Page 1806 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I note the important consultative process which has occurred prior to the tabling of this Bill. Members of the community have had a considerable amount of time to familiarise themselves with the debate through the earlier release of a discussion paper and an exposure draft of the Bill. I particularly welcome, Madam Speaker, the removal of references to the question of whether or not there has been a sexual relationship between the parties as a relevant consideration. In addition to people in de facto relationships, the Bill will be relevant to people in homosexual relationships, people in caring relationships, as well as people in other sorts of relationships of a domestic nature.
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill outlines some relationships which it considers do not come under the jurisdiction of this Bill. These relationships include friendship and neighbourliness commitments, people living together as flatmates, people living in group houses, people employed as live-in housekeepers and in other domestic employment. The legislation also is not intended to apply to people such as employees or students living in halls of residence.
I would now like to turn briefly to the only other significant change which has been adopted in the Bill from what was indicated in the discussion paper and the exposure draft of the legislation. This change makes it clear that not only can a court make a declaration that a domestic relationship does or did exist at a particular time, or during a particular period, but it also can declare that the domestic relationship does not or did not exist at a particular time or during a particular period. This is an extremely sensible initiative and it takes account of the need to address this issue fully. As the Minister's presentation speech indicates, the power of the court to declare a relationship finished may be especially beneficial to people who have been living in a potentially violent relationship. Again, for the information of members, I sought the opportunity to be briefed on the Bill. That enabled me to seek clarification with regard to a number of its provisions.
Mr Humphries has raised a number of issues for the Assembly's consideration, but I also would like to raise a number of those. The first concerns the wording with regard to the care and control of children in the relationship. When I read those words in the Bill the thought occurred to me that we are dealing with landmark legislation which is very much to the forefront of what jurisdictions in Australia are considering, yet we still talk about parents keeping control of their children. I believe that that is unfortunate wording; but I am advised that similar wording exists in the Family Law Act, and that is the reason for its inclusion in this Bill.
Mr Humphries also referred to the issue of relationships being considered where they have existed for two years. I also queried the reason for a two-year period as the time in which we would consider whether domestic relationships had been in existence or not. I am advised that that is the period that applies in the New South Wales legislation. It also serves to impose a control on the number of applications made. While I note that that may well be prejudicial to some people who do not live in a domestic relationship for two years, I also note that action can be taken by parties under common law. That recourse is available for those people.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .