Family Courts Matters Bill

I would like to ask a question of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, with regard to new section 2BAA, “Civil union includes immediately preceding de facto relationship” in clause 77. I certainly have some questions around that provision, and I did not sit on the Social Services Committee. New section 2BAA states: “For the purposes of this Act, if a civil union was immediately preceded by a de facto relationship between the 2 civil union partners (‘A’ and ‘B’), the de facto relationship must be treated as if it were part of the civil union.” An example of civil union is then given: “If the de facto relationship of A and B lasts 1 year, and their civil union lasts 2 years, the civil union must be treated as if it—(a) began 3 years ago; and (b) lasted 3 years.”

That, of course, raises many questions. How do we know whether people were in a de facto relationship? Are we insisting, a little bit like we do with some other legislation, that they show they incurred bills together and were living in the same premises? Under what definition is a relationship a de facto relationship? There are certainly questions around how to prove that.

A Minister’s speech-writer wrote about “triples”. I wonder whether a triple relationship would come into a civil union relationship if the relationship is a de facto one. I wonder how that would fit in. I am not quite sure what “triple relationship” means, but we certainly heard the issue raised in one of the speeches from the other side. If people were in a de facto relationship for some time, how do we define the de facto relationship? Is it defined as two people living together and sharing the bills? What happens if it is a triple relationship, as has been mentioned by Labour members earlier? How would that work in regard to the Property (Relationships) Act, which Part 11 amends?

I went to the seminar when the Property (Relationships) Act was being put into effect. The issue of a doubles relationship was raised, and one of the ways in which people make sure that everyone knows there is a doubles relationship—in particular, the party who perhaps might gain the most—is that after 12 months they have a great party to celebrate the first anniversary of the relationship, then they have the second anniversary, and then the third anniversary. So if the matter ever went to court they would have all their friends there to say that quite clearly this relationship started on such and such a date. Although that may sound facetious, apparently that is done and it is a wonderful way of establishing, by way of evidence, that the parties have been together for 3 years.

So far as a triples relationship is concerned, well, some people might say that chance would be a fine thing, but there seems to be some aspersion being cast on a speech prepared by a speech-writer for the Minister and some people seem to be taking advantage of that. I clearly remember a select committee hearing that I was on, dealing with a family matters bill, and the suggestion was raised that there might have been a polygamous relationship between a homosexual man and two lesbian women. I suggested that could be a triples relationship, because both the women had had children from the man. [Interruption] This was evidence that was given in the select committee. I raised the question whether it was polygamous, and they all denied that it was. It was an interesting point, and the Labour Party members were horrified to think that anyone could possibly believe there could be a polygamous relationship. So far this House has, on the question of the Property (Relationships) Act—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Good! I am so pleased to hear it.

That issue was raised by the previous speaker, Madam Chair, but it really seems to be a very, very long bow, and I cannot see that polygamous relationships would ever be accepted. I hope I have illuminated the matter a little for the member who has raised what is a very interesting point but has no bearing on the bill.

Part 11 agreed to.

Part 12 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2