Page 1801 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
relationships - marriages except for the formality of a marriage ceremony - and the ACT has lacked that in the past. This is an attempt to remedy that, but to do much more than just that. It is appropriate to make the point that it is more than simply de facto marriages that deserve to have some certainty introduced to their nature. A great many other relationships of a personal or familial kind need the same certainty and protection. That is why we see considerable merit in the path that has been adopted here, beginning with the tabling of a discussion paper last year, followed by the introduction in due course of the Bill arising from debate on that discussion paper within the community and by the debate today.
Madam Speaker, this is a Bill that has attracted a great deal of interest, despite not being a really high profile Bill in one sense. I have certainly had a great many requests for copies of the Bill, many of them from legal practitioners who will be interested in being able to provide, in a sense, an additional service to their clients. I know from having been a practitioner that in the past some people have had to be turned away or told, "The options open to you are unfortunately rather uncertain. We can go to court and argue that you should be provided with certain protection on the basis of certain legal arguments about constructive trusts, and do it in the Supreme Court moreover, where it is going to be much more expensive. We cannot offer you too much certainty about the outcome, but that is how it is". This will remedy that, and people will know what their position is with some greater degree of certainty.
Madam Speaker, the parameters of this Bill - that is, the sorts of relationships it touches upon - are the most crucial and possibly also the most contentious aspect of the legislation. This is the area in which the Liberal Party thought long and hard about whether to introduce amendments to make clear what has been said about the Bill and what we still feel might be a problem in the future. It is not necessary for a person to live with another person for those people to be in a domestic relationship pursuant to this Bill. It is not necessary that people be in a sexual relationship for people to be caught by the terms of this Bill. But it is necessary - and I quote the Attorney-General - that there be a common factor which he describes as follows:
The common factor for applicants will be their contribution to financial resources of another, and that alone. A person who fulfils the stipulated requirements is eligible to apply for a remedy.
That definition is slightly expanded by the definition of "domestic relationship" in clause 3 of the Bill, which says:
"domestic relationship" means a personal relationship (other than a legal marriage) between 2 adults in which 1 provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other, and includes a de facto marriage.
Madam Speaker, that is a fairly broad definition. On the face of that definition, it might be argued that it will catch a number of relationships which I think it was not intended be caught when the legislation was originally prepared. Obviously the sort of relationship that it is intended be caught is the relationship that exists, say, between an elderly mother and a son where that son provides certain sorts of support to the mother over a period
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .