination laws, a national LGBTIQ+ health strategy, recognition of same-sex parenting and reforms to support transgender Australians in affirming their gender identity, to name a few.

Of course, we have also added to our state's repertoire of protections for LGBTIQ+ South Australians through a range of government and private members' bills that have passed with bipartisan support. For so many LGBTIQ+ Australians, life will be better as a result of these and other changes to law and government policy. At no other time in our nation's history have LGBTIQ+ Australians had the level of acceptance that they now enjoy.

On the weekend, I attended the Feast picnic at Pinky Flat with thousands of South Australians, not just from the LGBTIQ+ community but from the mainstream community. All sorts of South Australians—some with disabilities and others with a variety of vulnerabilities—brought their own personal journeys to that picnic. Everyone was together having a great time. There was no sign of trouble. There were lots of signs of learning, and in fact the most enjoyable time that I had with friends was doing an Auslan class using gay and lesbian sign language. That was very informative, very interesting and a lot of fun. I thank all the display hosts who were there and all the people who attended and congratulate the organisers.

It is so painfully clear that there is much left to do. There is a self-evident reaction at play within the conservative commentariat and political class. The ill-conceived and poorly drafted Religious Discrimination Bill that is being hawked around currently by the Morrison government is one example. It is a bill that, if enacted in its current form, would see rights wound back in defiance of the clear majority of the Australian voting public.

Transgender people have become the most recent lightning rod for the conservative reaction and, sadly, we have seen populist politicians cynically exploiting this sentiment with dog whistles that rival those of the Howard era. What possesses anyone to think that it is their right to belittle, victimise or mock another person on the basis of who they love or how they identify themselves to the world is beyond me.

Despite this decade of achievement, there is really still so much to do. There are laws and policies to be changed and there are hearts and minds to be won over. I want to send a clear message to LGBTIQ+ South Australians that I and many other people within this parliament will always stand with you in your call for equality and acceptance. This bill is yet one more step in the journey that our community has been on together to make your lives better and the lives of future generations of LGBTIQ+ South Australians. I commend the bill to the house and hope it has a speedy passage.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (15:52): I wish to acknowledge the two speakers who have contributed to this debate and the indication of the opposition's support for the bill. I also appreciate the indications of support for the primarily nationally significant reforms that have resulted in our having the responsibility to now make our legislation consistent with that.

By virtue of this bill, we are not only replacing 'husband' and/or 'wife' with appropriate words such as 'spouse' and 'surviving spouse' instead of 'widow' or 'widower' and the like but also dealing with modern-day circumstances—for example, dealing with what we call modern-day bigamy, where somebody might be married once under the usual arrangements of marriage but then also be on the register for cohabitation relationships. We need to deal with these issues. They are new, modern, publicly recognised and supported relationships and, accordingly, this legislation is important.

If I have not already indicated, consultation on this matter was quite significant for obvious reasons. Other than the usual suspects or those who are directly affected by each of the acts of parliament that we are amending, the most significant one here, of course, is the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who is not frequently called upon as the most significant stakeholder in these matters. However, it is the registrar's responsibility to make sure that we have the model of record to ensure that these things can be implemented.

It is also important, in our own use of all the legislation that is being considered, whether that deals with superannuation entitlements of a solicitor-general, whether it involves matters under the Evidence Act for the proper administration of the receiving of evidence in courts or whether it relates to matters such as the Settled Estates Act of 1880. So it crosses a number of areas. We need to contemporise these, and that is exactly what this bill is doing. Whilst it is narrow in its purpose, it is expansive across all sorts of laws that we use here in South Australia. I thank members for their support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, which stakeholders did you consult on this bill and in what form?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will answer the second part first. I understand it was by letter, which I think was conveyed by email. Together with a copy of the draft bill, it went to the following parties: the South Australian Bar Association; the Law Society of South Australia; the Judge of the Youth Court; the Chief Magistrate; the Chief Judge of the District Court; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government; the Solicitor-General; the Minister for Child Protection; the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity; the Commissioner of Police; the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia; the Treasurer; the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions; the Registrar-General (that is, in relation to lands titles); and the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Ms HILDYARD: Could you advise the position of each of those stakeholders in regard to the content and the amendments contained within the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I assume the following information is up to date. The bill went out for consultation on 17 July. Before the commencement of the debate in this house, the position was as follows: the South Australian Bar Association gave no response. The Law Society responded on 7 August 2019 with specific comment; they supported the bill. There was no response from the Judge of the Youth Court. The Chief Justice's response on 29 July 2019 was no specific comment and noted that the bill had no operational impact on the court—that is, her court. The Chief Judge of the District Court gave no response. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gave no specific comment in his response of 12 August 2019.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government gave no specific comment in his response on 31 July 2019. The Solicitor-General had not formally responded but had provided informal approval in person to the legal officer. The Minister for Child Protection had no specific comment in her response of 8 August 2019. I will check on what the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity said in her response of 5 August 2019. The Commissioner of Police responded on 6 August 2019, and I will check what he said. The Electoral Commissioner of South Australia gave no response. The Treasurer responded on 11 August 2019: I do not know what his response was, but if it was something important I am sure I would have a note of it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Exactly, he probably just wanted to know how much it cost. The Acting Director of Public Prosecutions responded on 5 August 2019 with no specific comment. The Registrar-General of the lands titles office supported changes to the Real Property Act 1886 in his response of 1 August 2019. The Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, as I indicated in reply, provided feedback to the legal officer at a meeting on 5 August 2019.

I am just going to go to Dr Vincent. Not only did she support the bill but she provided some helpful information in relation to the requirement for cohabitation in respect of four acts that related to superannuation. We will see what the Commissioner of Police said in a minute. I am advised that that was general support as well.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, will you provide any of those submissions made by stakeholders?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As repeatedly advised in committee on bills in this matter, in relation to all internal agencies, most of which were those, the answer is no. But, as the Bar Association did not provide an answer, I refer the member to the Law Society's response that will be online.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 40) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.