Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Marriage as we know it in Australia today will exist no more after this week. If the Rudd government gets its way, marriage will be diminished; it will be tossed on the scrap heap. With the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, the Rudd government is determining that the status of marriage counts for nothing and is reducing it to just another relationship—nothing remarkable. The changes put forward by the Rudd government in this legislation mean that there will be no area of Australian law where it will matter whether you are married or in a de facto relationship.

This legislation is mind-blowing, interventionist rubbish. Out in the suburbs and in the cities of Australia, people do not know what the government—with the opposition giving it a helping hand—is trying to sneak through with this legislation. It is even more absurd that the new laws entrench the notion that one of the partners in a marriage can be in a de facto relationship at the same time. Also, the government’s legislation would for the first time allow multiple concurrent de facto relationships. Most family laws promote exclusivity in relationships, and for good reasons. Multiple partners are not good for a family because they are not good for children, who thrive on stability. Think of the chaos that will be caused in the Family Court if partners from multiple concurrent de facto relationships start lodging applications in property settlements.

The government’s mantra is that they are not changing the Marriage Act and so marriage between a man and a woman is protected. But the government are trashing the special status of marriage by giving benefits to other relationships so, in practical terms, there will be no difference between a de facto relationship and a marriage. Legislation should be child focused, not adult focused. It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and a father when possible. It is vitally important to promote marriage and not reduce its status, because it is in marriage where children get both a mum and dad. Marriage is the relationship which provides children with the best chance of the stable family life that they need. It is the backbone and the core of our society. This should not be reduced by any measure. Without question, marriage is the best environment in which to raise children.

Family First believes that the important and overriding principle to guide us when looking at this legislation is that marriage should keep its privileged status and not be undermined. A second important principle is that relationships other than marriage relationships should be recognised as interdependent relationships rather than as marriage-like relationships. Interdependent relationships could include same- and opposite-sex couples in a sexual relationship, but they could also include a couple of mates or two sisters who live together and who share housework, rent and other bills and who are genuinely financially interdependent.

In drafting this bill, the government failed to ask why certain couples want rights granted. It is not true that all people engaged in a sexual relationship want to share their assets and legal responsibilities. Some couples do not marry, because they do not want the legal obligations of marriage or the equivalent that this bill would bring. Yet, under this bill, people deemed to be in a de facto relationship do not need to have made an explicit decision to take on that status. What one person may consider a casual, ongoing relationship may be deemed by another to be a de facto relationship, with all the legal status that that could entail.

For de facto couples, this legislation removes choice. It states that they have a legal status whether they have sought it or not. It would be better to allow all couples who have agreed to share their lives together, and who do not wish to or cannot marry, to decide to have shared rights and responsibilities as members of interdependent relationships. Rights could be granted on the basis of a couple’s commitment to a shared life.

Family First opposes this bill because it is a revolution that undermines marriage and means that there will be no area of Australian law where it matters whether you are married or in a de facto relationship. To help senators join me in calling for a third reading division, I draw attention to the state of the chamber. (Quorum formed)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just indicate that, as I made clear at the time of the second reading debate, this bill has the opposition’s support. The opposition does not share the views expressed by Senator Fielding in the contribution which he has just made. The opposition does not regard the bill as an attack on the institution of marriage and we note that no amendment to the Marriage Act is contemplated by it.

The bill does two things, both of which have the opposition’s support. First, it brings de facto relationships within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. That is a practical law reform measure which was actually initiated during the previous government, by the former Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock. Second, the bill enshrines the principle of the equality of treatment of same-sex couples and de facto heterosexual couples. That proposition, for reasons I and others have explained before, also has the opposition’s wholehearted support.

Not only does this bill not undermine marriage but, by maintaining a clear and sharp distinction between marriage and de facto relationships, in fact the bill reinforces the unique status of marriage, to which the opposition is wholeheartedly committed.

Question agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I would like it noted that Family First opposes the bill.

Bill read a third time.