аЯрЁБс>ўџ 9;ўџџџ8џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС` №ПН bjbjЫsЫs .,ЉЉНџџџџџџЄююююююю* * * * > X 6^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 9 9 9 з й й й й й й $Žhіr§ юЏ 9 9 Џ Џ § юю^ ^ л    Џ :ю^ ю^ з  Џ з   юю ^ R €фъuЛЦ* щ  з ( 0X  hџ vh hю X9 >w , Ѓ $Ч ш9 9 9 § § u 9 9 9 X Џ Џ Џ Џ dfФfююююююџџџџ  Thank you etc As indicated in the covering letter to our submission the Gilbert + Tobin Centre confines its comments simply to the constitutional issues attendant upon possible solutions to the disadvantage to same-sex couples which the inquiry’s many other submissions seek to highlight. Using the time allocated to me to speak to our submission I propose simply to go through the main points raised and I am happy to take questions on any of these. Our starting premise is that the only way to properly address the discrimination under investigation is through the legal recognition of same-sex unions. While ensuring that same-sex couples are able to enjoy the same status as de facto heterosexual couples would be an important and valuable achievement the core of discrimination remains since heterosexual de factos have the option to remove any remaining disadvantage by having their relationship formally recognised by the law through marriage. As we said, beyond all the individual and specific examples of disadvantage to same-sex couples lies this one central distinction between their position and that of different-sex couples – they have no means of formally declaring their relationship as a legal union. From that point, the submission considers how best to enable formal recognition. While, for the very same reasons that commend the regulation of marriage by the central government, the ideal would be for a national scheme, we submit that the Commonwealth does not have an obvious source of power with which to establish this. This takes us to probably the key constitutional consideration raised by our submission which is the meaning of the grant to the Commonwealth of power to make laws with respect to ‘marriage’ under s 51(xxi) of the Constitution. Essentially, while we think a case could be made for an interpretation of that clause as including regulation of same-sex unions – and I would point to the suggestions made by Justice McHugh in a few cases that changes to contemporary standards might support a broader reading of the marriage power than existed in 1900 – the more orthodox approach seems likely to limit the meaning of ‘marriage’ to a voluntary union for life between a man and a woman. Certainly it is difficult to see the present High Court adopting a methodology which interpreted the term at such a high level of abstraction that same-sex unions were included. The consequence of this though is not just that the Commonwealth appears to lack the power to legislate for same-sex unions but that it must also lack the power to legislate against them. In which case, State laws which equate same-sex unions with marriage are immune from inconsistency with the Commonwealth’s Marriage Act. I must acknowledge that since we made our submission the Commonwealth government has acted to nullify the ACT’s Civil Unions Act. Contrary to the indications made by the Attorney-General in late May, the Commonwealth arrived at the view that that law was incompatible with its own regulation of marriage. Of course, as we acknowledged the position of the territories is quite distinct from that of the States and the Commonwealth’s ability to override the ACT legislative Assembly in this instance is not to the point were similar laws to be introduced by the States. The Tasmanian Relationships Act 2003 is a good example of what might be done – and it has managed not to attract the ire of the Commonwealth. Indeed, it seems that the main reason the Commonwealth requested the GG to disallow the ACT law was the arguably provocative nature of the drafting. That Act said ‘a civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage’. The Tasmanian scheme provides for registration of what are called ‘significant relationships’. Registration provides proof of the relationship and the persons are taken to be in a personal relationship for all purposes under Tasmanian law. Importantly, it is open for different and same sex couples to register a deed of relationship with the Tasmanian Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Same-sex couples registered under this scheme would be recognised as being in a civil union under the s 212 of the UK’s Civil Partnership Act 2004. While the Tasmanian law is an important initiative – it does stop short of putting same sex de factos on a par with marriage. It is really a device whereby non-married couples of whatever gender can readily establish the existence of a relationship without having to satisfy a court by going through the particulars. Provision of that mechanism - which in other states is only available by actually being married – removes an immediate form of discrimination. But doubtless - though I’m not placed to comment - there are instances under Tasmanian law where distinctions persist between married and de facto couples. Registration by a same-sex couple as being in a ‘personal relationship’ does not overcome that. The clearest way to do so of course is to employ the drafting which proved so fatal to the ACT Act. I believe the States could stave off constitutional challenge if that approach resulted in one from the Commonwealth but that may not be trouble they wish to invite. And of course, the registration scheme has no application to federal laws nor indeed laws of other States. As we said, the optimal situation is for formalisation of same-sex unions to be administered by the Commonwealth though this may require a referral of power from the States. At present, the Commonwealth is not seeking power for this purpose but the States could still work co-operatively to achieve a co-ordinated national system – along the model used in Tasmania. If minded to do so, the Commonwealth could use this as a means to remove disadvantage to same-sex couples under those areas of its control. This would not necessitate it creating a scheme for civil unions but just recognition of that existing at the state level and extending to it the same entitlements which are applied to marriage. As I said at the outset, I’m happy to discuss any of these specific questions in greater detail and it is probably more helpful if I close the opening presentation so as to leave time for those issues the inquiry is particularly interested in. " # Ц Ч m p s v Ј Й М Ш Щ чu7:;КlmЅБВГДЛ $4ЅІБѕјэюя№ў~˜втЅІєьфьфьмдмдмдмдмдмдЬФЬФЬФдФЛФАмфьфьЇфЇфьфьфьфŸ–ŸФŽФŽŸфh"j~CJaJh;—6CJaJh;—CJaJh{Ћ6CJaJhЛ'vhš;ШCJaJhЛ'v6CJaJhЛ'vCJaJhс.УCJaJhЁ&ЋCJaJhš;ШCJaJh*@gCJaJh{ЋCJaJh(:CJOJQJaJ5# $ Ц Ч М Н Ш Щ mnГДцчя№ІЇЧШš›ЕЖ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§Н §ІЇ5—ў1ЋХЦЧѓ™šЊQtvŽЅЊЕИABФХЛ М Н јэјхкхЮхјхЦОЖхЎОЎОЎОЎОЎОЎхОЎЃh{ЋhЉ{RCJaJhЉ{RCJaJh*@gCJaJhьPѓCJaJh”B4CJaJhЈˆhЈˆ6CJaJhЈˆhЈˆCJaJhЈˆCJaJhŒVhŒVCJaJhŒVCJaJЖХЦК Л М Н §§§§§§,1hА‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААФАФ Ф†œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No ListH™ђH Љ{R Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJН,џџџџ#$ЦЧМНШЩm n Г Д ц ч я № ІЇЧШš›ЕЖХЦКЛМП˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ч я № ІЇПˆ0iрˆ0€ˆ0€ˆ0€Š0д ІН ЖН Н №8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№џџЇ-4М^Ј-4Œ MЉ-4dБ#Њ-4!Ю ІІllПЈЈttП9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€ фЇJ17 # '-яђПхшП3™QtuuvŽЅЊЕИѕѕљМППх”B4Љ{RŒV*@gЛ'v"j~(:Јˆ;—Ё&Ћ{ЋЇ0­с.У+Чš;ШьPѓџ@€qJН№@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArialI& OptimaAgency FB5& ‡za€џTahoma"qˆ№аhпKЈfпKЈfbгЇfБ  ,Б  ,!№ ДД24dББ2ƒ№KP)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ{Ћ2џџ Thank you etcFaculty of Law Leon Wildўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0˜˜ ИФмшє ( H T ` lx€ˆфThank you etcFaculty of Law Normal.dot Leon Wild2Microsoft Office Word@FУ#@D>UdАЦ@ТEџtЛЦ@ТEџtЛЦБ ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ј hp€ˆ˜  ЈАИ Р кфUNSW, БЈ Thank you etc Title ўџџџўџџџ !"#$%&'ўџџџ)*+,-./ўџџџ1234567ўџџџ§џџџ:ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFpŸяuЛЦ<€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1TableџџџџhWordDocumentџџџџ.,SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ(DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ0CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq