Page 4551 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a problem with enforcement, as the Insurance Council pointed out. It is very hard to work out whether somebody has entered into an arrangement to contract for insurance in an overseas country, or in another State of Australia, when these contracts of insurance do not need to be registered, nor should they be. I gather that the situation within Australia is not a real problem because, I am advised, insurance companies who provide insurance in Australia understand the requirement to be registered in particular jurisdictions where they propose to provide insurance, that is, where the asset or object which is the subject of insurance, or the person, for that matter, who is the subject of insurance, is actually resident. So in real terms there would be no problems since insurance companies in Australia understand this obligation. There may be a problem with overseas companies; but, again, I take the word of the advisers that this is not going to be a practical difficulty.
The Bill also provides for another matter, that is, the provision of exemption from stamp duty obligations on the transfer of assets, including property owned by organisations, whether employer or employee organisations, pursuant to the Federal Government's Industrial Relations Act of 1988. That Act is designed to produce larger organisations, particularly larger trade unions. Clearly, the Commonwealth has approached the States and Territories to facilitate this by providing for an exemption from stamp duty where organisations amalgamate and one organisation transfers its assets to another. It is clear that that is an appropriate kind of arrangement pursuant to that scheme, and it has the support of those on this side of the house.
A third matter that is raised in this Bill contains some deficiencies, but I think they can be dealt with by a suggestion from this side of the chamber being taken up by the Government by way of regulation. It is the intention of the Government to extend into legislation an arrangement it has had in place by administrative order since some time last year to provide that, where people who are partners to a relationship transfer property into joint names, pursuant to an agreement between them, those people should be able to obtain an exemption from stamp duty. That exemption from stamp duty already exists in the Act in respect of people who are married, and it is intended that this should be extended to people who are in de facto relationships, pursuant to the Government's intention to ensure that people in that position are not disadvantaged relative to people who are formally married.
I note one small point before proceeding to the main point of this observation. The terminology used in the interpretation clause which is to be included in the substantive Act is as follows:
'spouse', in relation to a person, includes a person who lives with the first-mentioned person as his or her spouse, although not legally married to him or her, on a bona fide domestic basis, and has so lived for a continuous period of not less than 2 years.
Mr Connolly: It is a standard definition - in Commonwealth superannuation legislation, for example.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, but it is not clear to me whether Commonwealth superannuation legislation applies to couples of the same sex. The Chief Minister has shaken her head and indicated that this is not intended to apply to same-sex couples.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .