Page 1805 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
equitable principles under which the laws relating to constructive trusts, for example, operate, but we are extending those equitable principles to certain relationships which might not previously have been covered by them. I take it that that is the case.
In any case, Madam Speaker, equitable jurisdiction is now being exercised by the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court has not traditionally had such a jurisdiction; it has always been exercised previously by the Supreme Court. I had some slight concern about the extent to which magistrates in the ACT would be able to deal with those equitable principles. Obviously, all the magistrates are trained lawyers, but some of them would not have had any experience on the bench of dealing with these principles. I understand that certain training programs are being instituted in the Magistrates Court to deal with that shortcoming. I just note in passing that possible problem with a new jurisdiction, a quite extensive new jurisdiction, being conferred on a particular court in the Territory.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say that this is the International Year of the Family and it could be said that it is our duty to promote and to support the institution of the family. There are some who would say that essential to that institution is the institution of marriage. That view, I suspect, is a slightly narrow view in that there are many other sorts of families which, for better or worse, do not depend on marriages. We will have a chance to talk about this when we debate the ministerial statement on the International Year of the Family. A more important element is the element of parenthood and the provision of care for other members of the family, generally as a parent to a child, but sometimes in other circumstances as well. I would hate to think that we were seen to be eroding or undermining the institution of marriage by passing legislation such as this. I believe that it is the duty of this Assembly to support that institution as much as it can.
I think that the answer to the question I have raised is that we do not erode the institution merely by offering some support to other sorts of relationships or institutions, if you can call them that, in our community. What we are doing is recognising that other relationships do, also, carry with them some rights. That, I think, is the answer to the question I pose. Perhaps others would like to comment on that in the course of the debate. I take the task of the Assembly very seriously in that respect and I believe that we do need to provide that protection to other sorts of relationships because they, for far too long, have been unprotected under the laws of the Territory. There may be some grey areas yet to be cleared up by the scope of this legislation, but that will be a matter of trial and error. We will have to watch the operation of the Act to make sure that it does cover those important areas properly and does not become what was not intended by this Assembly. However, in respect of the matter of protecting those other relationships, those other rights, it is high time it happened, and I am glad to see the Bill before the house today. I commend the legislation to the Assembly.
MS SZUTY (5.18): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate today on the Domestic Relationships Bill 1994. The passage of this Bill will herald important changes in the ACT, as Mr Humphries said, enabling a range of people who have provided personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature to the material benefit of another person for two years to seek adjustment of the ownership of property which is held by the other person to reflect the value of their contribution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .