Page 3341 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It would be helpful, I think, in that process, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the Government to help us understand the public mood by perhaps releasing details of the submissions which already had been received by it, I understand, before it released this discussion paper. It has been out now for about three or four months and I assume that some number of people have responded. I think that, given the very great concerns that we would all have about the direction we are taking here, it would be helpful if we could all have some idea of where those submissions have gone, how many there have been, for example, and their general tenor. At least that would be valuable information.
I might turn to some of the issues which have been raised by this discussion paper and by the draft Bill which is attached to it. The definition of domestic relationship is an interesting one. It is obviously much less easy to pinpoint than in the case of, for example, a marriage, which is a very clear definition. Clause 3 of the draft Bill talks about covering domestic relationships and it defines those as a de facto relationship, which is defined in the preceding subparagraph, or "a personal relationship between two adults, other than a married couple, in which one provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other". That, I think, is a broad definition. Perhaps we could even say that it is slightly too broad. It would cover family members living in the same household. It would cover people in all sorts of sexual or non-sexual relationships. It would cover people who, for example, were employees - a live-in nurse or a maid - a lodger, possibly, and people sharing a house or a flat for convenience. It is financially convenient to share a house.
As I said before, I am not committing myself to a final view on this Bill, but it seems to me that we would be better off focusing on the personal or emotional nature of a commitment to another individual rather than on the financial commitment which one might make from time to time. I do not believe, for example, that people who merely enter into what amounts to a financial relationship, a financial arrangement, who choose to share costs in a house, ought to be covered by a domestic relationships kind of Act. We are talking about people who make personal or emotional commitments to each other. I think that is what we are talking about. There are other limits put on the extent of this Act by the provisions of the Bill and I will deal with those in a minute.
Although the draft Bill ultimately is about resorting to the courts when you cannot resolve a conflict or a dispute, or you need some intervention from the law to help you resolve some problem concerning property or maintenance, it does contain interesting provisions dealing with mediation and arbitration. I believe that these provisions in Part II of the Bill requiring the registrar of the court to advise people about mediation and arbitration facilities and to facilitate the reference of a particular dispute to those arbitration or mediation opportunities are the sort of provision which arguably, if it works, if it is practicable, should appear in all legislation in the ACT which establishes or deals with courts and tribunals. We would all have seen the initiative by the Law Society recently to think about mediation as a first port of call in dealing with disputes, and I think that measures which we take - - -
Mr Berry: Other people have thought about that.
MR HUMPHRIES: You have not thought about it?
Mr Berry: Other people have come up with that beforehand.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .