HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-12-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Relationships Register (No 1) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2016.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (10:03): I rise to indicate support for this matter, which is one of a series of SALRI bills before this parliament. In making a few remarks in relation to this particular piece of legislation, I must admit that I have spent some time refreshing my memory about what each piece of legislation does, and a key matter is to provide for a relationships register.

Through the media, we would all be familiar with the very sad case that was brought to our attention about a couple from the UK, one of whom passed away and his partner was then unable to have that relationship recognised, and it is appropriate that we do that. I understand the concerns that members have expressed in relation to potentially recognising marriage relationships even though marriage is a matter for the federal law. Clearly, I am a supporter of gay marriage and hope that that issue is resolved in the affirmative as soon as possible. However, to deny people recognition of their relationships simply because of those reservations is an unreasonable imposition upon them.

There are also some very significant changes for people who are considered as intersex and, once again, I would like to acknowledge the briefing that I think was provided for members on 16 November. I was not previously aware of the particular difficulties faced by intersex people and I am grateful to people from that community, and particularly to the unambiguously titled Organisation Intersex International Australia Limited and its president, Morgan Carpenter, who travelled from New South Wales, for providing us with the information about that.

One of my family members has studied genetics and was a geneticist, so I was familiar with the difficulties of particular genetic diseases, particularly Batten disease, which was the subject of her PhD. But I was not aware of the particular physical problems that intersex people had, so I am grateful to them for providing that information. There is a very good brochure entitled 'Androgen insensitivity syndrome: support and information for those affected by androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and similar conditions' which is available at www.vicnet.net.au/~aissg.

We were provided with information about the particular problems by people who attended that briefing. There are 40 identified variations on a spectrum. In the past, intersex people have suffered, and probably still suffer, from a number of human rights abuses, including surgery and inappropriate hormone therapy, and often were not provided with proper informed consent for children and parents. I was surprised to learn that intersex people have not been covered by the Equal Opportunity Act, but one of the clauses in this legislation will include them. Also, intersex people often have secondary health issues, such as osteoporosis, chronic fatigue and, clearly, the discrimination that they have undergone from people who do not understand and are unsympathetic to their cause. With those particular remarks, I commend the legislation to the house.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (10:08): I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill and, in doing so, make some general comments about the four bills that the Legislative Council will be addressing this week in the Weatherill government's festival of conscience presentation to the parliament. It is interesting that if any of these bills are amended, the Weatherill government has taken the decision that the House of Assembly will not be sitting in this optional week of sitting.

This means that should the Legislative Council amend any of the bills, they will not be able to progress any further because the House of Assembly have taken their leave and gone home, and they will not be considered until we reconvene in the second week of February. I think that is an interesting statement in and of itself in relation to the Weatherill government's reluctance to sit this week for a variety of reasons.

As previous speakers from my party have indicated, these bills are conscience vote issues either in totality or, as in relation to the adoption bill, on some significant aspects of the bill. So, as members of the Liberal Party, each of us needs to address how we will approach all these bills all at the one time. Certainly from my viewpoint, and I am sure from all members' viewpoints, we will be listening to the arguments we have had presented to us, both for and against.

There has been quite an intensive email campaign in relation to aspects of some of the pieces of legislation we are discussing, both for and against. Obviously members, myself included, will give due weight to those particular submissions that have been made to each of us. However, from my viewpoint, and I am sure from that of others in my party as well, on a conscience vote issue I have to revisit what I believe in relation to these issues.

As I have indicated before on some of these issues that we have addressed in the past, each of us is a product of our upbringing and the personal experiences that we have lived through, whether through family, friends or acquaintances. Finally, each of us is a product of what we learn firstly as young people and then ultimately as adults. Each of us will balance those influences on our decision-making in our own way.

I have indicated in the past, particularly in relation to voluntary euthanasia issues, that, whilst I acknowledge the power of whatever the majority view might be in the community, my view in the end is that, as a member of parliament, I have been elected to make individual judgements and to listen to the views but that I am not here to ultimately vote in accordance with whatever the majority view is in the community on each issue.

That view has led me to have healthy differences of opinion with voluntary euthanasia advocates, for example, who continue to maintain, 'The majority of people want this particular issue; therefore, you are honour bound to have to vote that way.' As I have indicated before, when I put the same view to those people, 'The majority of people support capital punishment in certain limited circumstances; do you want me to follow that particular view as well?' inevitably they say, 'No, not in that case, but in the case of voluntary euthanasia you should.'

Certainly, the way I have approached these issues is that, as an individual legislator, I do not believe and I do not accept that we are honour bound to vote in accordance with the majority. Ultimately, we make decisions either on the basis of what we think is in the public interest or, in this case, an issue of individual conscience as to what you believe.

As I have looked at these issues, I have looked at my own history and my own opinion has developed over the years in the parliament. My first exposure was in the mid-1980s on a sexual reassignment bill. Going back through the record, there is no record of my having spoken or put any particularly strong view on it. It would appear that bill went through both houses of parliament in a relatively uncontroversial manner at the time.

In and around that same period, which was in my first term in government, we had an extremely controversial debate in relation to equal opportunity legislation and whether or not the equal opportunity legislation should prevent discrimination in employment and various other areas on the basis of a person's sexual preference. At that time, many years ago now, that was a very controversial area and I and a small number of other Liberals joined with virtually all the Labor members in the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly to support those amendments to the equal opportunity legislation.

In recent years, the parliament, including this chamber, has supported further amendments in relation to a large number of state statutes which outlawed what was described as discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual preference or their sexuality. Again, speaking from my own individual conscience, that was something I was prepared to accept.

Inevitably, the question always is: what is the next step? Where do you draw the line in terms of your own individual preference or conscience? Whilst we have not directly had to vote on this—although we have had various motions and other bills which have sought to bring this issue into the state jurisdiction—my personal view has been that marriage is an institution that is described as and should be left as a union between a man and a woman.

My own conscience is that the ideal environment, in terms of the nurture and the upbringing of a child, is to have a mother and a father in a loving relationship. I accept that the ideal is not always possible but, then again, that is true in many areas that we legislate. The ideal is not always possible but, ultimately, we do pass laws guided by, hopefully, either improving the situation or with regard to what the ideal might be.

Certainly, from my viewpoint, whatever belief you have in relation to how life might have begun on this planet, it is hard to argue against the notion that men and women in union producing children is the critical factor in the survival of the species. When we look at what constitutes marriage as a community—and this is an issue more particularly directly relevant in the federal parliament and the federal jurisdiction—we are obviously now having to address some of the associated issues in some of these bills that we are addressing.

All of us have to draw a line somewhere. We see the line being drawn differently in Australia compared with some other countries. Other countries and other cultures have drawn the line where they accept polygamy. Indeed, there are some within South Australia who have put the view to me that they believe that we ought to recognise polygamous relationships in South Australia. In some other countries and in some other cultures, child marriage or forced marriages are an accepted part of their culture and their country.

In Australia and South Australia, we have not drawn the line to include those particular forms of marriage. We have said, 'No, as a community we don't accept that.' In the end, my contention here is that all of us draw a line somewhere. We are not prepared to accept that anything goes in Australia. We are having a discussion and a debate at the federal level in particular, but now we are having to engage in the discussion in South Australia as to whether we want to change the definition or the acceptance of marriage in Australia and South Australia to include other forms of relationships, such as same-sex relationships.

As I said at the outset, my personal belief is that the line is drawn essentially where it is in relation to a marriage being limited to a relationship between a man and a woman. I do not have as many concerns now; it certainly would have been different years ago when we started this debate about equal opportunity legislation in the eighties, but now I do not have an issue and would be prepared to support arrangements such as civil unions, which have been discussed at the federal level and others. I do not accept the argument that we ought to redefine marriage in the way that many advocates wish it to be.

Through civil unions, or whatever other arrangements or alternative process might be approved at the federal or state level, it is certainly possible to provide greater access to the legal rights for same-sex couples that many would wish without actually having to go down the path of including them within the definition of marriage. With that background as to my personal beliefs, which have guided me in my own conscience vote on this issue and on others, I am prepared to support the second reading of this bill on the basis that it allows any couple in a relationship, including same-sex couples, to have that relationship registered in a register.

I note from earlier debates that similar or the same registers and processes exist in the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, and are contemplated in some of the commonwealth legislation that the mover of the bill referred to in his second reading explanation. The register will allow a certificate and greater access to certain entitlements and, for those reasons, it has been supported in a number of other jurisdictions throughout Australia.

The register will allow certain relationships in certain other countries to also be recognised, and I noted from the debate in the House of Assembly that there was an argument which, I think, quoted the Victorian circumstance where the actual legislation listed those other countries. This bill is contemplating a different process, where those countries will be proclaimed by way of regulation and then parliament would ultimately have a power to disallow those regulations should either house of parliament so determine.

The mover accepts, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier contribution, that there are some other countries and cultures that accept different versions of relationships and/or marriages—relationships in this case—which we in Australia are not comfortable with accepting. The government and the proponents of the legislation clearly accept that they do not wish to open it up to everything, and it would only be certain countries where this acknowledgement of certain relationships would be recognised through the process outlined in this legislation. As the second reading explanation argues:

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 respected and access their rights and entitlements.

For those reasons, and with the background that I gave earlier, I support the second reading. Whilst I reserve my final position on the third reading until we see what ensues in the committee stage of the debate, my current intention would be to support the third reading of the bill as well.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (10:25): I rise to speak to the Relationships Register (No 1) Bill. This bill underpins the mechanics of further bills currently before this place which establish a new kind of qualifying relationship for parenting eligibility when it comes to adoption and surrogacy.

In the first instance, all of these measures were in one big, complex bill, which was very sensibly separated into a number of bills in the other place. However, this step should have been unnecessary and unfortunately it has led to a very rushed process for the resultant split bills. I hope that nothing is missed during this process and there are no unintended consequences that arise from a lack of scrutiny.

To get back to the crux of the current debate, this bill seeks to establish a register for non-marriage relationships, regardless of gender and sexual preference. I do not have a fundamental objection to this. The rights afforded to de facto couples were extended to homosexual couples under the commonwealth Coalition government of the Hon. John Winston Howard OM, AC, and I think it is entirely reasonable that we do not seek to further intrude on those rights.

In my opinion, this register merely circumvents the cohabitation requirements to constitute such a status. In good reason, we must acknowledge that these are not marriages and they never will be, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. This relationship status of two registered people is designed as a security for couples under the law, without the added responsibility and obligations of a marriage. In fact, the bill states that a registered relationship becomes void upon one or both of the partners entering into a marriage, according to the commonwealth Marriage Act. To me, this makes sense.

What cannot be tolerated is a system of registration which tries to circumvent the commonwealth Marriage Act and, by extension, the constitutional power over marriage matters, which remains the exclusive domain of the commonwealth. With those words, I will not oppose the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (10:27): I rise briefly to speak on the Relationships Register (No 1) Bill. I have already spoken on the gender identity bill and also on the adoption bill, and my colleague has spoken on the surrogacy bill. I am personally amazed that we are even in this parliament today with a focus and priority on four, effectively, same-sex bills. That is what we are here for. The House of Assembly is up and they are not coming back. Even if amendments to any of these bills are passed today, my colleagues in the lower house have said that they are not coming back and that they will deal with them next year.

I shake my head to think that we are here today, in an optional week, focusing on four same-sex marriage bills when we have an economy that is in disarray. We have some of the highest employment problems in Australia, an electricity supply that is unreliable and electricity prices that are the highest in the world, and this is the priority of the government. These are government bills.

These days we seem to be dealing with more and more minority issues, as opposed to majority issues that the silent majority of people out there want us to actually deal with. We seem to be focused on political correctness and the fact that perhaps there is some political support for the situation as some perceive it to be, including from cabinet because these are cabinet bills. That is what they are. They are not private members' bills: they are cabinet bills, and I will be doing everything I can to explain just where the priorities of this government are as I travel around this state over the next 18 to 20 months prior to the election.

The absolute majority of people, the silent majority of people, are sick and tired of political correctness, of minority-focused interests and situations and they want to see this state and this government focus on the things that count for the majority of people. I cannot believe that we are doing this bill today when we have not had a national debate on civil union: that should come first. There should be an opportunity for uniformity around civil union across Australia, not state by state in some de facto way, bringing in bits and pieces of legislation that may accommodate certain situations in this state that are not accommodated in other states. Rather, we should be asking for a federal debate on civil union.

We also still have the matter of a plebiscite to deal with, a plebiscite that the federal Liberal government have a mandate to bring to the people. Interestingly enough, a lot of people feel intimidated by a well-structured minority group internationally that is financially cashed up and wants to push its agenda—and, by the way, it is a smaller group within the group because not all of that group supports this. Having said that, there is a mandate for a plebiscite.

I believe that there is a process and an order: (1) a mandate for a plebiscite; (2) the opportunity, nationally, to be able to speak for an option of a civil union, which we have not even had, and then to consider subsequent pieces of legislation from that. Again, it amazes me that we are here today and that this is the priority of the state Labor government, and I, for one, will be opposing the third reading of this bill.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (10:31): For the record—and it should not be any surprise—I will be supporting the four bills and wish to thank those who have contacted my office expressing either their support or opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (10:31): I was not going to speak on the bill but, on reflection—and I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for his contribution where he went through when this has come up before—so that in the future I can reflect on my views at this time, I thought I would place them on the record. Very briefly, the issues we will be dealing with this week in this bill and the ones to follow boil down, for my mind, to fairness and equality. I am pretty certain that in years to come we will look back at debates such as these, on these issues that effectively remove discrimination, and wonder what all the fuss was about. With that, I indicate my strong support for this and the three bills that follow.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (10:32): I believe that all honourable members who wanted to participate in this debate have done so, so I rise now to close the second reading. I would like to thank the members for their contribution to this important debate. The Relationships Register (No 1) Bill 2016 will bring South Australia into line with the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, by creating a relationship register that recognises people in South Australia who live in marriage-like relationships.

The bill will enable South Australian couples who are unmarried, whether they are in heterosexual or non-heterosexual relationships, to have their relationships registered with the state government. There are several benefits to this change. The first benefit is that couples will have legal certainty and protection guaranteed for their relationships. This will apply to all South Australian law, as well as under federal legislation, owing to the effect that the commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act, which allows for state-based registers to be recognised for the purposes of federal law.

The second benefit is that interstate and overseas relationships will be properly recognised under our existing state legislation. This will ensure proper recognition of partners married overseas or registered under interstate or overseas civil union or partnership scheme. This will ensure that the awful situation that arose for Mr Marco Bulmer-Rizzi, with the passing of his husband here in Adelaide, will not happen again. The third benefit is that South Australian couples will have an avenue to register their relationship and their love for each other.

While the process is, of course, voluntary, the significance of these three benefits cannot be overstated. This is all the more so for same-sex partners who are not able to marry under the laws of this country. Indeed, some couples will continue to use the register in preference to marriage, even if the law does change, and that is all well and good. The registration of relationships gives partners the peace of mind and security in the knowledge that their relationship cannot be questioned and that it will be recognised in law. Surely, one of the most important things our law should do is recognise, protect and honour the love that people have for each other and not treat them as second-class citizens. Again, I thank honourable members for their contribution and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a few questions on clause 1. Firstly, how many similar provisions exist in other states? How many relationships registers are there and in which states?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will read out the second paragraph again from my closing speech. The Relationships Register (No 1) Bill 2016 will bring South Australia into line with the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As a supplementary to the Hon. Mr Hood's question, in what year did the Australian Capital Territory establish a register? I understand that there was commonwealth action against previous ACT legislation which was found to be inconsistent with the Marriage Act, but are we aware of any action by the commonwealth in relation to the ACT register?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that, to our knowledge, there has been no commonwealth action against the ACT register. The honourable member is quite right, I think. The ACT passed law for, essentially, marriage and there was commonwealth action against that but nothing that we are aware of in terms of the register. I do not have the year in front of me in my notes, but I will come back to the honourable member with that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Following on from that, does the government have figures on how many couples have taken up the opportunity to register their relationship in those states? Is there any data available?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not have that data but, again, I can make inquiries of the relevant jurisdictions for the honourable member and bring that back.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a few more questions at clause 1. I note for the record that I do not intend to delay the committee, but there are a few legitimate questions on this issue that will not take a great deal of time. Could the minister outline for the chamber how the relationships register will differ from marriage in a legal sense?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that registered partnerships will attract the same legal status as domestic partners currently do under the Family Relationships Act, which of course is a South Australian act passed by this parliament.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his answer. I understand that that is the case, but I was therefore wondering how that then differs from marriage.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it is probably the obvious situation: a marriage currently defined under the federal Marriage Act is between a man and a woman only. In our state legislation, the Family Relationships Act effectively translated what used to be called 'de factos' into 'domestic partners', and registered relationships, under this current bill, do not have to be between a man and a woman, they can be between heterosexual couples or non-heterosexual couples.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have two more questions on clause 1. The government has indicated in the second reading speech that only relationships from certain jurisdictions will be recognised under the proposed regulations, and the Hon. Mr Lucas touched on this in his contribution. I wonder if the minister can provide exactly what jurisdictions will be recognised under the proposed regulations?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that those regulations have not currently been drafted, but they will be modelled on the Victorian model where they set certain criteria and established that countries such as the UK, Ireland and Canada will qualify. Any regulations, of course, that are drafted will be subject to the Legislative Review Committee process, as is normal.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have questions on an issue, but I do not know if the Chair would rather I deal with that under section 26 which, I understand, is the relevant clause?

The CHAIR: We do not have an opportunity to question each clause and, as you know, there are no amendments, so I will be seeking an indication of any clauses you want me to stop at.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Chair. As I said, I only have a couple of questions on clause 1, and this is more by way of supplementary to my previous question. We could probably guess the answer to this, but I would like the minister to clarify. The reason I asked about the specific jurisdictions is that, as the Hon. Mr Lucas alluded to, there are varying laws about what is recognised as an overseas marriage. For example, in some countries, they allow what we would consider underage marriages, that is, 16 year olds to be married, even in South America, which surprised me when I learnt that. In regard to somebody who is married in a South American country, for example, a 16 year old, would that be a recognised registerable relationship under this bill should it become an act?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Regardless of the issue about the regulations and what model we will be adopting, I draw the honourable member's attention to part 2—Registered relationships, Eligibility for registration, and any partnerships recognised under our legislation must meet these requirements. Clause 6(1)(a)(i) to (vii) provides:

(i) that the person wishes to register the relationship;

(ii) that the person is in a relationship as a couple with the other person;

(iii) that the person is not married;

(iv) that the person is not registered under this Act or a corresponding law as being in a relationship or a corresponding law registered relationship;

(v) that the person is not in a relationship as a couple with a person other than the other applicant;

(vi) that the person does or does not reside in South Australia;

(vii) that the person is not related to the other applicant by family; and

(b) evidence of the identity and age of each person in the relationship…

So, there is some comfort to be had there for the Hon. Mr Hood in terms of what sort of relationships would attract that mutual recognition.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chair, by the way the debate is proceeding, I take it that we are going to consider this issue at large?

The CHAIR: That is right.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, minister, I think the Hon. Dennis Hood's question is really in relation to relationships that have already been recognised in other jurisdictions. My understanding of the bill is that the criteria that you brought to the attention of the council in relation to clause 6 are criteria for relationships to be registered under this bill. So, the Hon. Dennis Hood's query in relation to those that are recognised, shall we say by reference, would not necessarily meet those criteria?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Wade is quite right, of course. I draw the attention of the Hons Mr Wade and Mr Hood to part 4—Recognition of corresponding law registered relationships. Clause 26, which the Hon. Mr Wade alluded to earlier, provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the general requirements for a corresponding law are that, to be registered or formally recognised under that law, a relationship—

(a) must be between 2 adult persons; and

(b) must have been entered into consensually; and

(c) must not be between persons who are related by family; and

(d) must not be entered into by a person who is already in a union that is recognised as a marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 of the Commonwealth; and

(e) must not be entered into by a person who is already in a relationship that is registered or formally recognised under that law.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That brings me to a question in relation to clause 26(2). When the clause says that, to be a corresponding law, the law needs to meet the following general requirements, does that mean that the law must meet all those requirements? For example, subclause (2)(a) provides that the relationship 'must be between two adult persons'. If a law of another jurisdiction allows for a marriage below the age of 18—which is what we say an adult is in this bill—does that mean that that law would not be a corresponding law and therefore that relationship could not be recognised?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that that is correct, because each of those separate subclauses operates with the modifier 'and' at the end of the sentence.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That being the case, minister, I wonder whether we might be excluding a large number of jurisdictions that might not otherwise raise concern. The one that comes to mind is Spain, which has increased the age of marriage from 14 to 16, but that is still not within subclause (2)(a). Therefore, presumably, their law could not be a corresponding law under this bill. Other jurisdictions that come to mind, even within the Western realm, include Ukraine, which has a marriage age of 14, and Estonia, which has a marriage age of 15.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Wade may very well be correct, but my understanding and my advice is that the registration process we are trying to set up still restricts it to two adults. For that purpose, two non-adults married somewhere else, my advice is, would not be recognised for the purposes of this act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My reading of the bill is not that individual relationships are recognised or not recognised; rather, other laws either meet the general requirements for a corresponding law or do not meet the general requirements for a corresponding law. My understanding is that a Spanish couple who married at age 60 would not be able to have their relationship recognised under this bill because the law under which they were married is not a corresponding law because it allows people who are not adults to be married.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that that is probably true, but it would be seen by the registrar more as an interpretive measure. The issue would be: are the applicants at the time of their application adults (for our purposes, over the age of 18)? In that case, the registrar would probably use their discretion in the case of an application. Alternatively, if that was not the case, there would be some avenue through the courts. The act does purely countenance registered partnerships for adults.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I respect that and I support that intent of the bill, but I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a large number of jurisdictions in the world would be excluded by the current drafting of the bill. In that respect, the issue is not merely the minimum marriage age or, if you like, the general marriage age. There are a large number of jurisdictions, particularly in the United States of America, that allow marriage between people below the age of 18 with parental consent. I am not expecting a response to this issue, but I flag that that law, also, would not be a corresponding law under this bill.

I would suggest that there will be a lot of people who, like the visiting British couple, will not be able to achieve the status of a corresponding law. What I would like to ask as an explicit question is: considering 26(2) has general requirements for a corresponding law, and it seems to me that is a statutory condition on the regulations under subclause (1), would the declaration of a law, as a corresponding law which does not comply with those requirements, be void or legally challengeable with or without a disallowance motion of either house of parliament?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: There are two points to be made here: one going to the more general question asked by the Hon. Mr Wade, and the other to the more explicit one. This register is based on and modelled on the registers in Victoria and New South Wales. To our knowledge, to the knowledge of my advisers, there has been no particular problem raised in those jurisdictions by the situation contemplated by the Hon. Mr Wade in his questioning. In any case, in terms of the recognition or declaration of a corresponding law in a corresponding country, my advice is that law would have to meet the general requirements for it to be listed as a corresponding law.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As a matter of law, if it did not meet those requirements, would the regulation be null? I am not sure what the legal status would be. Would the regulation be invalid with or without a disallowance?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that, in fact, a corresponding law would not be listed should it not meet those general requirements. The Hon. Mr Wade is asking the hypothetical question of what if, for example, a country that has a law that does not meet these basic requirements under subclause (2) is listed, but my advice is it could not be listed if it does not meet these basic general requirements.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will take the minister's answer at face value but, to be frank, drafters do make mistakes from time to time. My understanding of the bill is that if a government purported to make a regulation and it did not meet subclause (2), it would be invalid. That invalidity may not be recognised until somebody chose to challenge it in a court or similar, but in that sense it would not actually require an action of this parliament, in either chamber, to disallow it.

