House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Relationships Register Bill Relationships Register Bill Relationships Register Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). Mr PEDERICK House of Assembly Hammond Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:44): I rise to continue my remarks in relation to the Relationships Register Bill 2016. This is one in a suite of bills, and we have just had one introduced again on gender identity, since the last one spectacularly failed when the Premier was not in the house. This is another bill that attempts to take out gender and introduce provisions for everyone to be called 'person', and it changes issues around parentage and giving access to IVF for gay couples. Certainly, in regard to surrogacy legislation, it will entitle same-sex couples, or single persons, to be involved in surrogacy. As I indicated before question time, I was a proud supporter of the bill from the Hon. John Dawkins in the other place regarding surrogacy, but he certainly did not have these amendments in the original legislation, which I thought was good legislation in amending a wrong that was causing people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to access surrogacy in other states. As I indicated earlier, it also caused people to go overseas, with adverse outcomes for some who used surrogates overseas. I do have some concerns about revocation orders and the fact that we are not talking about marriage but about a registered relationship. People could decide they are in and out of a relationship, they go through the 90-day revocation period, and that is it. They can then have another relationship and do that down the track. I guess that cuts out all the chaos with the divorce court and everything else that can happen in a marriage these days. In this legislation, you can be in a registered relationship irrespective of your sex or gender identity. We hear a lot about discrimination and equality in these debates, and quite frankly I think a lot of these debates discriminate against the values that people have grown up with over the years. They discriminate against the values of people who recognise that marriage is about a man and a woman, that those partnerships are about a man and a woman, and that family values are about raising children with a father and a mother. I know that is not always possible, but I also know that you have to have some ideals so that society actually functions. Currently, there are 3,200 children in care, and I believe there are many advances that could be made so that we do not have that number of children in care. I think we need to try to build our society and have some higher ideals. In this house, multiple bills have been pushed by the left on gender identity—essentially gay marriage, which is a function of the federal parliament—at a time when we have massive issues in this state. We have massive issues with power supply to the state. We had 'black Wednesday' most recently, when the whole state's power supply went out. Only this morning, I was talking to someone involved in the mining industry who said that when they come off contract to their power provider, on the days when electricity will cost the most they will actually be shutting down because it is more viable for them to shut down operations and not pay an outrageous amount for power. I have people involved in all sorts of industries in my electorate who are expanding their interstate operations, sadly, because it costs so darn much to operate here. There are other issues we should be dealing with in this state. We have health issues. EPAS, the electronic patient administration scheme, is a complete disaster. We have spent almost $500 million and we see it implicated in a Coroner's Court hearing at the moment where allegedly people could not get the information up on time. It is part of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is not built strong enough for paper records. I find that outrageous when we have spent at least $2.2 billion on a hospital that has had so many repairs it is completely out of control, and it is a new building. If I was in the private sector and was having a shed built on my farm like this, I would absolutely be dismayed at what was going on. We have massive issues with child protection in this state. I indicated earlier in my contribution that we need to be doing more to look after the children of this state and get better outcomes, instead of having endless report after report. We should be doing something about helping these children so that they have a better future, instead of having poor outcomes where, sadly, some turn into quite recalcitrant people over time or, sadly, lose their lives. We have SA Water— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, I just need to draw your attention to standing order 128, which is the relevance to the actual bill we are debating. Mr PEDERICK House of Assembly Mr PEDERICK: Yes, absolutely. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am finding it difficult to understand SA Water's relevance to the Relationships Register Bill, and you only have a minute left, so let's get right back to the nub. Mr PEDERICK House of Assembly Mr PEDERICK: No worries. Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer back to the Relationships Register Bill, which is part of a suite of legislation that we are debating, instead of the big issues of state, like the Gillman sale debacle— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Hammond. I did call you to order and if you seek to defy the ruling, I will have to confer in the next 30 seconds how we might bring you back to the nub of the bill, which is the Relationships Register Bill. Mr PEDERICK House of Assembly Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I am all over it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are not all over it. Mr PEDERICK House of Assembly Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the few seconds I have left, I indicate that I will not be supporting this legislation and that we should be debating the real things to make this state great again. Ms WORTLEY House of Assembly Torrens Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (15:52): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Relationships Register Bill. If passed through this parliament, this bill will see the introduction of a relationships register, coupled with the establishment of a new legal category of relationship—a registered relationship—which will be recognised in the definition of 'domestic partner' in the Family Relationships Act 1975. The expansion of the term 'domestic partner' will remove the discriminatory impact that can be caused through the current requirements of cohabitation for qualifying for domestic partnership status. The bill would bring South Australia into line with Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania, where relationship registers are already in place. It would have the effect of allowing two people to register their relationship, regardless of the gender of each person. The relationships register would also ensure that South Australia is in line with the federal government's moves to remove discrimination of unmarried people in relationships. The commonwealth has amended its Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to define a de facto partner in its legislation to include partners in registered relationships under a prescribed law of a state or territory. I understand that, if the bill is passed by this parliament, the state government will work with the commonwealth to have it added as a prescribed law. It would mean that unmarried couples in South Australia, whether in heterosexual or non-heterosexual relationships, will be able to (1) register their relationship; (2) receive a certificate of registration; and (3) know that their relationship is respected and recognised in South Australia. The register not only provides an important avenue for all couples to express their commitment to each other in a dignified and legally recognised way but also makes it simpler for them to seek to access entitlements and to assert their rights as a couple. The significant aspect of this section of the bill will result in: a relationships register being established in South Australia; relationships being registered interstate also recognised in South Australia; marriages being recognised overseas also recognised in South Australia with appropriate limits; the registrar being provided with the power to register these relationships; the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 being amended to reference the new legal category of 'registered relationship'; the Family Relationships Act 1975 being amended, along with any other necessary consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation to reference the new legal category of 'registered relationship'; and the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 being amended, along with any necessary consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation, to reference the new legal category of 'registered relationship'. The administration of the relationships register will be carried out by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and, importantly, registration will be voluntary. A relationship will be eligible for registration where both parties are: in a relationship as a couple; are adults; at least one of the parties resides in South Australia; neither party is married, in another registered relationship, or in another relationship as a couple with another person; and also where they are not related to each other than, possibly, through marriage. The effect of clauses 8 and 9 is that on receipt of a valid application, and after a 28-day cooling-off period, the registrar must register the relationship. The cooling-off period is designed to ensure that the decision to register a relationship is a considered one. Either party may withdraw his or her application during the cooling-off period. This has similarities with the Marriage Act 1961 whereby at least one month's notice must be served before a marriage can be lawfully solemnised. There is also a provision to revoke the registration of a relationship in cases where a relationship has broken down. The registrar can revoke the registration of a relationship on the application of one or both of the parties. If only one partner wishes to have the registration revoked, he or she will have to demonstrate that notice has been served on the other party. The registrar can dispense with that notice requirement if satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice as required. I think this particular section of the Relationships Register Bill 2016 has been a long time coming, and I will support it. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.