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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1294 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Members may not consider this particularly relevant, but to support that approach, in the first instance, would involve a winding-back of a position which I, as Attorney-General, agreed to at the last meeting of SCAG. All Attorneys-General around Australia, from every state and territory, plus the Commonwealth, agreed to a reference of powers in relation to de facto relationships. They expressed serious concern and alarm at the Commonwealth's position, and have implored the Commonwealth to reconsider its position in relation to a same-sex reference.

This issue has been on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General since 1992-Mr Humphries would remember it well. It is something that each of the states and territories has worked at, with the Commonwealth, for 10 years. Significant progress was made at the times that Mr Humphries and Mr Stefaniak were ACT Attorneys-General in relation to this issue. At the last meeting of SCAG this year, the decision was made, by every jurisdiction, that there would be a referral of power in relation to de facto relationships.

At the same time, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, indicated that the Commonwealth would not accept the reference in relation to same-sex relationships. That raised the ire and concern of every other Attorney-General in Australia. Every state and territory is now united in a determination that it is most appropriate for the Commonwealth to legislate in relation to these issues. That entails a whole range of reasons that go, effectively, to the enhancement of processes for those who need to utilise the law. (Extension of time granted.) At the heart of this is a desire for uniform laws across the nation in relation to this important issue, to enhance the circumstances, and the situation, for de facto couples.

The Commonwealth is responsible for the Family Law Act. It has constitutional power in relation to marriage, and it has constitutional power in relation to the dissolution of marriage. States and territories can legislate in relation to property issues. However, after years of Commonwealth policy-making, there has been consultation and consideration of a major issue in relation to property distribution as a result of the breakdown of marriage-that is the issue of reforms initiated by the Commonwealth government in recent years in relation to how to appropriately and equitably split superannuation.

This has always been the bugbear in relation to property arrangements after the breakdown of a marriage or de facto marriage. When individuals are faced with the dissolution or breakdown of a relationship, how do courts construct an appropriate, fair and equitable distribution of super? It is one of the intractable problems facing couples, of whatever ilk, who separate. You can split the house in half, you can make adjustments-say 60/40 in relation to all other property rights. However, it is incredibly difficult-almost impossible-to achieve in relation to superannuation, because they are rights that do not vest for years to come.

The Commonwealth has made major reforms in relation to superannuation. They are reforms that almost everybody, especially advocates for women, have welcomed. It is generally accepted that it was almost invariably-in relation to heterosexual relationships

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