As I said, I support the bill. I have supported non-discrimination in relationship recognition a number of times before, but I would flag to government that I think this might well be a provision that we might need to revisit over time. I appreciate that, right around Australia, these pieces of legislation are still quite young, but I suspect this is an area that we may well need to revisit.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify, is it not the case in Australia that one can get married between the ages of 16 and 18 with a court order if the other person in the proposed marriage is an adult?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that is correct, but a court would have to make a determination to give permission for that based on exceptional circumstances.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a final question. It is customary for members of parliament to declare a self-interest when one votes on a bill. At one point, I thought the minister might declare a self-interest, but of course this bill applies to us all regardless of our sexuality, so I would like to declare my self-interest. As I vowed never to marry again, this bill might indeed be something that I will be looking forward to, in registering a relationship rather than engaging in another marriage. I certainly do not wish to marry again, but I certainly hope that I will fall in love again and perhaps be able to avail myself of these particular provisions given that circumstance. I ask the minister: is he looking forward to his marriage to his long-term partner, Leith, being recognised in the South Australian laws?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks very much for allowing me an opportunity to stray away from my ministerial responsibilities. I am, of course, legally married in the country of Spain. It will be a welcome situation for me to be able to utilise that marriage certificate here if I ever needed to prove my relationship to my husband for any purpose. To date, I have rarely had cause to agitate this issue with authorities—I have in the past, but less and less these days. I will be very grateful, should this bill pass, that my marriage certificate, valid in Spain, would be recognised here for the purposes of this act.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: There is one last topic for me to explore with the minister in relation to clause 1. I wonder if the minister will bear with me on this, because I am thinking it through as we go. The original impetus for this bill was, as I understand it, the unfortunate incident involving the couple from the UK, where one of the gentlemen died in South Australia and it created legal headaches for his partner. Can the minister explain to the chamber the difference in that circumstance should this bill pass?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In the situation of Mr Bulmer-Rizzi which I referred to before, essentially what would happen is that, through the actions of this legislation, he would have the same legal status in South Australia as domestic partners do. That means he would have the ability to have his registered relationship recorded on the death certificate, which would then give him some control over his husband's remains and be able to make decisions in relation to the repatriation of the husband's body back to his home country for burial—the ashes, in this case—and suchlike. It would give recognition to his ability to act as any other partner or married person could in relation to their partner for the purposes of our state legislation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Minister, would that apply right across state legislation? For example, I am thinking of what might not be an uncommon situation, where tourists might find themselves in a situation requiring medical attention and the consent of their next of kin being sought.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is yes, exactly as it would for other domestic partners.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his answer. By way of supplementary to the minister's answer, in that case, would we see a situation where it is not required—I think I am right in saying this—that people pre-register their relationship, and it would be recognised after the event?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is, yes, it would be automatic recognition. The instance of pre-registration means that you would have to have full knowledge, as an overseas tourists coming to South Australia, of the legal situation that pertains here. Some people might do that research; I would assume that the majority would not. So, we think asking them to pre-register would be overly cumbersome and burdensome for our tourist population.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to return to some earlier questions that the Hon. Mr Hood raised, and the minister responded to, in relation to the amendments to the definition of 'domestic partners'. The current definition of 'domestic partners' in this legislation, as outlined in the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996, which is complicated, provides:

domestic partner means a person who lives in a close personal relationship and includes—

(a) a person who is about to enter a close personal relationship…

Which is interesting in itself. It continues:

(b) a person who has lived in a close personal relationship;

It also defines 'close personal relationship':

…means the relationship between 2 adult persons (whether or not related by family and irrespective of their gender) who live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, but does not include—

(a) the relationship between a legally married couple; or

(b) a relationship where 1 of the persons provides the other with domestic support or personal care (or both) for fee or reward, or on behalf of some other person or an organisation of whatever kind;

There is a note underneath the definition, which states:

Two persons may live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis whether or not a sexual relationship exists, or has ever existed, between them.

This legislation seeks to amend the definition of 'domestic partner' and 'close personal relationship' to introduce the element of registered relationships into the definition. In response to the earlier questions, clearly the definition of 'domestic partner', which necessarily involves the definition of 'close personal relationship', is now in a number of pieces of state legislation right across the board, too many to refer to. If this legislation passes, is it correct to say that someone with a registered relationship under this legislation will have the same legal rights and entitlements in South Australian law as a married couple?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that partnerships recognised for the purposes of this legislation will not be seen as a marriage. They will be given the same status and equivalent rights as domestic partners. My understanding is that the main definition of 'domestic partners' sits under the Family Relationships Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that, but my question is, for example, about a whole range of issues that relate to access to medical treatment, inheritance and all the other issues that are raised in relation to legal rights and entitlements of couples. Is it not correct that a relationship registered under this proposed legislation will have all those same legal rights and entitlements that a married couple would have in relation to those particular areas?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that some acts do contemplate domestic partnerships having rights accorded under those acts and some acts do not. Some acts might reference marriage and domestic partnerships or marriage alone, so the rights that are accrued to someone who is in a registered relationship would depend on how each individual act nuanced the rights that are available under that legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Clearly, this package of legislation will address issues such as surrogacy, adoption and those sorts of things, so that is part of the package. Putting aside those specific issues which we are going to address one way or another in this package of bills, can the minister give us an example of a legal right or entitlement that a married couple has that a registered relationship under this proposed process would not have?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have examined the Hon. Mr Lucas's question with my advisers and I cannot currently come up with any examples to give him today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not personally intend to prolong the debate on this issue any longer, other than to note that, in discussions I have had with people in relation to forming a view on the legislation—and I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister—the point of view put to me by some lawyers is that, if you look beyond the package of legislation that we are looking at, should this legislation pass, someone who registers a relationship under South Australian law will essentially have all the same legal rights and entitlements as a married couple.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Of course they do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is a separate issue. It is not going to be defined as marriage under this particular legislation; that is not the particular issue I am prosecuting in this case. The point here is that it is possible that this parliament in this legislation may well provide a couple with all the issues that have been raised over the years, that is, someone is not consulted in relation to medical treatment or someone is not entitled to a particular inheritance or to prosecute a case in relation to an inheritance issue—all those sorts of issues that members of this parliament have debated over many years as to whether or not there should be legal rights and entitlements.

Essentially, with the passage of legislation over the years and with this particular legislation, a couple who registers a relationship will have the same legal rights and entitlements as a married couple for all those issues. There will still be some who will say, 'We still want to be referred to as a married couple and be recognised as a marriage.' I accept that is their view, and that is a separate issue and not for this particular debate directly.

However, in relation to the argument that there would be ongoing discrimination about various forms of relationships, the legal advice given to me is that this legislation that the parliament is considering passing will give that registered relationship the same legal rights and entitlements as a married couple, and I think that is an important part of it. As I said, I am prepared to support the second reading of the legislation and I am likely to support the third reading of the legislation because I think couples, however they are constituted, will be able to argue that they are being treated in the same way.

Some of us will draw a line differently when we look at other parts of the package of legislation when it comes to issues of adoption, surrogacy or whatever else. We might draw the line differently in relation to that but, when it comes to the range of other issues that this parliament has debated in the past in terms of inheritance, access to medical treatment, the right to be consulted about family disputes and other issues, registered relationship couples—if we can refer to the process in that way—will have the same legal rights and entitlements in South Australia as a married couple. I place on the record the advice that I have received and note the minister's answer, which is not inconsistent with that. From my viewpoint, I do not intend to delay clause 1 any longer on that issue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On reflection during the Hon. Mr Lucas's contribution, I think he is largely right, but I suspect we have already done that in previous legislation. When we passed the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill, we provided those rights, in many instances, to South Australians who were in domestic partnerships. Today's bill, I suppose, extends that a little bit further to recognise relationships entered into in registers in those other jurisdictions that I referred to earlier, and it also provides an ability for those domestic partners in South Australia currently to then go that extra step of registering their domestic partnership. In essence, I think the Hon. Mr Lucas is quite correct.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And you can get a certificate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: That is right, yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a simple question for the minister, I expect. Clause 6 talks about fees and whatnot with respect to registering relationships under this bill. Have the fees been determined yet and, if so, what are they?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that we have advice from the registrar that the fees will be consistent with the current fees that apply to similar registrations. I do not have the current fee structure in front of me. I am advised that there is a slight increase year on year as we pass the budget bills.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This clause deals with who might have access to the register of relationships. Under this bill, there is a requirement for the registrar to keep a record (which makes perfect sense) of who has registered a relationship and who has not. This particular clause talks about who might want access and the registrar deciding if they will grant access and under what circumstances. I am just wondering, from the government's perspective, who it might envisage might want access to the register?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that this is exactly the same provision that exists in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act currently, so, at clause 1(a), anyone who has an adequate reason to apply, but the registrar, as always, has discretion in how they respond.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The question I had prepared here the minister has answered in one of his previous answers.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 31 passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think this is my last question, but there may be one more. There is some interesting wording in this clause and, as we have all agreed, I am not a lawyer and nor are others here. Part 4 of the schedule talks about a person being treated unfavourably because of their particular status. Is there is a definition provided of the term 'unfavourably' and, if so, could the minister please explain it?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that there is no change in terms of the definition of 'unfavourable'. I am advised that this provision tries to contemplate intersex status—which the current Equal Opportunity Act does not—and we are trying to make the current Equal Opportunity Act consistent with the commonwealth legislation.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (11:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (11:16): I do not want to delay the chamber but I indicate that we will be opposing it. We will not call 'divide'; we do not want to delay the chamber, but that is our position.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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