Dalziel Lianne: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19174] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to speak only briefly on the third readings of this legislation largely to clarify the misunderstanding that has arisen as a result of a change made by the Justice and Electoral Committee to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and a recommendation it made to the Government in its report back. I am disappointed that a member of the select committee who opposed the bill misunderstood what the committee did with the bill—and the member knows to whom I refer. The select committee did not put off a hard decision on the definition of de facto relationship and refer it to the Law Commission to decide; it made a very clear decision about defining de facto relationships in the Interpretation Act so that it applied to all relevant legislation. We made references to the Law Commission but I will come to those in a minute. The select committee added the words “civil union” to the most frequently used definition of de facto relationship in any number of statutes if the member would like to add them up. It now reads that a de facto relationship is a “relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union”—something that completely escaped the notice of the National Party as well. 
The so-called definition that we removed from the bill as introduced was not a definition at all; it was a set of characteristics that a court could use to define whether somebody was living in a de facto relationship. The irony was that the set of characteristics in itself did not determine anything. The presence or absence of any one or all of them was not in itself to be determinant of whether the de facto relationship existed. 
Stephen Franks 
: A pseudo-definition. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was a pseudo-definition. Stephen Franks and I actually found some points of agreement at the select committee. I know I am ruining his reputation by mentioning it in the House but there were a lot of points on which we felt we reached some agreement. 
The difficulty with the list for me was that it came straight from court cases that were focused on determining property rights on the break-up of a de facto relationship that had existed in fact—and it was often a question of whether it existed in law—and whether it existed at a particular time in the law because as we know property cases are dependent on people living in a relationship in the nature of marriage for 3 years. 
The second series of court cases were about benefit entitlements. In fact they were about people trying to prove they were not living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage because of the benefit arrangements they had entered into. We did not think that that was appropriate for every single definition of a de facto relationship in every single law where de facto relationships were referred to. We have asked the courts—and I lay full credit at the feet of Stephen Franks for this—to focus on the purpose of the individual legislation when they make the decision about whether a de facto relationship exists. I think Stephen Franks made an important contribution to the definition in the Interpretation Act that will help courts make the right decision in cases where they are called upon to do so. 
The legislation as introduced extended social security laws to same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007—and for the benefit Mr Dail Jones I repeat that it does exactly the same thing as reported back. The legislation as introduced covered same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007 and the legislation we are passing today covers same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007. That is not the advice the member was reported in the media as giving. I am glad I have had the opportunity to clarify that and I am very glad that the member now admits that the coverage in the media was an inaccurate— 
Dail Jones 
: Don’t lie! Tell the truth! 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I beg the member’s—