HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COMMONWEALTH POWERS (DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS) BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill was moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, and I thank the council for its forbearance in bringing on the consideration of this bill so quickly. We certainly appreciate that it is not normal practice, but this is the last day of sitting. This is a matter that has received the support of both the government and the opposition, and we thank the council for its consideration.

The bill refers to the power of the commonwealth in financial matters relating to de facto partners arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships. To highlight the need for this bill, I will highlight how the status quo impacts on people. Property matters are dealt with differently if the partners involved are married than if they are not married.

Families may be in identical circumstances, they may have children, with both families held together by love, compassion and respect, but under the current laws they are dealt with differently. If married parents decide to end their relationship their child related issues will be dealt with by the Family Court and their family matters will be dealt with by the Family Court, whereas when unmarried parents end their relationships their children's matters will be dealt with in the Family Court but, bizarrely, their property matters will be dealt with by the state courts.

This situation has perverse and unfair results. The unmarried parents' family will have their separation supervised and decided by two different jurisdictions. This raises the cost of the action, the length of the action and the complexity of the action. The family will be denied full access to the specialised jurisdiction of the Family Court.

Family Court judges are specialists in this area, knowledgeable and wise about the issues involved. The rules of the court are tailored to the particular needs of family law and are moving towards a less adversarial system. Splitting a family action between multiple jurisdictions prevents a more considered holistic settlement of disputes. When the court makes property orders about the married couple it will consider the orders made about their children too.

Finally, there is a greater range of remedies available to the Family Court than the District Court. The unmarried family could not have their superannuation considered, and this is particularly perverse given that superannuation is often the most valuable asset held by a household. This denies the family the remedies available in the Family Court.

There are significant cost savings available for the state by doing this. Instead of the state courts, particularly the District Court, being involved with family law matters, they will be able to concentrate on their court business. This reduction in the case load of the state courts will be valuable in speeding justice in others.

Nothing in this bill should deny the support of the Liberals for the institution of marriage. Marriage is a key institution upholding the social fabric. However, in my view, it is no detriment to marriage for other relationships to be treated fairly. The referral of the de facto relationship power to the commonwealth is supported by the Law Society of Australia, the Law Council of Australia and family law practitioners operating across the state. In supporting this bill, the council will help end the injustice inflicted on families and create a fairer and more equitable South Australia.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:18): As outlined admirably by the Hon. Mr Wade, this bill seeks to refer powers to the commonwealth over de facto relationships, when they have broken down, as to property settlements and other things. Both the Labor government and Mrs Isobel Redmond from the other place have prepared a bill to effect this change. Those bills were slightly different but, in effect, aimed to do the same thing. The government decided to support the Leader of the Opposition's bill, with some amendments, and I am happy to say that we now have it before us.

I am grateful to my colleagues in this chamber for agreeing to conclude the debate on this bill today. Government members will be supporting the bill. Can I say how pleased I am with the bipartisan, or should I say 'multipartisan', support that we have for this legislation. I put on the record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mrs Isobel Redmond, and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, for working together to bring this bill to fruition.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

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