Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1292 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

As I was saying, the Commonwealth is happy to apply principles in relation to the property of couples who live in a heterosexual relationship but not to same-sex couples. Quite obviously, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, it is a property matter and is governed by attitudes to sex.

In 1994, the ACT enacted landmark legislation-the Domestic Relationships Act. That sets out the principles to be applied by the courts when dealing with property dispositions on the dissolution of domestic relationships. These principles are similar to provisions for property disposition on the breakdown of marriage in the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975.

Domestic relationships include a relationship between two adults, other than in marriage, in which at least one of them provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature, for the material benefit of the other. They may involve any two people, regardless of their sex, or the presence or absence of sexual activity between them.

The Domestic Relationships Act was enacted because the matter was seen as a property issue, not a moral one. The legal principles involved already existed in the common law as constructive and resulting trusts. The legislation simply made it easier, and thus less discriminatory, for these people to apply for an order from the court, based on their contribution to the material benefit of the other party-not on their gender, or on any sexual activity.

At that time, the then opposition-the Liberal Party-supported the passage of the Domestic Relationships Act, recognising that personal moral opinion was not appropriate when dealing with the question of fairness and justice in relation to property. Excluding same-sex couples from an advantage that is provided to heterosexual couples is not only contrary to the spirit of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and anti-discrimination legislation in every state and territory, it is punitive to those who are acting in accordance with the law. A person may give up a career or opportunity to acquire an income, in order to enhance the career of a domestic relationship partner, or to promote that partner's or their family's wellbeing in other ways. This person may be left without redress or protection if the relationship ends. He or she is in a less favourable position than that of a spouse, the financial situation being directly related to his or her gender.

A non-discriminatory approach to the recognition of same-sex couples makes economic sense. Joint economic sharing and investment are extremely beneficial to the partners, and to society as a whole. Laws that encourage those living in a domestic relationship to act jointly in financial matters and in a manner that protects each of the partners, if they make economic sacrifices, are for the benefit of the community as well as the couple involved.

Such laws have implications during the relationship. Those laws also have implications if the partners separate, or if one dies. From an economic standpoint, application of the same principles relating to property of same-sex couples as those relating to married couples offers significant advantage to the community. It encourages these couples to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .