HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Relationships Register Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): I rise to speak on the Relationships Register Bill 2016, introduced by the assistant minister to the Premier on 22 September this year.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As lead speaker?

Ms CHAPMAN: As lead speaker, yes. The contents of some of the bill have been floated in various bills, including by the Hon. Tammy Franks in another place, but they have ultimately culminated in this bill to address a number of what I would suggest are outstanding issues for different reasons.

I can indicate that parts of this bill of which we have received notice are likely to be severed into a separate bill before the vote at second reading; nevertheless, they are more controversial. The opposition has taken the view that we will not have a party position on the bill and accordingly, as is consistent with our side of politics on every bill, each member will vote according to their conscience. We have the right on our side of the house for that to occur as a matter of our party rules. It is something of which we are immensely proud and, even if we do have party positions on bills, each member has the right to reserve their position and the right to present that to the parliament.

I want to address, however, a brief background to this bill together with areas that I think are relatively uncontroversial, although some members may take the view that all of this is unacceptable to them in progressing, but I think that, in fairness, we can place the areas of contentiousness into two major areas. Let's be clear about what is to occur here: this bill allows for the registration of relationships of couples in any relationship—however, still between consenting adults.

To demonstrate their status when dealing with other agencies, they will have the opportunity to register those relationships, and it also allows for the recognition of interstate and overseas relationships in certain circumstances, in particular where the jurisdictions are similar in respect of the marital relationships, where a civil partnership or same-sex marriage is recognised and where a registered domestic relationship law prevails.

Members would be aware of the rather distressing case that occurred earlier this year involving two male cohabiting partners who considered that their marriage in another country ought to have been recognised; one of them died whilst visiting South Australia. The unpleasant result (as best it can be described) was the rejection of the recognition of the partner for the purposes of dealing with agencies in South Australia, and I suppose that brought it to a head. It ought be noted that, notwithstanding that event, in January 2015 the South Australian Law Reform Institute was given a reference to inquire into and report on South Australia's laws about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. Accordingly, it has prepared a number of reports.

In June this year, the SA Law Reform Institute released its report on exceptions to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation. This bill has encapsulated most of the reforms that were recommended. A substantial report was published at that time, entitled: 'Rainbow families: equal recognition of relationships and access to existing laws relating to parentage, assisted reproductive treatment and surrogacy'. As I say, a good part of the recommendations has been the basis upon which the bill is presented for our consideration.

The main areas consistent with what I have outlined include the formation of a relationships register and the rules and circumstances where that can be accessed and how the process will operate in part 3. There is also the recognition of interstate and overseas relationships in part 4, and then there are perhaps the more controversial elements, when we look at amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act in part 5, the amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act in schedule 1, part 2, and changes to the Family Relationships Act in schedule 1, part 6.

Let's consider first the formation of the relationships register, which is to be administered by the births, deaths and marriages registrar, who is already operating in South Australia. The registration will be voluntary. Key features of this will be the provision that the relationship will be able to be registered where two parties are in a relationship as a couple, they are adults, and at least one resides in South Australia. Incidentally, there is no actual requirement for couples to live together; perhaps that is a safe way of making sure the relationship prevails.

I can remember one case in South Australia, which is well known probably to most members and which involves the then premier of South Australia, the Hon. Don Dunstan. On his second marriage, he elected to live separately from his wife, who, sadly, died not long after they were married. Nevertheless, they elected to live in separate residences, and perhaps that makes for a happy relationship; I do not know. There is no requirement to cohabit. I remember having debates in this house about domestic cohabitation.

The former member for Hartley was a great warrior and champion of the importance of recognising co-dependants. Sometimes they might be a brother or sister living in a household together and the like and have some financial interdependence. I remember the former member for Hartley saying, 'The important thing to remember here is that, when we have a domestic relationship, we are really talking about couples who have a sexual relationship between each other.' I said that that might rule out a lot of married couples. Nevertheless, today we are recognising the importance of adult relationships.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have to give the deputy leader some protection here. Stand back everybody.

Ms CHAPMAN: That completes the anecdotal matters. Can I say that we are recognising here adult relationships when they choose to live in a relationship that is not necessarily male and female. The significance of this should not be overlooked when we consider that other members of this house have proffered civil union options under a registration procedure. In Tasmania, the option was ultimately taken up some years ago now to recognise the consenting cohabitation between adults who have a personal commitment to each other.

Different jurisdictions have dealt with it in different ways, but what is being proposed here is that they will have the opportunity, if they wish, to register that for the world to know that they have made that commitment. We are going to have a cooling-off period, which may seem a little odd, but let me remind members that, even when one marries under the Marriage Act, notice must be given of the intention to marry not less than one month and not more than three months before the proposed marriage.

The old shotgun weddings, when you eloped and got married on the weekend, have not been able to occur in Australia for a very long time. Sometimes they do that and then realise they have to actually come back and marry properly and give the notice for it to be valid. However, it is not unusual that we actually indicate to the parties who are going to make a commitment to a marriage that they have to give notice of their intention to do so.

There is a time limit, both a minimum and maximum. You cannot just say, 'I am giving notice that a might marry X in 25 years' time,' you have to actually give notice not less than one month and not more than three months prior to the actual commitment. The time frame is designed to ensure that the relationship is a considered one, and that should also apply to those who are committing to a process that is going to tell the world that they are in a close personal relationship.

Similarly, the revocation allows for automatic revocation of the registration if one of the parties dies or becomes married to another person or, indeed, them under the Marriage Act. Those decisions will be made by the registrar. However, if you revoke on the basis of separation other than by death or marriage then, again, there is a cooling-off period. In this case, it is to be for a 90-day revocation cooling-off period. That is apparently consistent with the New South Wales register procedures and follows the SALRI recommendations.

I also remind members that, under the Marriage Act, if you make an application for a decree of nullity—for example, on the basis of prohibited relationship or one of the parties already being married—there are certain processes one has to go through for the declaration of nullity to be made and then to become a final order. If it is a dissolution of a marriage, then an application is made for what is commonly known as a divorce.

The dissolution of the marriage has to be evidenced by 12 months' minimum separation, evidencing the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. That also has a period from which the court will make a decree nisi, which is essentially the preliminary order for recognition of the dissolution of the marriage. However, there is an expiry period (I think it is still 30 days), where there is a requirement for that time to elapse before the decree will become absolute.

So, in a way, it is a bit like a cooling-off period. There have been known cases of an application for a decree nisi being made, the decree nisi being made and then, for one reason or another, the applicant determining that they were under some misunderstanding about their party being unfaithful or whatever caused the separation and the breakdown of the relationship as the basis for that application and, therefore, wanting to revoke that.

They have an opportunity to do that. They have to be quick, but they can have the decree nisi validly overturned. However, once it becomes absolute, that is it. If they discover that the other party was not so bad after all, after the decree absolute, they have to marry, but it is reasonable to have a cooling-off period in that process. I for one have certainly had some inquiries from my colleagues and others as to why we need to do this, but I just remind you of the significance of the relationship and, therefore, the importance of us recognising that as we do under the Marriage Act.

This bill also asks us to consider accepting a proposal where we recognise interstate and overseas relationships. In short, this will allow for the laws of other states or territories or other countries to be registered under the bill by a provision being made, which would have dealt with the David Bulmer-Rizzi case, which I referred to earlier this year. Corresponding relationships must meet the general requirements of South Australian relationships—i.e. a consensual relationship between two persons not in a union recognised under the Marriage Act, etc.

In this regard, I am advised by the proponent of the bill, who has kindly made available officers for consultation on this matter, that it is intended that regulations will be prepared to identify countries and jurisdictions that will be recognised. May I say that I would prefer that there be a stipulation of specific countries that have laws similar to us, whether that is in South Australia or the commonwealth, and that ought to be committed to a list.

They have done this in Victoria. As at 1 July this year, they have listed a number of countries and jurisdictions that they recognise. Again, their broad parameters were that it had to be a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage. They have listed the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, New Zealand, Canada, including Québec and Nova Scotia—I assume that qualification is there because there may be some differentiation between those two areas, but both are recognised—Hawaii, California, New York, South Africa, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Scotland.

Again, I am not sure why they have separated Scotland from the United Kingdom. I thought they were still part of the UK. I know they had a referendum, but it is possibly because Scotland has its own legislature and actually has a register while, separately, the parliament of Britain in London, which has representatives from the Scottish jurisdiction, has also passed a procedure. I do not know the answer to that, but I would urge the government, in preparing the supporting material to this, to draft a schedule, which of course can be updated by regulation.

I should say that I have no objection to this process. I think it has been a long time coming. We have had that example earlier this year which is unfortunately an event that occurs when we do not ensure that our legislation remains contemporary. If we have jurisdictions—all of the examples I have listed—which have the same recognition we do, then I think we should ensure that our law is updated.

Next we have changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, and I point out here that the SA Law Reform Institute actually went further in this area. They are keen to look at some other amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act which have not been adopted for the purpose of this bill. This bill has confined its reform to amending the definition of 'domestic partner' to match those on the relationships register, removing the exemptions on fertilisation procedures from the definition of 'service', and extending the protections for those who identify as intersex.

Quite possibly, most of the people in this house will accept that if we are going to have a register there ought to be consequential amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act. That may be acceptable to most. What I suspect will attract some differential in our members' approach will be this question of the fertilisation procedures, and similarly in our Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act reforms, which will allow for the use of reproductive treatment if they are unable to become pregnant, with consideration of their circumstances only.

We have been asked to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act a number of times in the house since I have been here, and it has had a very substantial upgrade, I suppose. It was interesting to read the very controversial debate on the introduction of assisted reproductive treatment laws to accommodate what was the very pioneering area of infertility treatments available. It is fair to say that IVF in the 1980s was a very controversial topic, and there was a feeling at the time, in some of those discussions and debates, that there would be ethical challenges to the application of this new medical technology, which would be confronting and which would be controversial.

Even at that stage, some highlighted that ultimately this may give an opportunity for people of a same-sex sexual orientation to become parents, and here we are today, 40-odd years later, dealing with just that issue. Again, I expect there will be some who will not be happy with this, but for those couples who are in a same-sex relationship who have either had children from prior relationships who now are part of that household or who have had the use of a donor sperm or egg for the purposes of having children within that relationship but with the assistance of a donor, it is time, in my view, that we deal with how that is to be accommodated in a practical way.

I say that not just because of the importance of recognising that we are allowing people to cohabit and respectfully be registered to have that recognised, but if they are going to have children, and clearly they do—sometimes with a willing donor, it may be a male person who is happy to support two females in a personal relationship to become the sperm donor—the processes that are affiliated with that, we have heard in debates in this house, are not even clinical, they are ugly. I think that we need to address that. That is the reality, and I think the way in which people have effective fertilisation needs to be brought to the 21st century.

On the other hand, if a male couple wishes to have a child, we then move to the use of a donor female partner, usually through a surrogacy arrangement. I think that it is time we address that, and I will be supporting that part of the bill. Then there were changes to the Family Relationships Act, which essentially moved to change the surrogacy agreements to allow a single person to commission agreement, rather than two parents, and permit access to domestic partners.

The amendment to the term 'qualifying relationship' is to include a relationship between two people who are partners regardless of their sex or gender identity. This is a necessary and appropriate development in the law, but I have to say that my concern is that we are not dealing with other important issues in relation to surrogacy. In Australia, essentially we do not let the surrogate carrier be paid other than a reimbursement for fixed costs or disbursements, medical costs and the like.

We have to deal with what was a very confronting image of a twin being left in an overseas country because they had been born with a disability and the harrowing circumstances that have been published since then of one sibling residing in a family in Western Australia, where the male party was later found to have had a history of paedophilia and the abandoned child left with its mother in an overseas country, destitute. We have to deal with the resolution of what I think has been a tragic and totally unacceptable industry that uses women in poor countries, exploits them and, in that case, in a very real sense leaving them with the baby.

Whilst a payment is made in those circumstances, they are outside of our jurisdiction and it is extremely difficult for us to have a set of laws that is going to protect them. We have Australian laws which allow for prosecution of men, for example, who go overseas and have sexual relationships with children. We have achieved that, and that is a great thing. I remember that the Hon. Robert Hill in the Senate was a great advocate of that, and it took a long time for the Australian government to actually say, 'Yes, it is going to be hard but we will change the law and we will make sure that we do try as best we can. It is our international responsibility to do with that.'

We are not dealing with all the issues that go to surrogacy in this bill, and I think that is a shame. I think we need to, and the sooner we do the better. My personal view is that to do it we are going to have to actually except the fact that if we are going to ask a female person to undertake this role and responsibility—which is a major sacrifice—then a fee ought to be able to be paid for that purpose. Otherwise, couples in Australia will continue to go to other countries, exploit other people, pay the fee and not be required to sign up to levels of responsibility that I think we should insist on here.

Let us make that an area of reform that we do address, and that we do try to make sure we protect women in exploitable circumstances in other countries, that we do not allow a situation to prevail in Australia where it is prohibitive for many to undertake this role, just to be repaid their expenses.

I remember that when I was in early adulthood sometimes my sisters—and I have plenty of them—would say to me, 'What would you do in this situation? If one of us couldn't have children would you have a baby for us?' As a sister I said I would, I would do that; if I were fertile (which I happened to be) then that would be something I would do. It was a personal commitment, but not everyone has an available sibling or friend who is prepared to do that.

I think it is important that we have a chance to have control over the terms and conditions the women are in so that they are not exploited, so that the children who are born are protected against circumstances of either abandonment or exploitation. It is time we addressed that. I know it is very hard to get things through without government approval supporting things in this parliament, because it has to go through two houses of parliament, but we do try—and I have a list of bills tomorrow for private member's bills. Every now and again we get one up, but the point is that we do need the government's blessing.

In an area of comprehensive reform such as this, I think it is a missed opportunity for the government to fix it. It is well known. It is an issue that other jurisdictions are starting to deal with, but it seems that the government has had a bit of a hands-off approach to this, other than dealing with a certain group in the community who are seeking status and recognition, which of course is our LGBTIQ community—not unimportant, but it is not the only thing that needs to be fixed. We do need to address this matter.

It is important that we address the issues in this bill, and the government has left a few hard things out in respect of equal opportunity exemptions for employment in schools, for example, religious schools and things of that nature. That has been put to one side. There is another whole area of surrogacy that needs to be fixed, and as a jurisdiction we are on notice that it needs to be fixed. Someone needs to address it.

The SA Law Reform Institute has the capacity to be instructed by the Attorney-General, and I think it is about time that he got on and did it. With that, I indicate that I will be supporting the bill. I note that the government proposes to ultimately separate the contents of this bill into two areas, and I indicate that I will be supporting both.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:36): This is obviously the next in a series of conscience issues that this parliament has been asked to deal with over the course of this year, and I assume we will have to deal with things going into next year. When dealing with these issues, I think there are some people who are conservative and therefore understand what it is that they believe by their belief in themselves as a conservative. There are some people who are progressive and therefore say, 'I'm progressive, therefore I would naturally vote for or against a piece of legislation based on my identification as being someone who would think in that manner.'

Interestingly for some, I am actually neither. I do not necessarily say, 'Well, a conservative would vote against this, therefore I will.' I actually look at a bill on its merits and say, 'Well, what do I think?' and I vote then with my conscience, and if that happens to mean that I end up more on the conservative side of the argument than the progressive, then it is that way around as opposed to the other. When I come to a piece of legislation, I am certainly not dogmatic about it. I seek to get to the heart of what we are trying to do, although some could look at conservatism as being an extremely practical ideology.

When looking at this bill, I can see that there is a chief mischief that is seeking to be remedied. If that is around recognising relationships on a death certificate in order to lessen the pain and suffering of a surviving member of a couple, then I think that is a mischief that is right to be fixed. If there are some issues around ensuring that people who are effectively parents of a child, whether or not that is in a biological situation, can effectively look after that child, then again I think that is a mischief that we need to deal with and something that is extremely important.

I would like to refer to the member for Reynell's second reading speech because there is a line in it that I like. Indeed, in the debate that we continue to have on gay marriage, this line is something that I can agree with wholeheartedly. The member states:

This register provides an important avenue for all couples to express their commitment to each other in a dignified and legally recognised way.

When two people want to come together and make a declaration of the love they share, and have that love recognised, and make a monogamous commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others, then I think that is important and worthy of recognition and it makes people feel that they are inclusive members of society. Also, that commitment is deepened by having a more formal aspect to it.

At its very basic sense, when I married my wife, essentially it was her and I making a declaration in front of our friends and family that we were going to be together for life to the exclusion of all others. It is the act of doing it in front of your friends and family that carries as much import as the piece of paper, which I am sure my wife has tucked away somewhere.

Without wanting to have an argument about the definition of what marriage is and what relationships are, where two people want to be able to say, 'I am making a commitment to another person,' I think that that is important to recognise and, to the extent that this bill seeks to provide an avenue for that, I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. The concept of a relationships register is one that I am extremely comfortable with and will be supporting. I know that this bill is looking to be split off into a number of parts, and I am happy to support the part that allows for the recognition of relationships in this way.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, in this series of bills there has often been a palatable part of the bill which seeks to address a chief mischief, which happens also to include some other things that are not necessarily related to the central mischief that is seeking to be fixed, which tends to make the bill more complicated. In this instance, it is extremely wise of the member for Reynell to flag that she is going to split the bill so that we can have this parliament all agree with the chief mischief that is seeking to be redressed whilst more contentious and, in my mind, separate arguments around different issues are put off to one side.

With regard to the relationships register and the ability of people to make a commitment to each other and to have that recognised by Births, Deaths and Marriages, I say fantastic. In relation to issues around assisted reproductive treatment and surrogacy, they are issues that are separate from the concept of a relationships register. I certainly have concerns with those, and I am extremely likely not to support that. Without having seen the split bills, I assume that, if that is parked in the second bill, we can deal with it as a separate issue when the time comes. I am more than comfortable to vote for a second reading to allow that splitting to occur at whatever stage it needs to occur.

The only concerns I have at this stage—and I will put on the record now that I will be asking these questions in committee—are around what rights are actually conferred upon a couple who seeks to have their relationship registered. In the second reading speech, and again I will quote a couple of small parts, the member refers to the South Australian Law Reform Institute's report, saying:

The report encapsulated SALRI's review of equal recognition of relationships and parenting rights...

The speech goes on to say a number of other things. In another part, the member says:

This bill, when passed, will create an option for couples in any relationship to more easily demonstrate their status when dealing with various bodies, including government agencies and service providers, in order to have their relationship rightly respected and to access their rights and entitlements.

That is quite a broad statement. When I tried to ask questions in briefings, such as, 'What are the increased rights that this register will confer upon couples?' that was a question I did not feel I got a fulsome answer to. If it is in relation to how a death certificate is served, then that is good. Again, if it is relation to parenting rights and ensuring that a child has somebody who has some sort of legal status to make decisions on behalf of that child, if that is done in appropriate circumstances, again that is good, but I did have questions around what other rights are being conferred.

Given that the member has referred to it in her second reading speech, I will certainly be asking questions elaborating on that—for instance, in relation to how we are going to recognise overseas marriages, how we are going to safeguard against where, say, in other countries polygamy or child marriage is legal and how we are going to be able to deal effectively with those things and be sure that we safeguard the very important values we hold dear, that is, that we believe marriage to be between two people and not more than two people and that we believe marriage to be between two consenting adults. Certainly, I am not sure that is a debate the member for Reynell would like to have. I look forward to seeking some clarification on those issues.

If there is some ambiguity in this bill around what rights are conferred, potentially we should look at ways to ensure that we are more prescriptive about what rights are conferred to be sure that those appropriate safeguards are in place so that we can fix the mischief we are seeking to fix whilst not having unintended consequences that lead to some perverse outcomes. I look forward to getting further clarification through the committee stage of the bill.

I understand that our society is changing and that it is extremely important for us to reflect that change. There are some cultures around the world that are stagnant and traditional, and I think that those cultures by and large have been stuck in a time past. That has deleterious effects on the people who live in those cultures and exercise those beliefs. I am proud of the fact that we live in a society that can respond to the issues at hand and deal maturely with them. While we fix these issues, we need to make sure that, number one, we understand what it is we are fixing and also what it is that we need to protect.

There are fundamental reasons and fundamental cultural norms that have helped us to get to where we are today, and those norms need to be protected. We live in such a lucky state, in a lucky country and in a lucky time to be alive on this earth. The things that helped us to get here in a positive manner are the things we need to protect whilst balancing them with helping to make a more perfect culture and a more perfect society. I think that all members should look at these issues with that balance in mind.

I look forward to the next stages of the bill, when we can hopefully use our parliamentary process to seek out the truth and in the end enact into law a bill that does exactly what we would like it to do but not do what we would not like it to do.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:47): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the Relationships Register Bill 2016. If it goes through, the bill will allow for the registration of relationships of couples essentially in any relationship and therefore demonstrate their status when dealing with other agencies. In regard to that, a friend of mine and her partner used to live in my electorate of Goolwa. They have moved out of my electorate, but I ran into them socially. They were concerned about their status (they are a little bit later in life), and she was concerned about recognition if either of them passed away. I said, 'Yes, let's see what we can do about that.' I believe this bill essentially addresses that issue.

