Franks Stephen: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18985] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This bill is the second limb of the civil union change; Parliament has voted on the Civil Union Bill and I believe that only now does Parliament really know exactly what it was doing. The Civil Union Bill created a statutory pantomime of marriage. That was not what the Law Commission had suggested. The Law Commission suggested that people who live in any kind of relationship other than marriage should be able to opt into a predetermined or a convenient set of legal rights and responsibilities in relation to each other without necessarily being married. Instead the Civil Union Bill decided very consciously to use the symbolism that the State first borrowed or took over from religion. It has run it for the last 50 years and gradually gutted it to the point where marriage means very little. 
When I spoke on the first reading of the two bills I went through that progression that running down of the distinction between what the Government likes to refer to as stable committed relationships where there was a genuine commitment where there was some exclusivity—what we recognise in marriage—and all the other kinds of ways in which people choose to live. The Government is now rushing this second limb through despite the fact that this bill has come back from the select committee absolutely transformed. 
If we just weigh the bill in our hands we can feel the difference the changes that the committee made. The committee was very conscientious. I was proud to be a member of it. Although the Government came to the House with a set of legislated slogans: “There is no difference between marriage and any other relationship” and although the Government tried to say that that was because it favoured what it called protecting the parties to stable committed relationships the bill that was introduced did nothing of the sort. The bill that was introduced simply stated: “Marriage schmarriage they’re all the same.” and ignored the fact that marriage is consensual—the quintessential contract. In fact marriage was one of the earliest glories of English law. As the British spread throughout the world they spread this then radical idea that marriage should be the free and uncoerced consent of two competent parties to a lifelong relationship. 
The idea that both parties would have a choice was radical. The idea that it would be done in public so that people could see that there was no coercion was a huge advance. What this Government brought in was a bill that simply stated: “Your consent doesn’t matter at all and far from worrying about coercion we the State will simply treat you all as married.” It was an appalling bill to bring in. 
I now want to give a bit of credit to Tim Barnett the chair of the committee and Lianne Dalziel who is on the committee. They both recognised that at an early stage. Instead of being locked into the position that they had started with they conscientiously worked through to try to eliminate I will say the worst features of that automatic marriage—that is the changing of 80-odd pieces of legislation to say that it did not matter whether people consented to marriage obligations if they happened to be living together. Indeed the definition was so vague that it could have been as casual as a few nights together it could have been flatmates taking advantage of their temporary closeness or it could have been women or men under duress. It could have been any of those things. 
Through an intuitive process the committee knocked out a large number of the provisions that stated: “De facto is the same as marriage.” Indeed Lianne Dalziel went further. I think she worked out over the summer break a kind of principled rationale for what we were doing. She would have probably stated it pretty clearly in the report back to this House except for the fact that had she done that it would have made it crystal-clear that her own Government had been party to some pretty appalling treatment of marriage and family law over the last 4 years. So instead we got a relatively neutral anodyne report from the committee. If we had journalism that went behind the appearances and if we had a genuinely robust debate on family law matters it would have been seen that what this committee has said is radical in terms of the trend of the past few years. 
The committee’s reasoning says that the Human Rights Act is absolutely wrong to be making marital status a prohibited ground of discrimination. This committee has just gone through the law and said that there are lots of times when it is sensible to discriminate on the grounds of marital status. That is because marriage is a promise of a stable committed relationship where the parties volunteer and where people choose to change not only their social status but also their legal status yet the Human Rights Act states that the State can penalise people who draw distinctions on the basis of marital status. So it is a pretty radical report back but members will not see that clearly in the majority report. 
Dail Jones 
: It’s very hidden. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes it is very hidden. This bill discretely notes that a lot of the tearful rhetoric we heard around the civil union debate—for example the unfairness of people not being allowed next of kin rights when they clearly were the closest companions of people for example in hospital. The bill does not deal with next of kin rights. We have kicked it to touch. We have sent this sort of stuff off to someone else to think about—the Law Commission. That is because ultimately the Labour majority on the committee could not be seen to be showing up the disastrous steps taken by the Hon Margaret Wilson and others earlier in the life of this Government to tell us that marriage does not matter. 
So we have a bill that is an awful lot better than we started with. Is it still a bill to oppose? Firstly for me the bill still does not deal with the problem of the Human Rights Act. Although it amends the Human Rights Act it does not take out that immoral and stupid prohibition on discrimination on the basis of marital status. The bill amends the Human Rights Act but it does not protect for example the taxi-driver who does not want to be associated with a civil union. It does not protect the church that does not want to rent out its church hall for a celebration whether it is civil union or simply those flaunting a sexual orientation the church disagrees with. This bill does not protect them or their freedom to associate or not to associate. It does not protect their freedom of speech—in other words their normal freedom to discriminate to uphold their beliefs and live their beliefs. 
I cannot support this bill when no attempt was made other than by repairing the particular provisions that were before us to go back and do what the Government’s rhetoric said it was really doing—that is trying to create a foundation for stable and committed couples to live together. Interestingly there is still nothing in the bill that says anything about “committed” or”stable”. Even after the work we have done a de facto relationship can still be a relationship of a few days. All that rhetoric about stability and commitment means nothing. The bill still deliberately discriminates for at least the next 2 years. A gay couple will be able to draw the single benefit—some $60 a week more than a heterosexual couple in the same circumstances. That is wrong. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: They can now. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Hon Lianne Dalziel points out that they can now but this law is supposed to be changing those things. This bill was introduced to end that kind of discrimination but the Government carefully preserved it. Why did it preserve it? It preserved it on the grounds that it would not be fair to disturb people’s circumstances without giving them adequate warning. That did not seem to worry the Hon Margaret Wilson when she compulsorily married everyone for property purposes. It did not worry her at all. Although this bill is far better than what we started out with—and I would understand people changing their votes—from the way that it was towards the end of last year I believe it should still be voted against as a signal that this is not the way to play with family law.