Statutes Amendment (Registered Relationships) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2017).

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:08): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the registered relationships bill which, as members are aware, is consequential on previous law reforms passed through this parliament—indeed, a rainbow raft of law reforms that we have seen in the past month which, of course, the Greens welcome because we support equality.

I rise today to put on the record the Greens' support for what is essentially an administrative bill, but I also indicate that I have some questions about the workings of the relationships register and I flag those with the government. I thank the government for their previous information, and I have been in contact with the relevant ministers and the Premier's office about some of the concerns I will raise today.

The Premier quite rightly sought to act on this issue of relationships recognition because of the terribly sad case of Marco Bulmer-Rizzi and his husband David not being recognised as married when they came here on honeymoon and an unfortunate death occurred. At that time, in a speech that was a precursor to this bill, I noted that we have a situation in this state where the computer says no, in the worst examples of bureaucracy not recognising the fabric of people's lives—the slap in the face after having waited so long to get married, to be in the wonderful celebration of a honeymoon, and then to have that marriage not recognised in the event of a death.

I raise this question, as I have done previously in this place, because I am also concerned about situations in South Australia where South Australians have gone overseas to get married and have come back to this state seeking that that marriage be recognised in the case of the death of one of the spouses. My question to the government is: at present, where a couple has married overseas and one of the spouses has now died, does the death certificate still not recognise that they were married in another jurisdiction? Does the computer still say no?

With those few words, I look forward to the committee stage and some answers. These are not unexpected questions to the government, as I have raised them in the briefings. While the Greens support what is essentially an administrative bill, we want the computer to stop saying no to these people and to recognise not just their love and their relationships but the fact that they have been married and that that should be recognised in their lives as in their deaths.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:12): I will not speak very long, as I have already spoken on behalf of the Dignity Party about the original relationships register bill, and I was very pleased to lend our wholehearted support to that because we believe that all consenting adult relationships have the right to be equally recognised under the laws.

Of course, we recognise that this is really a poor substitute for marriage equality and we would still love to see that, but it does at the very least allow for greater recognition than has existed previously for those couples who may be unable to get married because of their gender make-up or for those couples who may be of the right gender make-up under current law to get married but do not wish to, and that is an important option to have available as well.

All this current bill really does is tidy up some of the administrative aspects of that bill, as speakers have said, so I will not speak to it at any great length, but I certainly echo the questions that have been raised by the previous speaker and look forward to, hopefully, having prompt and comprehensive answers to those and seeing that those issues are dealt with, as I would not want to create a situation where, philosophically, we reach the point where we want to offer this recognition to other relationships but do not then provide proper administrative pathways, such that we are continually coming back with other bills to update that policy.

With those few words, I lend our wholehearted support to the bill on behalf of the Dignity Party. Hopefully, this will be the last time we need to come back and put in place the correct measures to ensure that we actually have this important option available to many more couples and families across the state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.E. Hanson.