Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19128] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We come to the dying stages of this debate on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. If it is to be the case that this legislation is to pass—and there are some indications that that is likely to be the result—then I say to this Government the more shame there is. It seems to me and I offer this view sincerely to members of the Committee that this Government cares more about pushing its flawed ideology than it cares about real situations real children and real families. This is a debate about the title of the bill and the title is the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill but it is clear from one of the Supplementary Order Papers that is before the Committee that the plan is to divide this bill into a large number of bills as the various statutory changes find their way into the principal Acts that they should be part of and similarly in respect of Part 2 as the various amendments to regulations find their way into their homes. 
I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker but perhaps for quite different reasons. It has been made very clear what this bill is all about. It does two things: it gives legal effect to civil unions but it also takes the view that all relationships should be protected—the relationship of marriage the relationship of civil union and also de facto relationships. Therein lies the rub. It is very easy to say what a marriage is. There are formal indicators of such a status and as a result of the passage of the Civil Union Bill it is now very easy to say what a civil union is. There are formal indications of that status. It is much harder to say when a de facto relationship has been established and also much harder to say when a de facto relationship has foundered. Where I part company from the previous speaker is that I see in this bill the problem that it adds to the mix a whole lot of rights and responsibilities for de facto couples—obligations that they have deliberately not chosen to accept. De facto couples are now to be fixed with a host of rights and responsibilities. People enter or drift into de facto relationships for a wide range of reasons. It is also fair to say that there is a wide range of de facto relationships. When couples enter into those relationships they do not intend that they will be fixed with a set of rights and responsibilities but that is what the Government has done to them in this particular setting. 
I am very much aware as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that the majority members of the committee went painstakingly—or they tried to be painstaking—through the task of reviewing the myriad of statutes and regulations that they thought required change and of making case-by-case judgments as to whether there should be extended in the particular setting of a statute or regulation a set of responsibilities attaching to de facto couples. Some of that work may be well done some of it is doubtless flawed and some of it will doubtless throw up anomalies. One thing is for sure: there are a lot of anomalies in this legislation. I believe that the majority members of the committee—and I was not part of that majority—certainly recognised that in the commentary on the bill because the too-hard issues were parked for reference to the Law Commission. It is relevant to note in the commentary the comments made by the select committee. Page 7 of the commentary states: “As a result of the work of the committee we recommend that terms of reference be developed for referral to the Law Commission to further assess any remaining inequities between de facto couples and couples who are married or in a civil union.”