Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 853 ..
degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, the duration of the relationship, the existence of a sexual relationship, the care and support of children, the nature and extent of common residence, the ownership, use and acquisition of property, the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the parties, and the reputation and public aspects of the relationship. None of these are determinative in themselves, nor are they all relevant in every case.
The Victorian act uses a similar definition to the one in this bill. Mr Hulls went on to say:
Although the principal definition of domestic partner assumes cohabitation, this is of course to be interpreted reasonably. Domestic partners will not lose their status as a couple just because, for example, one partner has been in a nursing home for a time-be it months or years-before they die, or the couple live in different states or even countries for a time because of work requirements, or the myriad issues which may lead a couple to spend time apart, while remaining a couple who share their lives.
I do not consider it necessary, as some people have suggested, to have a provision stating that living together is not necessary in order for a couple to fall within the definition of domestic partnership. ACT legislation does not currently recognise opposite sex couples who do not live together as being de facto spouses. I think this is an important point-the fact that our legislation does not currently recognise opposite sex couples who do not live together as being de facto spouses. The definition in the bill treats a same-sex couple who do not live together in the same way as we currently treat opposite sex couples who live together.
The expression "living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis"has been considered by courts and is well understood. It is clear that it must be considered as a whole phrase. Some judgments specifically reject the suggestion that it should be dissected into component elements. In some circumstances, a couple who do not share a common residence may still be able to show, through other indicators, that they fall within the definition.
A court will be able to take all the circumstances into account and will not be restricted to a legislated list of issues in deciding whether two people are in a domestic partnership. In order to assist the court, and to make it clear that the definition is intended to be interpreted broadly, having regard for a number of factors, I am moving an amendment to insert an example list of factors into the definition of domestic partnership. The example will aid interpretation but will place no restriction on the court in deciding whether particular circumstances fall within the definition.
I will also be moving amendments to address some difficulties that have been identified with the definition of transgender person. While this definition has been taken directly from the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, and is in fact used as a standard in many jurisdictions, it seems that some improvements can be made.
Ms Dundas has foreshadowed that she is moving exactly the same amendments. Mr Cornwell, you will be pleased to know that the 40 pages of amendments are, in fact,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .