Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/20: Should the ACT's Civil Unions Act have been overturned by the federal government?

Related issue outlines?:
no related issue outlines

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items specifically on this subsject: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2006 file) and enter the following words.

homosexual
couples
marriage



Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a google search facility with which to attempt to access newspaper items still online or cached by third parties.


What they said ...

'The [ACT] government's proposed civil union scheme is an important step towards a society in which all inter-personal love, care and commitment is valued'
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome

'We cannot agree to any proposal that would tend to equate a civil union with marriage between a man and a woman'
Dr Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney

The issue at a glance
On May 11, 2006, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) passed into law its Civil Unions Act which gave legal recognition to relationships existing between co-habiting couples. Both mixed sex and same sex couples could have their relationships recognised via the civil unions legislation, however, the law was seen primarily as an attempt to extend to homosexual couples the legal protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples under the federal Marriage Act 2004.
As of 2004, the federal Marriage Act specifically defines marriage as a union entered into between a man and a woman and thus prevents homosexual couples from enjoying the legal protections that marriage supplies.
The federal Government (especially the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the federal Attorney General, Mr Ruddock) had indicated its dissatisfaction with the ACT's Civil Unions Act prior to it becoming law and warned that they would use their constitutional powers to overturn the law.
At 9.15 on the morning of June 13, 2006, the Speaker of the ACT Assembly, Wayne Berry, met the Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, and urged him not to disallow the ACT's civil union legislation. Instead Mr Berry asked that the Commonwealth suggest further amendments to make the law acceptable to the Federal Government. The Governor-General passed the request to the Commonwealth Government.
At 11 am of the same day, the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and the Minister for Territories, Jim Lloyd, arrived at Government House and together with the Governor-General moved to disallow the ACT laws permitting civil unions. This action was taken at the federal government's administrative discretion and had not been debated or voted on within the federal Parliament.
At 12.30 pm of June 13, 2006, the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced that the ACT Civil Unions Act would cease to have effect from midnight of that day.
The Civil Unions Act and the federal Government's response to it have generated significant controversy.

Background
Information on the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act
(Much of the following information is taken from and analysis Published in The Age on June 7, 2006, written by Jewel Topsfield and titled, 'The honeymoon is over')

Definitions
According to the Civil Unions Act 2006:
- A civil union is a legally recognised relationship that, subject to this act, may be entered into by any two people, regardless of their sex.
- It differs from a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.
- Marriage is defined in the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

The conditions
- Each party must be at least 16.
- They must not be married or in another civil union.
- A person may not enter into a civil union with someone who has any of the following relationships with the person: lineal ancestor; lineal descendent; sister; half-sister; brother; half-brother.

Beginning and ending a civil union
- Two people who have given notice to a civil union celebrant of their intention to enter into a civil union with each other may enter into the civil union by making a declaration before the civil union celebrant and at least one other witness.
- The declaration must be made not earlier than one month, and not later than 18 months, after the day the notice was given to the civil union celebrant.
- The declaration must be made by each person to the other and must contain a clear statement that they are freely entering into a civil union with each other.
- A civil union is terminated on the death of either party or the marriage of either party.
- It can also be terminated legally either by giving the registrar-general written notice of intention to terminate the union, following specific processes in the legislation, or by a court order.

The rights of homosexual couples in Australia and around the world
Same-sex marriages are recognised in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa, and same-sex civil unions in Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and in seven US states.
In Australia, same-sex couples have limited rights in the ACT, Tasmania and Western Australia. Same-sex couples in NSW have won virtually the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples.
Gay rights activists want equality in workers' compensation, immigration, welfare payments and adoption. They want the right to publicly celebrate their love and commitment.

Internet information
On December 2, 2005, the ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, issued a media release outline the nature of the Civil Unions Act and his Government's reasons for drafting it.
The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=927&id=927§ion=24&title=Jon%20Stanhope,%20MLA

On June 7, 2006, the ACT's Attorney General, Simon Corbell, issued a media release titled 'Civil Unions Act to commence' announcing the intention of the ACT government to move forward the date from which its legislation would come into operation in an attempt to circumvent the legislation being blocked by the federal Government. The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=1386§ion=52&title=Media%20Release&id=52

The full text of the ACT's Civil Unions Act can be found at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2006-22/db_26387/pdf/2006-22.pdf

On June 6, 2006, the federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, issued a media release titled 'Commonwealth to defend marriage against Territory laws'. The release gives the federal Government's reasons for intending to 'invalidate' the ACT's Civil Unions Act. The release can be found at http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Media_Releases_2006_Second_Quarter_6_June_2006_-_Commonwealth_to_defend_marriage_against_territory_laws_-_1022006

On June 13, 2006, the federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, issued a media release titled 'Government moves to protect status of marriage'
This media release explains the manner in which the federal Government intended to quash the ACT's Civil Unions Act. The full text of the media release can be found at http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Media_Releases_2006_Second_Quarter_13_June_2006_-_Government_Moves_to_Protect_the_Status_of_Marriage_-_1062006

On June 15, 2006, the federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, issued a media release titled 'Government's move to defend marriage upheld'. The media release explained the failure of the dissolution motion moved in federal Parliament against the federal Government's overturning of the ACT's Civil Unions Act. The full text of the media release can be found at http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Media_Releases_2006_Second_Quarter_15_June_2006_-_Government&apos

Arguments against Canberra's Civil Union Act

1. The Civil Unions Act undermines the federal government's Marriage Act
The federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, has stated, 'Despite his public assurances to the contrary, this legislation has always been a cynical attempt by the Chief Minister to undermine the institution of marriage and circumvent the Commonwealth Marriage Act.'
Mr Ruddock explained further, 'The Commonwealth Marriage Act makes it clear marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition, which reflects the traditional understanding of marriage, was passed into law with bipartisan support in 2004.
The ACT's Civil Unions Act 2006 creates a statutory scheme for the recognition of relationships which bears striking similarity to the Commonwealth's regulation of marriage. Section 5(2) of the Civil Unions Act states:
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 Attorney General's argument is that it is a legal nonsense to claim that two laws, the federal Marriage Act and the Australian Capital Territory Marriage Act recognise different forms social institution, yet have those within each of these supposedly different institutions treated in exactly the same manner.
Tasmanian Liberal senator Guy Barnett, who pushed for Commonwealth intervention to prevent the new territory law being enacted, claimed that the ACT laws were 'designed to undermine our federal marriage laws'.

2. The attempts made by Canberra's chief minister to address the federal government's concerns about the Civil Unions Bill were cosmetic
The federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, has claimed that the amendments that the Australian Capital Territory made to its original Civil Unions Bill did not address the fundamental concerns that the federal government had with the Bill.
Mr Ruddock stated, 'Amendments to the initial draft have not altered the substance of the ACT laws which make it clear that same sex civil unions are just marriage by another name.'
Mr Ruddock said the Federal Government had given the ACT Government advice about its concerns, but it was deliberately ignored.
'They didn't pick up those measures and I think that was a deliberate decision on their part,' Mr Ruddock has argued. 'This issue could have been dealt with in a way that was not deliberately as confrontational as it was.'

3. The Civil Unions Act undermined the unique status of heterosexual marriage
The Prime Minister, John Howard, a number of other federal government spokespeople and some prominent clerics all claimed that the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act undermined the status of heterosexual marriage.
The Prime Minister stated, 'The Bill is plainly an attempt to mimic marriage under the misleading title of civil unions ... It is a question of preserving as an institution in our society marriage as having a special character and if you look at the legislation, what if effectively says, a civil union is not a marriage, but it will be treated for all purposes as being equivalent to a marriage.'
The federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, remarked similarly, 'Despite his public assurances to the contrary, this legislation has always been a cynical attempt by the Chief Minister to undermine the institution of marriage and circumvent the Commonwealth Marriage Act.'
Canberra's Anglican Bishop George Browning and Assistant Bishop Trevor Edwards both stated, 'We believe this proposal actually threatens and compromises the traditional Christian view of marriage between a woman and a man.'
A similar view was put by The Bishop of North Sydney, Dr Glenn Davies, speaking on behalf of the Diocese of Sydney, 'We cannot agree to any proposal that would tend to equate a civil union with marriage between a man and a woman.
To conduct a marriage-like ceremony, although it purports to be different by calling it a civil union, would be an affront to the established view of marriage as enshrined in the Marriage Act, and could eventually threaten and strike at the foundations of marriage.'

4. The federal government will continue to address the inequities facing homosexual couples in other ways
The federal government has maintained that it has no prejudice against homosexuals and that it has taken a number of legislative measures in an attempt to guarantee their rights. It further argues that such rights can be assured for homosexual couples without introducing legislation that equates homosexual unions with heterosexual unions sanctioned by marriage.
In January 2006, Brian Greig, a homosexual civil liberties campaigner, has stated, 'The Howard Government has done more to legally recognise same-sex relationships in the past 13 months, than previous Labor governments did in 13 years. Under Howard same-sex couples have limited rights to superannuation death benefits, are recognised in passport application processes and beneficial definitions in anti-terror laws, while those in the military now have equal rights to relocation and accommodation expenses and access to defence force home loan grants.'
On June 8, 2006, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard stated, 'I am in favour of removing areas of discrimination and we have and I'm quite happy on a case, by case basis to look at other areas where people believe there's genuine discrimination, but I think they should be looked at on a case by case basis. I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be done in an across the board fashion. We made some changes in relation to entitlements a couple of years ago and if there are other areas of genuine discrimination, then I'm in favour of getting rid of them. But that doesn't mean that you equate those relationships with marriage. I think that is a step that the Australian community doesn't want to occur ...'
The federal Attorney General, Mr Ruddock, has also said the Government was concerned about discrimination and would consider issues raised by Queensland MP Warren Entsch and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.
Mr Entsch has proposed a private members' Bill to recognise same-sex interdependent relationships for the purposes of a raft of federal laws. The commission is considering the same general issue.
Under Mr Entsch's plan, federal laws relating to taxation, superannuation, Medicare, veterans affairs and social security would be changed to remove gender-specific references.

5. Homosexual couples have a range of protections available to them under international, federal and state laws
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has certain powers to inquire into any act or practice that may violate human rights or constitute discrimination Other laws that provides some protection against sexual preference discrimination include the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and the Public Service Act 1922.
The Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 also provides limited protection requiring that sexual conduct between consenting adults not be subject to any arbitrary interference with privacy.
Legislation also exists in respect of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in a number of States and Territories.
New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory offer some limited form of legislative protection to those of trans gender identity.
It is argued that legislative protection can be given to homosexual couples without recognising their unions in the manner proposed under the Australian Capital Territory's legislation.

6. Homosexuality is a minority position which should not effect the rights of the majority
It has been claimed that only a ting portion of the Australian population is homosexual. Therefore, it is argued, no legislation should be put in place which promotes the rights of an extreme minority at the expense of the rights of the majority.
This position was put by the former leader of the federal national party, John Anderson. Mr Anderson stated, 'A homosexual lifestyle is a valid choice within a secular society. However, it is a decision that is made and exercised with an understanding that other lifestyle choices might be negated or denied. Furthermore, choice within a democracy explicitly accepts rule by the majority (with respect for the choices and views of the minority). Within Australia, the homosexual community represents roughly 1.5 percent of the population. Within that community, it seems unlikely that a majority support same-sex marriage.
Gay marriage, therefore, represents a minority view - which must be respected - but can never dominate the majority view that heterosexual marriage is the norm for Australian society.'

7. The lack of residence requirements for the Civil Unions Act was a challenge to marriage all over Australia
Critics of the ACT's Civil Unions Act objected to the fact that the terms of the Act imposed no conditions on non-residents within the Australian Capital Territory availing themselves of the territory's civil union provisions.
The Act contained no minimum period of residence before those travelling through the territory could use its laws to have their relationships recognised. Though there would be no compulsion on the couple's state of origin to recognise the relationship on their return, the fact that they had undergone the ceremony had the scope to force the hand of states which to this point do not appear to be ready to adopt legislation with the same reach as that which was passed in the Australian Capital Territory.
The fact sheet issued by the ACT explaining the operation of the Civil Unions Act seemed to anticipate such a follow-on effect. It states, 'A certificate from the ACT Registrar-General stating that two people have entered into a civil union may be used as evidence of the existence of a 'marriage like relationship' to access existing rights attached to such relationships in other jurisdictions. Direct recognition would require legislative action by the other jurisdiction to attach particular rights, responsibilities or other legal consequences to the relationship.'
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, has claimed that same-sex couples deserved the right to have their relationships affirmed by society.
'The Stanhope government's proposed civil union scheme is an important step towards a society in which all inter-personal love, care and commitment is valued. N Inevitably we will see same-sex couples travelling to Canberra to have their unions solemnised and returning home expecting and demanding equal recognition and protection for their relationships,' Mr Croome argued.

Arguments supporting Canberra's Civil Union Act
1. Overturning the Civil Unions Act was an attack on the territory's right to self-government and on the democratic rights of its citizens
The ACT's Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, made the introduction of the Civil Unions Bill part of his re-election campaign. Supporters of civil unions thus maintain that when Stanhope was re-elected he had a mandate from the electorate to make civil unions available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples in the Australian Capital Territory.
Western Australia's Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Yvonne Henderson, indicated her rejection of the action taken by the federal government in overturning the ACT's Civil Unions Act. Ms Henderson stated, 'The Federal Government should show more respect for the democratic process in the ACT that led to this legislation.'
Ms Henderson further claimed that in quashing this Act, the federal government had in effect over-ridden a democratically elected parliament, and that this sat uncomfortably with the federal government's claim to support State rights.
The leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, stated on June 7, 2006, 'Unlike Chief Minister Jon Stanhope who campaigned, and was elected, on the issue of civil unions, John Howard has no mandate to unilaterally abolish them.'
The Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman, Nicola Roxon, supported the Australian capital territory's right to put an act in place sanctioning civil unions and attacked the federal government's overturning of the ACT Civil Unions Act as an attack on state and territory rights. Ms Roxon stated, 'We really object to this process. It shows that the Howard Government is prepared not just to ride roughshod over the Senate but also over the states and territories.'

2. The Civil Unions Act was an attempt to acknowledge the value of homosexual relationships
The Massachusetts Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision to allow gay marriages in November 2003, that to prevent gay couples from having access to the institution of marriage [or civil union] 'works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason'.
A lesbian woman interviewed on ABC's Stateline on March 31, 2006, stated of the changes proposed under the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act, 'I think it's really symbolic - whether it's marriage or a civil union it's actually being able to say to people, this is the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with. I think we've always felt a little bit strange at weddings when you're feeling really happy for people, and yet feeling a bit like it's not able to be us.'
The woman's partner went on to explain, 'My Dad died last year and we got a number of cards and things from people saying that they hope that Joo would be able to support me openly during that time ... for lots of people there's still that sense that you need to keep the relationship secret, and that a partner wouldn't be welcome at a funeral ... And so these laws are about that recognition and valuing gay relationships [and] are really important.'

3. The Civil Unions Act sort to give homosexual couples comparable legal rights to heterosexual couples
Defenders of the ACT's Civil Unions Act stress that its principal aim was to ensure that those in homosexual relationships had comparable rights to heterosexual couples. It is argued that under federal law homosexual couples suffer disadvantage in a wide range of areas.
A report produced on May 26 2005 by Grevis Beard of Monash University Law Chambers titled 'Same Sex Marriage Forum' claimed that homosexual couples were disadvantaged in a wide range of areas including:
- employment benefits, taxation issues, or health care benefits
- relationship breakdown under the Family Law Act
- employment visas to those coming to work in Australia with same sex partners
- victims compensation schemes
- obtaining guardianship appointment when a partner is incapacitated
- adoption of children
- rights regarding intestacy and funeral arrangement
- same-sex non biological co-parents' rights re decisions about children they are
bringing up
- discrimination laws around the country that do not recognise same sex couples
- less access to benefits of a same sex partner who is a uniformed serving member of the defence forces.
Gay rights activists have generally stressed they want equality in workers' compensation, immigration, welfare payments and adoption.
The ACT's Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, stated, 'Civil union will deliver real, functional equality under ACT law for couples who either do not have access to the Commonwealth Marriage Act or who prefer not to marry. This includes opposite-sex couples and transgender and intersex Canberrans. Partners to a civil union will have the same legal recognition under ACT law as married couples.'
The ACT's Attorney General, Simon Corbell, announced similarly, 'Ordinary Canberrans in same sex relationships are entitled to have the same rights under the law as other members of the community. This is fair, reasonable and just.'

4. Civil unions have been instituted in many other jurisdictions around the world
Supporters of the ACT's Civil Unions Act have argued that it goes no further, indeed not as far, as many other similar pieces of legislation introduced in jurisdictions around the world to protect the rights of homosexual couples.
A fact sheet accompanying a media released issued by the ACT's Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, on December 2, 2005, explaining the territory's civil union provisions stated, 'Countries such as Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Hungary, Germany, France, Switzerland, and several US states have introduced civil unions or domestic partnership regimes. A smaller number (Belgium, Netherlands, Canada) allow same-sex couples to marry.'
Jon Stanhope further stated in the same media release, 'Recognition of same-sex partnerships is occurring in many places throughout the world. Tasmania recently legislated for same-sex registration, and the United Kingdom's civil union regime comes into force on Monday next week. Just yesterday, the South African Constitutional Court found in favour of same-sex marriage. The proposed ACT legislation will be closely modelled on the New Zealand Act.'

5. The Civil Unions Act was not intended as an attack on heterosexual marriage or the Marriage Act
The ACT's Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, has stated that the ACT's Civil Unions Act was in no way intended to undermine the institution of marriage of the status of the federal Marriage Act. Mr Stanhope noted in a media release dated December 2, 2005, 'Civil union will deliver ... recognition in full [to homosexual couples], without conflicting with or changing the meaning of marriage.'
Mr Stanhope further stated, 'I believe that, if anything, by offering all Canberrans the opportunity to enter into such unions, we will be strengthening the institutions and traditions that see most of us, at some time in our lives, drawn into family units for companionship, support and love. In offering same-sex couples the opportunity to declare such attachments we are saying, 'family is important, strong households are important.'
Gerard Brody, a spokesperson for the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, has also stated that civil unions are different to marriage and that the Attorney-General was wrong to cite this as a reason to overturn the legislation. Mr Brody gave the view, 'They are completely different institutions, with civil unions increasingly being used around the world as the way in which same-sex relationships are formally recognised. There is no legal or constitutional conflict between the ACT legislation and the Federal Marriage Act.'

6. Canberra had amended the Civil Unions Bill in an attempt to address the concerns of the federal government
The ACT amended its original legislation and then it sought additional direction from the federal government as to what further changes would have made the new law acceptable to the federal government.
The ACT added a clause to its legislation specifically designed to ensure that civil unions, as described under the ACT Civil Unions Act, were seen as distinct from marriage.
An additional amendment set up a new class of civil union celebrant to perform civil union ceremonies. This was done so that civil union ceremonies could not be performed by the same celebrants who conduct marriage services. The possible scope for confusion had been a cause for concern for the federal government. A further two amendments made it more difficult for someone of 16 or 17 to get authorisation for a civil union.
The ACT's Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, has claimed it would have been more constructive for the Commonwealth to have recommended amendments to the legislation than simply have stated its opposition to the Act. 'Rather than this vague assertion that it offends the institution of marriage,' Mr Corbell said. 'I mean there's no real way we can respond to that, but if they can give us real detail and proposed amendments that will satisfy their concerns, we stand ready to consider those, and consider them seriously.
Tell us exactly which clauses and which provisions of our Act they are unhappy with how they believe those could be changed, and recommend those amendments through the Governor-General to the Legislative Assembly.'

7. Much of the opposition to the Civil Unions Act appeared to be prompted by homophobia
The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, immediately criticised the federal government for what he claimed was a legislative action that had grown out of fear and prejudice against homosexuals. Mr Corbell told reporters, 'This is a homophobic decision ... it is arrogant and undemocratic. It is homophobic. There is no escaping it. What they're saying is people in same-sex relationships are [in] second-class relationships.'
The federal leader of the Democrats also condemned the federal government's overturning of the ACT's Civil Unions Act. Allison criticised the government for adopting a 'homophobic stance' which she suggested was 'deeply damaging'.
Greens senator Kerry Nettle similarly remarked, 'John Howard is yet again exposing his homophobic attitude towards some members of our community.'
The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has also accused the Federal Government of homophobia and bowing to the prejudices of far-right religious groups in overturning the ACT civil union legislation.
Gerard Brody, a spokesperson for the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, has stated, 'This is a slap in the face for the tens of thousands of same-sex couples, not only in the ACT, but around Australia, who continue to be treated as second-class citizens by our Government. The Federal Government seems intent on establishing itself as the most discriminatory government in the developed world.'

Further implications
It has been claimed that the federal government may have been playing politics with the ACT Civil Unions Act, trying to use an issue which appealed to more socially conservative elements within the community to separate their opposition, especially the Labor Party from the more socially conservative elements within their usual support base. This is what is usually referred to as 'wedge politics', that is, using an issue to drive a wedge between an opposing party and a portion of the electorate which would usually support that party.
However, this does not appear to be what is occurring here, as the government used its administrative powers to overturn the ACT legislation and did not have the matter debated within federal Parliament. The only parliamentary debate which occurred was as a result of the Greens challenging the Government's quashing of the ACT's Civil Union Act. Therefore, it would appear that the federal Government or those members within it who made the running on this issue were doing so as a matter of principle.
In terms of the long-term consequences that the overturning of the ACT's legislation is likely to have it is too early to say what impact it will have on homosexual couples rights in other states. However, the federal Government has no power to over-ride legislation introduced in states as opposed to territories. Therefore, any of the states which chose to do so could introduce legislation similar to the ACT's. It has been reported that the government in Victoria is considering legislation which would extend the rights enjoyed by homosexual couples.
It also seems likely that the federal Government will do more to extend the legal protections and entitlements available to homosexual couples, perhaps in part as a means of giving the lie to accusations that the Government is homophobic.
Finally, what the federal Government's action has done is underlined the vulnerability of any piece of legislation introduced by either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. Such legislation can be overturned by any federal Government with the numbers in the Parliament to do so and there is no requirement that it even be debated or voted upon with federal Parliament.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age:
AGE, June 8, page 3, news item by Jewell Topsfield, `Gay unions could be fortnight away as ACT defies federal intervention'.
AGE, June 7, page 21, comment by Andrew Lynch, `How can same-sex unions possibly be a threat to marriage'.
AGE, June 14, page 18, cartoon by Leunig.
AGE, June 14, page 5, news item by A Stafford, `Commonwealth quashes ACT in battle over civil union laws.
AGE, June 12, page 13, comment by Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, `Marriage requires a man and a woman'.
AGE, June 12, page 12, editorial, `Same-sex unions a matter of human rights, not just of politics'.
AGE, June 10, Insight section, page 1, analysis (photos of well-know Australians who are homosexual) by F Farouque, `"Why, oh why, can't I?"'.
AGE, June 10, Insight section, page 2 (interview with Warren Entsch) analysis by Tim Dick, `Redneck with a pink agenda').
AGE, June 9, page 4, news item by Tomazin and Ker, `Marriage out, but state ministers quiet on unions'.
AGE, June 20, page 2, news item by A Stafford, `Poll shows support for gay marriages'.
AGE, June 17, Insight section, page 3, analysis by A Stafford, `Gay rights and the politics of provocation'.
AGE, June 16, page 4, news item by A Stafford, `Liberal crosses the floor'.

The Australian:
AUST, June 8, page 11, editorial, `Howard's helper'.
AUST, June 7, page 4, news item by Samantha Maiden, `Howard pushes to bar same-sex unions'.
AUST, June 14, page 13, comment by Janet Albrechtsen, `The love we dare not let wed'.
AUST, June 14, page 2, news item by Samantha Maiden, `G-G deaf to plea on civil unions'.
AUST, June 13, page 5, news item by Patricia Karvelas, `ACT appeals to prevent ban on same-sex unions'.
AUST, June 16, page 15, comment by Greens Senator Bob Brown, `Ancient dogma drive ruling against same-sex unions'.
AUST, June 16, page 13, comment by Frank Devine, `Count yourself lucky and stop tinkering with marriage'.
AUST, June 16, page 2, news item by Samantha Maiden, `Same-sex unions spark Lib revolt'.

The Herald-Sun:
H/SUN, June 12, page 19, cartoon.
H/SUN, June 10, page 2, news item by Packham and Harvey, `Gays rush to beat PM's ban'.
H/SUN, June 22, page 20, comment by James Norman, `Gays have a right to say "I do"'.
H/SUN, June 21, page 23, comment by Andrew Bolt, `We thee wed .
H/SUN, June 16, page 21, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Gay edge of wedge'.
Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google