Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18973] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The last speaker made the point to the effect that this is leading edge legislation and I do not doubt that in many respects it is. But we need also just to reflect on the fact that it continues the Government’s committed policy of social engineering. It is one of a number of pieces of legislation that cause concern to members of this House. I guess that the latest excrescence by way of example is the gender identity legislation that would see cross-dressing in the military police service prisons and classroom. 
This bill is a companion piece to the Civil Union Act that was passed in 2004 yet in logic it is not necessarily a companion piece. I say that because there has been a determination by a majority in the Justice and Electoral Committee to see this legislation strongly linked into the Civil Union Act and passed within a time frame that will permit both pieces of legislation to come into force at the same time. 
I oppose this legislation on a number of grounds but it is a conscience vote for members of Parliament in the National Party as to the stance they will take. My concern is that legislation of this type because of its substantial social impact should not proceed without a binding referendum. I make that point. Also I will briefly say why I opposed the civil union legislation. On offer in that legislation were representations made in this Parliament that I believe were grossly misleading. The reality is that in the case of heterosexual couples there is no significant difference between civil union and marriage. Both events are registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. The civil union legislation is all about enabling the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter for the individual consciences of members of Parliament but the legislation was never represented to us on the basis on which it should have been represented. It was to deal with issues raised by submitters—issues that in the context of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill are not addressed. I sought a number of major changes to the civil union legislation which I suggested be called the “Civil Relationships Bill”. 
I have said that the present bill is a conscience vote for National members of Parliament and it would clearly be inconsistent with my stance for me to support this legislation because of my opposition to the Civil Union Act. But the real point of substance is that this legislation creates rights and responsibilities for de facto couples. Such couples often make a deliberate choice not to enter into marriage or now to enter into a civil union. They prefer to be in a de facto relationship. They deliberately in some cases opt for the perceived advantages of a less formal sometimes transient relationship. It is a matter of recorded history that de facto relationships are less stable than marriages sanctioned by the institution of the State. Yet this bill proposes to fix those de facto couples with rights and responsibilities that are in many cases akin to marriage and civil union. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure who the troublesome woman is who is interrupting but I will come to the points that I think she is trying to make in just a moment. 
I want to say in the context of the substance of the bill that the bill does two things. It gives legal effect to civil unions and it takes the view that in general terms all relationships should be protected—the relationship of marriage the relationship of civil union and this relationship which is difficult to define but is broadly encompassed under the hat of de facto relationships. Why do I say that? Because that is what the majority of the select committee say. They say in part in the commentary on the bill: “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.” 
 For the reasons I have already explained I have real reservations about adding rights and responsibilities to de facto relationships when people deliberately and determinedly enter into those relationships in order not to be fixed with such obligations. But there is another and perhaps more significant point. I do not believe that it was appropriate that the Justice and Electoral Committee was involved in substantive policy work as it sought to make major changes to this bill that the Government introduced. The Minister has already commented about those sweeping changes. The committee does not have the resources—and I would say that it does not have access to the necessary third-party skills—to do that type of work so it is not surprising that a large number of errors have been made along the way. Nor is it surprising that a large number of anomalies have been created. 
Let me give an instance of that. Let us take the case of a male aged 16 in civil union with another male aged 40. It is quite possible for a male aged 16 to be in a civil union. The legislation contemplates that possibility in a number of ways but two of them are the consent of the parents for that civil union to occur or a court order to that effect. Under this legislation the 16-year-old male will be the stepfather of the children of the older male’s first marriage. That seems to me utterly bizarre. It comes about because of the interrelationship of the definitions in the bill as they currently stand. It could be quite significant because there could be substantial property issues in the context of assets held by that younger male. So I see in this legislation which should be about the protection of young people the very real possibility of substantial exploitation. 
The final point I would like to make is that I believe that the legislation fails to address an issue that I have urged should be addressed: the position of next of kin and other domestic relationships. The committee touches on this on page 7 of its report. It notes the submissions that have been made on this topic which I think is a truly troublesome one. I suggested through my proposed amendments to the Civil Union Bill that that issue should be addressed there and then. The clerk ruled that those concerns of mine that were translated into amendments were properly within the scope of the bill. The committee states: “We believe that further work should be undertaken in respect of any proposal to recommend a next of kin register or to include relationships that were not in the nature of marriage or civil union.” 
As the Minister has said there has been a decision to take out the indicators in the bill that established or did not establish the presence of a de facto relationship. A de facto relationship is difficult to define. I thought that those indicators were in fact helpful but they have been stripped from this legislation as reported back. Instead—and I would say unhelpfully—a 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 … live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union;”.