Bills

Family Relationships (Parentage Presumptions) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

That the additional amendments made by the House of Assembly to the Legislative Council's additional amendment to schedule A1 be agreed to.

The CHAIR: Do you want to talk about it?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I see no point. We voted on this over a year ago now, June 2015. I would like to get on with the bill.

The CHAIR: I don't have a problem if you don't want to talk; we don't want a lecture. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As members would be aware, my view has been a minority view on this legislation, but I am interested in the majority view. If the Hon. Ms Franks does not want to explain it, maybe the Hon. Mr Kandelaars might. As I understood it, the last time we were here the majority supported an amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Kandelaars. That was the majority view. But as I understand the position in relation to what the Hon. Ms Franks is now moving—I think she thwarted the Hon. Mr Kandelaars last time—is that the council is now being asked to not support the Hon. Mr Kandelaars' amendment that was supported last time. So perhaps the Hon. Mr Kandelaars could explain whether that is indeed the case and whether he is actually moving from that position as well.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Given the Hon. Rob Lucas's prompting, firstly, let us be clear: the amendments made in the other place by the Hon. John Rau essentially did something that was already part of births, deaths and marriages in terms of who could actually access a birth certificate, so he just clarified that. In terms of the second part, which I think was an amendment moved by the member for Newland, it was to, in effect, waiver the amendment that I put that allowed a 12-month leeway in terms of the application of the bill.

To be honest, I only did that for the sake of the fact that there was currently a review being undertaken in terms of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act. The thought was that that may ultimately recommend that the register be dealt with by the Department for Health rather than through births, deaths and marriages.

The amendment that the member for Newland put essentially means that the act comes into operation within three months, but should there be a subsequent change because of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act it would take over the operation. That explains where we are now. I can indicate from my point of view that I am quite prepared to accept the changes made by the other place. That should put this whole thing into operation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just clarify? As I understand it, in terms of the schedule of the consequential amendment made by the Legislative Council to which the House of Assembly has disagreed, the House of Assembly has disagreed to one of the amendments that the Legislative Council moved. Am I correct in assuming that that was the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Kandelaars? I think that is what he just said, but I just want to clarify that that is the case. And if that is the case, whilst he moved the amendment and the majority supported him last time, he is now of a different view, for the reasons that he has just outlined?

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Yes, that is correct. Just to clarify, because of the nature of how this will be put to the house the second consequential amendment has to be put to the house in a positive fashion; so once it is moved we will be moving against that.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Not insisting.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Not insisting on the Legislative Council consequential amendment, which was the amendment that I put, yes. That is one of the vagaries of how we put motions in this place.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, my view that I expressed was a minority view on the original legislation. I do not intend to argue again the case. My views on that particular occasion were placed on the record, and it was a minority view rather than the majority view of this council. We then got into this backwards and forwards between the houses with various amendments from the member for Newland, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mr Kandelaars and others, and essentially the issues that are being pursued—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Who else moved an amendment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I could not keep up with all of them, the Hon. Ms Franks, there have been so many going backwards and forwards. As the Hon. Ms Franks indicates, this has been for some 12 to 18 months, evidently, going backwards and forwards between the two houses of parliament. On the last occasion this was debated in this particular chamber, and then again in the House of Assembly, there has been, I think, some confusion from some members in both houses of parliament as to the detailed impact of some of the amendments that were being moved both in the House of Assembly and in the Legislative Council.

I think the fact that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars and others would appear to be actually now voting against an amendment they supported a few months ago is a fair indication that not everyone understood the details of the amendments that were being moved at the time and they have now, on reflection, adopted a different position. That is entirely their prerogative, but I think is an indication that these amendments have created some confusion in the mind of some members.

The essential concern that I and a small number of other members have had has not generally related to the issues that are being pursued in the amendment the Hon. Mr Kandelaars moved, or the amendment the member for Newland had moved. They essentially relate to the substantive issue that was being pursued in the legislation, and I accept the fact that the majority in both houses of the parliament is taking a different view.

For those reasons, this is a complicated process, as the Hon. Mr Kandelaars has indicated, and by way of interjection the Hon. Ms Gago has endorsed as well, in that we will be asked to support some and not insist on other amendments in relation to the actual motion that will be pursued. If those in the minority view, such as my own, vote against this, it does not essentially defeat the legislation, although in the end potentially it drives this piece of legislation to a conference of managers between the houses. That is unlikely because there is not a majority view that will pursue that particular case or support that particular view.

Of course, if you got to a conference of managers and both houses could not agree, then the bill would lapse as a result of that. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendments, but I do not propose myself to call divide in relation to them because—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Because it worked so well last time?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I do not think the Hon. Ms Franks can talk: she, together with others, is actually opposing an amendment they supported last time.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am entitled to put a point of view.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: We've heard it.

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas has every right to make his opinions heard, and the less interjection the quicker we will get out of here. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. For those reasons, a vote for or against these amendments will not in my view be a vote for or against the principal issues that are canvassed in the legislation. So, for those reasons, as I said, whilst I will not be supporting the various amendments, I personally do not propose to call divide for the reasons I have outlined; nevertheless, I remain opposed to the primary purpose of the legislation, as I outlined a year or so ago.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Very quickly, I indicate for the record that Family First did not support this initially, and that remains our position.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I missed the opportunity to speak last time. We went through a process that was a little unusual by continuing to sit past an agreed time, and I would have certainly supported the Hon. Robert Lucas when he would have called divide. I would have been the second voice. I want to be on the record as having said that.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's consequential amendment to clause 2, page 2, lines 6 to 8 be not insisted upon.

Motion carried.

At 21:02 the council adjourned until Thursday 9 June 2016 at 14:15.