<!--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="2009-07-16" />
  <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="3565" />
  <endPage num="3644" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Bill</name>
      <page num="3570" />
      <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000054">
        <heading>COMMONWEALTH POWERS (DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS) BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000055">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000056">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000057">(Continued from 14 May 2009. Page 2774.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="549" kind="speech">
          <name>Mr VENNING</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Schubert</electorate>
          <startTime time="2009-07-16T11:04:00" />
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000058">
            <timeStamp time="2009-07-16T11:04:00" />
            <by role="member" id="549">Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:04): </by> 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.</text>
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000059">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.</text>
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000060">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.</text>
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000061">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.</text>
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000062">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.</text>
          <text id="200907160815730e37d143bf80000063">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>