Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (13 March) . . Page.. 1058 ..
MS DUNDAS
(continuing):It is unfortunate that people are still denied the right to marry their loved ones if they so choose because the federal government refuses to change the Marriage Act, so we have to fix up our own legislation in the ACT to make quite clear what is a domestic partner. The list of examples includes the length of their relationship; whether they are living together; if they are living together, how long and under what circumstances; whether there is a sexual relationship; how they share finances; their ownership of property; and the degree of a mutual commitment to a shared life, as well as a number of other indicators.
It is not an exhaustive list and it is not an exclusive list, but it is a list that quite clearly tries to bring into scope the reality for people in our community who do live in domestic partnerships and want that recognised under law. By sticking in a reference to whether they are legally married, I do believe that you would cloud this list. We have already stated quite clearly that a domestic partner includes a spouse. I do not see why we need to put it in this list, especially as the list is only a list of examples. We do not need to cloud this list by putting a reference to marriage in there and making courts think that two people who cannot be married should be married to be in a domestic partnership.
I cannot support this amendment. I do hope that the Assembly will see that this amendment is not necessary and that it clouds what we are trying to do today, which is to remove discrimination, not perpetuate it.
MR STANHOPE
(Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (4.37): At the time of the separation for the luncheon adjournment, I had just concluded responding to Mrs Burke's amendment and had spoken at the same time about my proposed amendment. Of course, the two amendments are connected.My amendment No 4, just to reiterate as a consequence of the break, seeks to include the list of indicators which we have been discussing. I did not go through that list of indicators that are there to determine whether two people are in a domestic partnership. The list of indicators that I propose is about whether a domestic partnership exists. This is about whether people who are not married, people who do not have a spouse, satisfy some or all of these indicators, as an aid to determining whether a domestic partnership exists.
Ten are listed. The issues are: the length of the relationship; whether they are living together; if they are living together, how long and under what circumstances they have lived together; whether there is a sexual relationship between them; their degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support; the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually; their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life; whether they mutually care for and support children; the performance of household duties; and the reputation and public aspects of the relationship between them. The following note appears at the end of that list of indicators in the proposed amendment:
An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .