Page 4556 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR HUMPHRIES (4.35): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to a couple of matters the Chief Minister has raised. I do not wish to extend the debate indefinitely, but I want to make it crystal clear that I am not suggesting that the Government should extend concessions on payment of stamp duty beyond the family home. What I am saying is that, in granting a concession over part of the family home, one should treat it as part of a wider number of assets that are owned by parties to a marriage or to a partnership. Where there are other considerable assets outside the matrimonial home, we should take them into account in deciding what is most equitable in giving an equal division between the two parties to a partnership or to a marriage.
I point out that this suggestion would work in the vast majority of cases very much in favour of women. It is women who most often are unable to enjoy their capacity to create as many assets as men, whether husbands or partners, and therefore it is to their advantage to have the whole of the matrimonial home considered as part of an arrangement which provides equity between the two parties. I go back to the example of a husband and wife who marry. The husband has considerable assets of his own. The most the wife can expect out of that arrangement, to obtain some equality free of payment of stamp duty, is half the matrimonial home. That might provide for the wife still having only a very small proportion of the total assets of the family. By giving her the capacity to take the whole of the family home, one would see in those situations her having perhaps not total equity but certainly a much larger degree of equity within the family arrangement. Again, we are not talking about anything outside the family home.
There is one other matter I think we have to touch on, namely, the question of matrimonial agreements. Solicitors very frequently these days advise people who are getting married to consider matrimonial agreements, and the Family Court is also, as I recall, favourably disposed towards considering these agreements as a way of sorting out potential problems in divisions of property between partners. A matrimonial agreement might provide for some division other than 50 per cent to each of the parties, or other than proportions which reflect the contributions of the spouses towards the purchase and improvement of the property. Under this arrangement, a matrimonial agreement could not be honoured in terms of the provisions of this paragraph.
Given that matrimonial agreements are very much part of the Family Court's process of regulating arrangements between parties, I ask the Chief Minister to consider extending this legislation by regulation to cover agreements made between the parties before they get married.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.38): To respond on the spot to what Mr Humphries has said, we will certainly keep that matter under consideration and review it if needs be. I must admit that I have not considered the question of matrimonial agreements. If it appears that this Bill could be impacted by such agreements, obviously we will need to look at changing it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .