No conscience vote for Tasmanian ALP

The same-sex marriage bills introduced by the Tasmanian Greens will not get a conscience vote, that state’s incumbent Labor party announced last week, but the constitutional validity of state-based marriages may be reexamined by an inquiry.

State Attorney-General David Llewellyn said there was no need for a conscience vote, because the issue is a constitutional one, not one of social attitudes.

Whatever you might think
about the rights and wrongs of same-sex marriage, it is dishonest to suggest that the Tasmanian Parliament can create a form of marriage which could be guaranteed to be both constitutionally valid and have the legal effects that most people attach to the concept of marriage, Llewellyn said.

He dismissed the advice of constitutional expert Professor George Williams that state parliaments could offer marriages that were not allowed in federal law.

The Solicitor-General had previously given contrary advice that courts would likely find state marriages were invalid when inconsistent with federal law.

The huge difference between 2005 and now is that we now have an Australian Government ready to reform laws that discriminate against same-sex couples, Llewellyn said.

A spokeswoman for Llewellyn told Sydney Star Observer that further constitutional advice was unnecessary.

But a spokeswoman for Greens shadow Attorney-General Nick McKim said the party was looking at all options to allow a debate on the issue, including an inquiry.

The previous State Labor Government blocked efforts for an inquiry when the marriage bills were first introduced in 2005, but the Greens were hopeful the new Premier David Bartlett would let the constitutional concerns be examined afresh.

We gave a commitment to see this through, and we’ll continue to introduce this legislation until same-sex marriages are legal, the spokeswoman said.

The reintroduced bills were praised by members of the Tasmanian gay and lesbian community.

An inquiry into the issue is also important because it will allow the community’s voice to be heard, as well as allow outstanding constitutional questions to be resolved, activist Rodney Croome said.