It was interesting that I wrote to the Attorney-General and got a reasonable response. He said there would be legislation forthcoming. Representing a conservative electorate, my issue is that it has expanded to represent what could be a qualifying relationship—that is, it could be a man and a man, a woman and a woman and, somewhere in this, intersex. The bill also allows for the recognition of interstate and overseas relationships. I note that the South Australian Law Reform Institute released a report in regard to exceptions to unlawfully discriminate on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation.

There are five key areas to the bill: (1) the formation of a relationships register; (2) the recognition of interstate and overseas relationships; (3) the amendment of the Equal Opportunity Act; (4) the amendment of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act; and (5) changes to the Family Relationships Act. It is noted that the register will be administered by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and registration will be voluntary. It is interesting that in these recent bills we have been talking about a lot of changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages register, but it took me so long to get results in regard to Finn's Law. It took me 19 months, but I am pleased we got there in the end, and I salute the house for supporting it.

As I said, the intent of the relationships register is that a relationship will be able to be registered where two parties are in a relationship as a couple, are adults, and at least one resides in South Australia. As has been indicated, there is no requirement that these couples must live together. Obviously, there is a cooling off period of 28 days after the relationship is registered. This time frame is designed to ensure that the relationship is a considered one. The bill allows for the automatic revocation of the registration if one of the parties dies or becomes married under the Marriage Act. Those applications will be made to the registrar.

In relation to the revocation, there will be a 90-day cooling-off period, and this is consistent with what happens in New South Wales. I have concerns that people could register and deregister as they flit from relationship to relationship. As long as they comply with the relevant legislated cooling-off periods, if it does go through this house, I assume it will be legal. I note that clause 26 allows the laws of another state or territory of the commonwealth or of another country to be registered under the bill. That concerns me as well because it starts to get very broad, especially when we are talking about relationship matters. I believe they are probably better dealt with at the federal level.

We have had a debate in relation to whether or not there is going to be a plebiscite. I note that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals and the National Party took that to a federal election, which they won, although it was close. However, it looks as though that position has been sabotaged. It is interesting where you can end up, even if you win an election. We have heard about the issues relating to the partner of a man who passed away in South Australia. His partner was a male who resided in the United Kingdom.

Corresponding relationships must meet the general requirements of South Australian relationships, that is, two persons in a consensual relationship not in a union recognised under the Marriage Act, is the explanation here. In specific countries that have laws similar to ours and those of the commonwealth, it is extremely broad.

Regarding the changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, the definition of 'domestic partner' would change to remove exemptions relating to in vitro fertilisation procedures. There are protections for those who wish to identify as intersex, and there are changes to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, which also include the use of reproductive treatment if they are unable to become pregnant, with consideration of their circumstances only.

In regard to the Family Relationships Act, the amendments make changes to surrogacy arrangements to allow a single person to commission an agreement rather than two parents and permit access to domestic partners. In the same changes, I note it amends the term of qualifying relationship to include a relationship between two people who are partners, regardless of their sex or gender identity.

I commend the work of the Hon. John Dawkins in the other place in regard to surrogacy and his tireless effort to get better surrogacy outcomes for South Australians. We have seen unfortunate circumstances in regard to what has happened with people accessing overseas surrogates and children. We dealt with this in the Social Development Committee many years ago. A lot of South Australian couples were heading interstate at an extreme cost of around $50,000, from memory, to have a surrogate child. That was remedied to a fair degree and perhaps there are some improvements that can be made, but I know the Hon. John Dawkins did not intend for same-sex couples to be part of surrogacy arrangements.

Going through the contribution from the member for Reynell, she was very keen to achieve the implementation of the recommendations as set down by the law reform people. She also brought up the fact that some of these registers are in place already in the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. As I have said, under this bill unmarried couples, whether in heterosexual or non-heterosexual relationships, will be able to register their relationships.

It is interesting to note that provisions regarding de facto relationships will not be altered by this bill, but I do know that, in respect to the people I was talking about earlier in my contribution, there was an issue about their rights being acknowledged as the partner if one of them passed away. This bill in its unamended form does recognise the freedom of individuals to choose to enter relationships in diverse forms and provide legal recognition and support for that choice. I have already talked about the cooling-off periods and the proposed recognition of interstate and overseas partnerships. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT