Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19074] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 A number of issues have been raised that I would like to address. I do not intend to enter into any argument about people’s individual beliefs but I with the officials behind me will attempt to answer members’ questions seeking clarification of the bill. 
Dr Nick Smith when he spoke first said that the definition of a de facto relationship could include the relationships of followers of Reverend Moon. The definition in clause 40 states: “In an enactment de facto relationship means a relationship between 2 people (whether a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman) who—(a) live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union; and (b) are not married to or in a civil union with each other; and (c) are both aged 16 years or older.” I think it is quite clear that we are not talking about large households of the kind that that member was referring to. 
 Also he made the point that couples will have difficulties determining whether they are in a de facto relationship. Over 90 pieces of legislation which represent almost half of all laws that contain rights and responsibilities for persons in a relationship already recognise de facto couples. Many of these have been in force for several years and most do not have a definition of de facto relationships such as there is in this bill. There is no evidence from the courts that decision makers or the couples themselves do not know whether couples are in a de facto relationship. 
The last point that Dr Smith raised that I will address is his view that this bill although talking about civil union is really about gay marriage. I will read from the introduction of the report that was put out by the select committee: “The main aim of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was to amend Acts and regulations that contain unjustified discrimination on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation.” It is quite limiting. “The bill is the primary statutory vehicle for implementing the Consistency 2000 project”—which was commenced by Dr Smith’s party in the 1990s and was a very worthy project—“and its successor the Compliance 2001 project …”. That is one comment that I wanted to make. 
Sue Bradford raised the question of Nandor Tanczos’ amendments to two Acts that are not considered in this bill—namely the Citizenship Act and the Adoption Act. Because we are not amending those Acts in the bill that is before us Nandor Tanczos or his representative will have to ask the Committee to agree to those amendments being considered. I say now that I will not agree that his amendments proceed. The reason is that both those Acts are under review. As Associate Minister of Justice I know about the adoption legislation and the citizenship legislation is a long way further down the review process than the adoption legislation is. 
Mr Tanczos is in a sense demonstrating some of the mistakes that the House has made in the past in dealing with human rights by including one thing—civil unions—when dealing with citizenship and leaving off de facto relationships. That is the thing that I as a person who works in the policy area find quite difficult. Therefore we will not be moving to include those matters in this bill. But I give him the absolute commitment that these issues will come up in the reviews of those pieces of legislation— particularly the one I will be involved with. 
I will come later to some of the other issues that have been raised.