Page 3346 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the other hand, the intimate nature of many domestic relationships is not conducive to contracts, as they would be divisive and easily attract coercion, oppression or emotional blackmail. It is difficult for people in domestic relationships to negotiate objectively, when to do so can be taken as being a sign of lack of trust in the other person, or, on the breakdown of a relationship, when they are seen as being the cause of the breakdown. Threats of physical force or other abuse may also be used. For this reason the proposed legislation requires the parties to have received independent advice as to the effects of an agreement they might enter into and whether the agreement is fair and reasonable.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, the idea behind this legislation is not unique, and I believe that there is community support for the relief that it provides for those living in, or ending, de facto relationships. What is unique in Australia is the application of this relief to the broader category of domestic relationships. We have looked closely at New South Wales legislation on de facto relationships and questioned, in the light of the principles already accepted by the courts, why this broader category of relationships should not be covered by the same principles of social justice as de facto relationships. Madam Speaker, we do not see any reason why they should not be.
MS ELLIS (8.42): Madam Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make on this discussion paper. I believe that the importance of this discussion paper needs to be noted, and the importance of the whole process that this discussion paper is activating. I would like to quote from page 11, where the Australian Law Reform Commission pointed out:
... the nuclear, parent-child concept of family which currently underlies the law is too narrow to accommodate adequately the range of family arrangements found in Australia's multicultural society.
I think that really underpins the very reason for the introduction of a discussion paper of this kind into Canberra. Given the changes to the way in which our society exists, I believe it timely that a proposal for domestic relationship legislation in the ACT is considered in this way. People who live in domestic relationships without a legal status can only rely, at the moment, on very obscure, costly and rather uncertain methods if they wish to protect their rights, or if they need to have their obligations enforced. Obviously, people in de facto relationships come to mind more quickly as the most evident group in our community who need and will benefit from the review of this area of law, but I find it interesting that there are others. Homosexual couples are also covered in this paper, but there are many other examples where, under the definitions included in the draft legislation, people who find themselves in dispute may have an avenue of appeal that may be inaccessible to them at the moment.
A subject that has been discussed often in this chamber is our continually ageing population, and the need for some people to care for elderly relatives, particularly in cases such as dementia. I would like to bring to the notice of members the example quoted in this discussion paper, on page 2, where a family outline is given of an adult child caring for an elderly parent for some time. That is not an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .