Page 1639 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
psychological maturity to do so. As many members have said here tonight, sexual relationships are very important and they cement relationships.
The problem members of the opposition have is twofold. For the most part, there are issues of people whom the Chief Minister on occasions chooses to call children—and they are children because the matters dealt with here are dealt with in the Children’s Court—entering into the sort of contractual arrangement which is generally reserved for those who have reached their majority.
There is an inconsistency. I freely confess that I do not know a clear and coherent way through this but I think that what is being proposed in the original bill and in these amendments, which are worse because of the issues raised by Mr Stefaniak because there are now provisions that the Children’s Court can override withdrawal of consent or withholding of consent, is a significant departure from and a significant abrogation of the rights and responsibilities of parents or guardians. These amendments arrived at six o’clock last night and we are in the process of making a substantial change to the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians here with the mere stroke of a pen.
I also want to go back and dwell on the issue of dealing with property, which was raised by the attorney. The point I made was that two minors who have entered into an essentially contractual arrangement do not have the capacity to enter into any other contractual arrangement. They do not have the capacity to inherit. That could be dealt with by a trust for two years or so. If they enter into an arrangement like this, they do not have the capacity to inherit and dispense with the property in the way they would if they were in a marriage, because in a marriage one of the partners has reached their majority.
There is another issue. Mr Corbell said, “Look, just because they are in a civil relationship does not mean they want to go out and buy a house.” If people are in a meaningful relationship there is a usual presumption of some form of cohabitation. They may not want to buy a house. They may want to rent a property but will not be able to take out a lease. Children are not able to take out a lease, whereas a young couple—one aged 16 and the other aged 18—who are married are able to take out a lease because there is one person who is legally competent, according to the provisions of the Age of Majority Act, to take out a lease.
This is not the case. The attorney says it is a furphy because he has not thought of it. It is a problem in this legislation we are creating and it needs to be addressed. We are creating a subclass of people who may enter into a meaningful and significant relationship but do not have the legal autonomy to act upon that. They do not have the capacity to dispense with property that they may inherit; they do not have the capacity to buy or sell property; they do not have the capacity to provide for a roof over their own heads by taking out a lease. These are in many ways fundamental, everyday things. We are creating a situation where we are giving people a certain set of rights but then depriving them of others. This is a symptom of what has not been clearly thought through.
This piece of legislation is going to pass tonight and it is incumbent upon the attorney to come back and fix this anomaly. There are people who have the capacity to enter into a civil union, to cast off the shackles of guardianship by their parents or guardian and live independent lives, but will not have the wherewithal to do it. It is incumbent upon the attorney, if this legislation passes tonight—and it will—to come back and fix it. It is all
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .