<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2009-02-19" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1635" />
  <endPage num="1712" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Registration of Deaths) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000078">
        <heading>BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (REGISTRATION OF DEATHS) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000079">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000080">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000081">(Continued from 16 October 2008. Page 511.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="549" kind="speech">
          <name>Mr VENNING</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Schubert</electorate>
          <startTime time="2009-02-19T11:11:00" />
          <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000082">
            <timeStamp time="2009-02-19T11:11:00" />
            <by role="member" id="549">Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:11):</by>  The recognition of de facto relationships is not only legalised: such relationships are now considered by most—not all—as acceptable in our society. A lot of us still believe in the institution of marriage, and consider that traditional marriage is the backbone of our community. But today things are a little different. I think our society has generally moved on and does accept these new types of relationships.</text>
          <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000083">De facto relationships are recognised when dealing with family law, under the Family Relationships Act, and when dealing with government agencies, namely Centrelink, which takes into account de facto relationships when calculating a household's earnings, among other things.</text>
          <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000084">It seems logical that, given that de facto relationships are already officially acknowledged in other legislation, this amendment should be passed. After all, it is only a minor amendment, and it gives those who choose to be in a de facto relationship (as opposed to a spousal relationship) the chance to be recognised as such on a death certificate.</text>
          <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000085">Again, I commend the member for Davenport for introducing this bill. It is a matter of keeping up with the times. As I said earlier, many people would agree that de facto relationships are not the preferred relationship, and I still believe in marriage. Indeed, the people of Schubert, very much with a religious background, still promote the marriage relationship. But, we live in a modern world and cannot live in the past. I commend the member for Davenport for bringing in this bill, to make us face reality and to bring us up to date.</text>
          <text id="200902190b0f5ca17da64d6e80000086">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>