David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly do not want to provoke Senator Murray, because I know he is earnest and sincere and I respect him enormously. The point I want to make is that the government is not saying no. The government has said, ‘We are considering this.’ I want to just pause to say that this is very, very significant legislation. It is generational legislation, Senator Murray, if we go down this path—and, as time rolls by, it seems that we are going to go down this path. The Attorney’s words that the government is considering this ring in my ear.

Senator Murray, your amendments are interesting but they set out by way of example the sorts of problems we are dealing with. As you well know, we have six states and two territories. They make legislation. By and large, all of them have enacted legislation concerning de facto relationships. The defining point of de facto legislation is the effluxion of time. In other words, de facto spouses acquire rights by virtue of the duration of the relationship. What your amendments seek to do, and indeed what a number of amendments before this chamber have sought to do, is to say that rights are required. Firstly, let us deal with children. Your amendment (1) says:

child of a de facto relationship means:

             (a)    a child born of a de facto relationship; or

             (b)    a child adopted by the persons engaged in that relationship during the period of the relationship.

There is a period mentioned there. You then go on to say:

de facto relationship means:

             (a)    the relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis ...

You then clarify that to say ‘not married’. Given that the states define ‘de facto relationship’ by virtue of time and you have not, you have created a complete conundrum between rights that flow by virtue of state legislation and rights that we would seek to bestow by virtue of Commonwealth legislation. This creates a dual rights regime—the haves and the have-nots. All I am saying to you is: please, work this through. It is complex. There are a host of considerations and we are giving them consideration. It is not going to happen tonight; it is not going to happen in the immediate term. But, ultimately, I think the package will go across agencies, across departments. We will look at actuarial tables. We will look at life expectancies of same-sex couples, we will look at the effect on children and we will take the states with us. All I am saying to you is: please go with us on this mission.