COMMONWEALTH POWERS (DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2009. Page 2774.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:04): We support this private member's bill, which is important because the federal parliament last year introduced the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill, making landmark changes. It is not a matter that is in my natural area of interest, but it is important when we see these changes to the Family Law Act which allow financial causes, arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships, to be dealt with in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.

Until now, only parenting issues for separating de factos were heard in the Family Court, with financial matters regarding property settlement heard in the state courts. However, for the system to work, it is necessary for each state to refer its power to the commonwealth. Existing constitutional powers over the territories enable the commonwealth to legislate over the ACT and the Northern Territory.

To date, all states and territories except South Australia have passed legislation to enable the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court to take jurisdiction as of 1 February 2009, so we are already months behind. According to practitioners in family law, South Australia is a laughing stock, which I think is regrettable, and we should all take some responsibility for that. It all appears to be based simply on the personal whim of the Attorney-General who, for reasons best known to him, is singularly disinterested in bringing us into line with other states.

I do not know what his position is and why that would be the case. I would be interested to hear from the government why that is the case and whether there is any reason for it, but I am not aware of the reason. I know that our new leader introduced a private member's bill to refer South Australia's de facto relationships powers to the commonwealth in the House of Assembly on 14 May 2009 to try to get the Attorney-General to move on it. Again, we still have not seen any action.

I hope that something will be said by the government on this issue—if not now, then very shortly—because it is rather embarrassing. I cannot see for the life of me why this is because it is a very simple matter. We are supporting it because we cannot see any reason why not. Nobody has put anything to us, and I cannot see any personal, religious or any other reason why this has not been addressed. It should be just a matter of quickly agreeing to it and getting on with other business. The Liberal Party supports this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.