Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Home loans made clear

No Union Between Ruddock and Stanhope

By che 30 March 2006 53

Just to dampen down the gay pride celebrations from this RA story about Stanhope wanting to legally recognise gay civil unions, the Federal AG Phil Ruddock has come out in this ABC report saying the Government will intervene unless the bill is changed as the ACT legislation elevates civil unions to the same status as marriage, contrary to Commonwealth legislation.

“For a territory to say ‘well that’s fine for the Commonwealth Parliament to have resolved in that way, we’re still going to assert that a civil union is a marriage in all but title, and we’re going to use marriage celebrants to demonstrate that’, let me make it very clear: that will not satisfy the Commonwealth,”

UPDATE: The CT has got this article up about the issue and Stanhope has issued this media release about how the nobbling of the proposal is SAD.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
53 Responses to
No Union Between Ruddock and Stanhope
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
simto 8:22 am 21 Aug 06

Um, that’s from 1996 – it’s somewhat out of date. Among other things, Mandy’s now minister for Immigration and Ruddock’s moved onto being vampirically incompetent as Attourney General.

And apparently Mandy’s been quite happy to take same-sex partners as part of the spousal immigration policies (where the original immigrant is in a high demand occupation, anyway).

So what’s your point?

blogggit 4:21 am 21 Aug 06

PHILIP RUDDOCK is now Australia’s Attorney General.Philip Ruddock is also known as the “Walking Cadaver.”
The following is an article from the “Sydney Morning Herald”September, 17th, 1996.


The Government will cap and kill applications by Australians to bring their overseas spouses into Australia a move which would see long-term separations of married couples unless the Opposition allows through the Senate tough new measures to curb applications.
The Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock,said the draconian move,allowable under present law but never used in relation to spouses, would help curb huge increases in applications for spouses, some of which were shams, but others ‘a fraud on Australians’.
Under present practise,applications for offshore spouses to come are allowed regardless of the quota set.Mr Ruddock wants to enforce his quota by a cap and queue regulation, making applicants after the qouta is reached to wait, possibly for months, until heading the queue for next years intake.
But in the face of Labor opposition in the Senate, he threatened to use his general cap and kill power to terminate applications made post-qouta.This would force Australians to apply again next year on equal terms with next year’s applicants, causing indefinite separations.
Mr Ruddock’s threat, which contradicts the Coalition’s strong pro-family rhetoric but is part of a clampdown on migration numbers,was denounced by Labor’s immigration spokeman, Mr Duncan Kerr, as social engineering.
The Opposition last week knocked off in the Senate one of several changes to regulations to tighten elegibility for ‘preferential family’ migration,available to spouses and aged parents.Mr Kerr told the Herald Labor would also disallow Mr Ruddock’s ‘cap and queue’ regulation.
Mr Ruddock told the Herald that if people who had already applied were allowed in,the progam would overstep this year’s 36,700 quota by about 13,000.Rather than allow an overshoot, he would use his general power under current law to cap and kill,unless Labor stopped trying to micro-manage his immigration program by disallowing regulations in the Senate.
Mr Kerr said that ‘Australians have always exercised their own choice on who they’ll marry,and I don’t believe any red-blooded Australian will allow the Government to force couples to queue up to live together.Now he’s saying if he can’t queue them he’ll cut them off.
‘If you meet and marry in January,thats OK,but if you’re a December bride or groom you mightn’t be able to get your spouse in for years.’
Mr Ruddock said he did not regard cap and terminate as the best outcome, but if it is necessary I will be applying it.
He said Labor had maintained a steady 37,000 quota for four years,before lifting it last year to 50,000.Many people had reported partners ‘walking out the door as soon as they arrive in Australia.’ ‘The fraud is being occasioned on Australians by people seeking to migrate,’ he said.
Mr Kerr blamed the increase on the wash-up of the Tiananmen Square massacre,under which Labor granted 40,000 Chinese people refugee status.But Mr Ruddock said there rises in applications accross the board, and the percentage increase was as great in England.”
JOHN HOWARD-The Lying Rodent.John Howard wants free trade but not the free movement of people.He thinks Australias biggest assets are its sheep, coal and uranium not people.He says he has the final solution to our problems “Too many people.”
“Philip Ruddock gazetted regulations when he was Australia’s immigration minister[number S241 of 1997] to stop visitors from many countries coming to Australia and among them is Poland.[Israel is also on the list as well as the following countries-Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam and Yugoslavia].”
More at

Slinky the Shocker 6:01 pm 05 Apr 06

OK! Gottit 🙂 Cheers…

Binker 5:30 pm 05 Apr 06

The point is Commonwealth can’t use s51(xxi) [marriage] or s51(xxii) [matrimonial causes) of the Constitution as a basis to overrule the local governments legislation on civil unions (as suggested by vg) as both these heads of power refer to marriage between males and females. The Commonwealth can however use s122 [Territories] of the Constitution to overrule the local governments legislation.

s122 states:
“The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any state…”

1st post a bit cryptic I suppose, I was just trying to be succinct but also support the argument with facts as opposed to my mere opinion

Slinky the Shocker 5:11 pm 05 Apr 06

Ha ha ha…good comeback. To be honest, though…I didn’t get the point of your post.

Binker 5:09 pm 05 Apr 06

StS, despite your gentle derision of my communication style I am guessing you still got the point of the post. (normally references would be footnoted)
I am afraid to tell you that Carlton v Melbourne is an unreported judgement due to its insignificance. Maybe you could get a verbal report from the few people who were in the public gallery on the day.

Slinky the Shocker 4:50 pm 05 Apr 06

Binker: You just won the RiotAct communication award for this week. Here’s your prize:
Gotta love these legal professionals!

PS. Can you send me a copy of
G (Cth) v “Kevin and Jennifer” [2003] FamCA 94
as well as
Carlton(Blues) v Melbourne(Demons) [2006]93-72

Binker 4:27 pm 05 Apr 06

“So it would appear neither the Commonwealth Legislature nor the High Court of Australia have not, and would not (in the case of the HCA due to stare decisis), consider a same sex union as a marriage (or matrimonial cause).” Sorry, poor structure but I’m sure you see the point

Binker 4:23 pm 05 Apr 06

s43(a) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) “…marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”

This definition comes from Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130 where Lord Penzance stated that “marriage as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee has been approved by the High Court of Australia, two examples being Calverley v Green (1984), 155 CLR 242 at pp259-260 or more recently R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379 at 389.

For a detailed discussion of “marriage” see AG (Cth) v “Kevin and Jennifer” [2003] FamCA 94

So it would appear neither the Commonwealth Legislature nor the High Court of Australia have not, and would not (in the case of the HCA due to stare decisis), consider a same sex union as a marriage (or matrimonial cause).

Thus it is highly unlikely the Commonwealth could use ss51(xxi) or (xxii) Const. s122 Const is the most obvious head that the Commonwealth would use.

Better late than never.

Slinky the Shocker 2:51 pm 31 Mar 06

Ari: Maybe you shouldn’t anal-yze Maelinar’s words any further!

Ari 2:41 pm 31 Mar 06

No point, Maelinar, rect-ifying it would only have dug yourself further into the hole.

VYBerlinaV8 2:32 pm 31 Mar 06

The main thing to remember is that its important to keep discussing attractive lesbians.

Maelinar 2:24 pm 31 Mar 06

I considered rectifying myself after posting, to allow Areaman to comprehend that I was referring to an unstated noun (the lesbians), but then I thought… bleh.

We all got it anyway…

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site