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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2984 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

A case in point is the Discrimination Act. The Discrimination Act defines a de facto spouse as "a person of the opposite sex to the first mentioned person who lives with the first mentioned person as the husband or wife of that person on a bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to that person". This definition also excludes a same-sex partner from discrimination due to marital status, as in that definition marital status, while applying to de facto relationships, is reserved solely for heterosexuals. Those in same-sex relationships cannot complain about discrimination based on their relationship status. They have to rely on the grounds of sex or sexuality.

Another example is the Domestic Relationships Act. When it was passed, it was heralded as a big step forward for the status of same-sex relationships, which it was, but the legislation was not designed to equate same-sex and different-sex de facto relationships and does not include a definition of a de facto relationship. The act was also designed to cover a broader scope of relationships than simply de facto couples-relationships such as that between an adult carer and an elderly parent.

One way of tackling this problem would be to insert into the Legislation Act a complete and exhaustive definition of de facto relationship, similar to recent changes made in Western Australian law. However, it is not only the definition of de facto that causes problems. In many cases, other terms that refer to familiar relationships either exclude same-sex couples or are left unstated. The presence of terms like "family", "relative" "next of kin", "parent" or "guardian" need to be examined in the context of same-sex relationships, as they may be construed to be discriminatory in effect.

A second major problem in administering many of these laws is that it is extremely difficult to formalise a same-sex relationship if a couple wishes to. While it is the case that same-sex couples often do not feel the need to have their relationship formally recognised by a government, there are some who would like the ability to do so but are currently prevented by federal law. I am proud to say that the Australian Democrats are working to fix that, with my federal colleagues tabling amendments, I believe, this week to the federal Marriage Act. But here in the ACT there is the avenue of going through the ACT Supreme Court and having the court rule that a domestic relationship exists, but this is very time consuming and painfully impersonal.

I understand that it is within this Assembly's power to create a system whereby de facto couples could register their relationships under territory law, which would provide greater legal certainty for both partners and legal documentation of the nature of their relationship. Such a civil union would not need to be reserved solely for same-sex partners but could be accessed by heterosexual de facto couples if they wished to formally recognise their relationship without taking the step of getting married. I have included the investigation of this issue in my motion, as I believe it is something we should definitely consider. I would like to note that it is current Labor Party policy.

I also wish to draw the attention of the Assembly to anti-vilification legislation. We already have racial vilification legislation. I note that both New South Wales and Tasmania have enacted anti-vilification legislation on the basis of sexuality or HIV status. I am interested in the outcome of these investigations because, while I support these measures in principle, I also recall that there have been legal difficulties with anti-

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