Page 1645 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL: I move amendments Nos 10 to 63 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1671].
These amendments, in the bulk, deal with the issue of the proposed interpretation provision from the Legislation Act 2001 and make amendments to schedule 1 as a consequence of this. All members would be aware that the commonwealth has raised some concerns with the proposed Legislation Act provision. The amendments to the Legislation Act 2001 are an interpretation device to support clause 5 of the bill. The proposed Legislation Act definitions provide that in an act or statutory instrument a reference to a spouse includes a reference to a civil union partner, a reference to marriage includes a reference to a civil union, and a reference to being married includes a reference to being in a civil union.
These provisions do not mean that a marriage is the same as a civil union, only that where rights or responsibilities are accorded by an ACT law to a person in a marriage the same rights and responsibilities will be accorded to a person in a civil union as a matter of interpretation. This type of interpretative device is quite common in a wide variety of legislation. It is also quite common for the term “spouse” to include a reference to someone who is not in fact a spouse. For example, section 5 of the Credit Act 1984 in New South Wales provides definitions for the act that include that spouse of a person includes a person with whom the person has a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Property Relations Act 1984. A de facto relationship within the meaning of this act is a relationship between two adult persons who live together as a couple and who are not married to one another or related by family. So, if this issue is of concern to the commonwealth, which they have indicated it is, I look forward to the commonwealth Attorney-General’s letter to the New South Wales Attorney-General raising his concern over this equating of non-marriage relationships with marriage relationships in the New South Wales Credit Act.
Another example worth highlighting as well is that section 240 of the commonwealth Workplace Relations Act 1996 sets out definitions for the division of that act that deals with personal leave. Section 240 of that act provides that a spouse includes the following: a former spouse, a de facto spouse and a former de facto spouse. De facto spouse is also defined in section 240 to mean a person of the opposite sex to the employee who lives with the employee as the employee’s husband or wife on a genuine domestic basis although not legally married to the employee. Again, there is an equating of non-marriage relationships with marriage relationships through the use of a common interpretative device. The commonwealth is not concerned if its own legislation contains this type of provision, only if the ACT’s does, apparently.
While the government does not agree that having an interpretative provision that says a reference to a spouse includes a reference to a civil union means that they are equivalent, the government is happy to amend the legislation to address this so-called perception, and that is what the bulk of these amendments do.
The only other amendment that I would draw members’ attention to in this batch of amendments deals with the issue of recognising same-sex marriages solemnised in a foreign country. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the reference to a marriage solemnised in a foreign country. The use of this term was an oversight and it should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .