The SA Politics Thread

[claybro]

YAY budget day!!!! Its like Christmas!

[Norman]

It's normal that fees and costs like public transport increase every year at a rate close to inflation. Why does it surprise everyone every year?

[[Shuz]]

Because Norm, you do have to admit $4.90 for a single adult trip ticket is absurdly expensive. It would still be absurdly expensive even if the State Government one year decided to say 'we will freeze the cost of PT ticket prices for three years'.

[Nathan]

Who the hell buys only single trips, especially regularly? Surely the better measure of the "increase in cost to public transport users" would the cost per trip on the Metrocard?

[rhino]

Currently $3.19 I believe, which for my 37km trip into the city cost me 8.6 cents per km. Cheap.

[claybro]

Because Norm, you do have to admit $4.90 for a single adult trip ticket is absurdly expensive. It would still be absurdly expensive even if the State Government one year decided to say 'we will freeze the cost of PT ticket prices for three years'.

On the tram a couple of years back, when the conductor still sold and validated your ticket, a young Nordic couple asked for a ticket to the beach. They nearly fell out of the tram when told the price.

[[Shuz]]

South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill says SA has right to legalise same-sex marriage
Lauren Novak
adelaidenow
June 19, 2013 9:57PM

Premier Jay Weatherill will vote in favour of the latest attempt to legalise same-sex marriage.

PREMIER Jay Weatherill is backing the legality of the latest attempt to legalise same-sex marriage in South Australia, to be introduced in State Parliament today.

Labor backbencher and close Weatherill ally Susan Close has drafted the Same Sex Marriage Bill 2013 which would enable homosexual adults who marry in SA to be registered with the Births, Deaths and Marriages Office and receive a marriage certificate.

Dr Close said she had received legal advice that the SA Parliament was within its rights to pass the Bill.

Mr Weatherill, who will vote in favour of the Bill, says loving couples should have the right to have their relationships legally and publicly recognised.

I accept that there may be contrary legal views. Ultimately, questions of constitutionality are resolved by the High Court in the event that someone decides to challenge a law,'' he said.

Federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman but constitutional law experts say there is room for a state to create its own laws about other forms of marriage.

If the legislation passes, SA would become the first Australian state to legalise gay marriage.

University of NSW constitutional law expert Professor George Williams said while the legal ground was uncertain, there was room for debate.

"(One) argument is that the federal law deals with marriage between a man and a woman so state law is left to deal with other forms of marriage," he said.

Earlier, Upper House MPs supported, by 11 votes to 10, a motion to commend the New Zealand government legalising gay marriage.

At least 19 Lower House MPs are on the record as supporting gay marriage, including Opposition Leader Steven Marshall.

Dr Close introduces the Bill today on the 35th birthday of her younger brother Stephen, who is gay.

"It is a jarring injustice to me (is) ... that I am able to marry the person I love but Stephen is not," she will tell Parliament this morning.

Labor MPs will get a conscience vote on Dr Close's proposed legislation but Liberal MPs will be required to vote along party lines.

Liberal justice spokesman Stephen Wade said Liberal MPs were "free to express their views, whether it is for or against" but passing state laws legalising same-sex marriage "would be playing a cruel and misleading trick" because they could be overruled by federal laws.

A vote is expected by the end of the year, before the state election next March.

The proposed Bill defines same sex-marriage in South Australia as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Celebrants would have to register as a same-sex marriage celebrant to perform a gay marriage but religious ministers would not be forced to marry gay couples.

Greens MLC Tammy Franks will introduce identical legislation to the Upper House.

Ms Franks said the latest legislation was the state's best chance at reform.

"We can never know whether or not, at the end of the day, it can withstand (a High Court challenge) but we're giving it the best chance possible that we're not crossing any constitutional boundaries," she said. "We believe that there's a lot of people in the South Australian parliament who do support marriage equality in principle.

"We believe it will be closer here than it has been elsewhere."

University of Adelaide constitutional law expert Professor John Williams, who consulted with Dr Close on the Bill, said both the Commonwealth and the states had the power to legislate over marriage. Where a conflict occurs, Commonwealth law usually prevails.
However, Professor Williams said SA could legally pass a gay marriage law and test its validity in the High Court. A decision there would set a national precedent.

"Nobody knows what the answer to that is because there's not been a successfully passed state Act," he said.

Australian law does not allow states to recognise same-sex marriages performed overseas but the Greens have a Bill before the Senate that would overturn that.

DLP Senator John Madigan will also today give notice he will introduce a Bill next week that would seek a referendum on the divisive issue.

Last September the Senate voted down a bill to legalise same sex marriage 41 votes to 26.

[Matt]

Bravo.

[shaun]

It would be great for SA to be the first state/territory. Though it's pretty embarrassing for Australia that New Zealand has already seen the light.

[Wayno]

It's likely the gay marriage bill will be defeated in the house of assembly. The libs intend to vote as a bloc, and will most likely oppose, not due to it's content, but their belief it won't survive a high court challenge.

[[Shuz]]

Steven Marthall supports gay marriage, so as the party leader I would have thought he'd (suprisingly) get the Liberals to vote as a bloc in favour, not against.

Also who is going to challenge it in the High Court?

The constitution does not specifically state that marriage must be between a man and a woman but rather says that marriage can be dealt with at either Federal or State level. Federal law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but my understanding is that the State proposal to allow gay marriage actually excludes marriage between a man and a woman, and allows marriage between any two same sex couples, thus allowing it to sit alongside as a separate entity to what the Federal law and definition of marriage is. Thus it should survive any challenge on constitutional grounds.

[Matt]

I can't imagine "wouldn't survive a high court challenge" would be a genuine reason to oppose it.

I'd have thought there'd be pressure on Marshall from the Federal Libs to disallow a conscience vote given the pressure there is on Abbott.

Campbell Newman supported same sex marriage once and look what happened up there.

[rev]

It would be great for SA to be the first state/territory. Though it's pretty embarrassing for Australia that New Zealand has already seen the light.

Seen the light?

Why is it embarrassing that New Zealand has legalized same sex marriage before Australia?
Is New Zealand a lesser country below Australia?

[claybro]

Also who is going to challenge it in the High Court?

Given the furore the street preachers created here, I would imagine any number of lunatic fringe elements would test this. As for the general population, most people just don't get the fuss that surrounds this from time to time, and would probably rather our politicians focused on other things. This issue has however served to clarify the separation between Church and State, and just what a marriage really means. Clearly, to someone who is same sex attracted, it is an issue of equal rights, protection under the law for their spouse/ family etc and fair enough. Time to legally recognize gay marriage by the state, allow the church the right to refuse to conduct such unions by their institutions if they wish without fear of prosecution, and all the rest should sort itself out.

[Wayno]

I can't imagine "wouldn't survive a high court challenge" would be a genuine reason to oppose it.

Au contraire. Opposition parties often reject legislation that *may* falter at a later date. It's due diligence irrespective of the topic at hand.

Remember Labour has 26 seats, libs 18, 3 independents. If libs oppose as a bloc then you don't need many ultra-conservative labor reps to fail the bill.

Just telling it as I see it. Personally I'd like to see gay marriage legislation pass that can sustain the test of time. Just get it right upfront, once. No use paraphrasing the constitution as justification in this forum. Lawyers earn big bucks to interpret - nothing like this is ever simple.