Relationships Amendment Bill 2015

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am very happy to speak on the Relationships Amendment Bill 2015. It is a reasonably brief bill which makes some amendments to the Relationships Act that was passed in this chamber on 8 April 2008, some seven years and eight months ago. At that time the Greens were very pleased to support that bill, which introduced the relationships register. There was only one other in existence then, and that was in Tasmania. We now have others across the country. At the time I made the comment that it would have been good to have a uniform national register. However, when it was set up, the Victorian register was already not uniform with the existing register in Tasmania in terms of recognising domestic relationships in other jurisdictions. The bill before us today makes that change.

In 2008 I had prepared an amendment to that very effect, to make sure that the bill creating the relationships register enabled relationships in other jurisdictions registered under the relationships register in Tasmania to be recognised in Victoria. I made the comment at the time that I would not proceed with that amendment, because discussions with the government at the time — Mr Jennings, as it turned out — assured me that the government would look at that issue and remedy it. I am pleased to point out that more than seven and a half years later the government is actually doing it, so that is great. It is a pity Labor did not do it the last time it was in government.

The other major amendment to the act that is being made by this bill is that both parties do not have to reside in Victoria. I also moved an amendment to that effect in 2008, but it was not supported by the government for some unknown reason. I do not know why it was not in the bill that set up the register in the first place. That amendment was not passed in April 2008, but seven years and eight months later both parties will no longer have to reside in Victoria. It is certainly not the case with marriage; people are not required to live in the same state in order to be married. It was a very curious requirement

Mr Dalidakis interjected.

Ms PENNICUIK — It is just interesting, but it is no longer the case. There are of course people who, for particular reasons — it may be for employment — cannot reside in the same state, so to have that as a requirement on the relationship register was onerous and particularly unnecessary.

This bill allows for a variety of relationships to be registered, be they same-sex relationships, mixed-sex relationships or people who want to have their relationship registered for medical or property reasons but who do not want to go through a marriage ceremony. Caring relationships can also be registered. My preference would be to have all these things done at the federal level and for us to have marriage equality at the federal level. We know there is great support for marriage equality in the community, and it is growing every year. I introduced a bill into this house in 2012 calling for same-sex marriage at the state level. Subsequent to that the High Court ruled that states should not legislate for marriage equality and that it was in fact the purview of the commonwealth. The High Court also said that there was no impediment at the federal level for marriage equality.

That is effectively signalling to the federal Parliament that there would be no success in a High Court challenge to marriage equality, because it has already indicated that there is no impediment.

The Greens have of course championed marriage equality for many years. My federal colleagues have been urging the federal Parliament to get on with changing the Marriage Act 1961 so that it applies to all citizens equally, as every secular law should. I think it would probably be best if the relationships register were at a federal level as well, rather than having different ones across the states. It would certainly be a way to make sure we have uniformity and no restrictions applying in different jurisdictions.

The other amendment I moved in April 2008 was to provide that the registrar may conduct a ceremony in connection with the registration of a registrable domestic relationship. That would mean any two persons who wanted to register a registrable domestic relationship could have a ceremony attached to that registration. I know a number of people who have registered their relationship, and one of the comments that has been made to me is that it is a little bit like registering your car — you go in there and get a bit of paper, and there is not really much more to it than that. The argument in 2008, and I think it holds now, was that in terms of a registrable domestic relationship, it is preferable for the law to allow for a ceremony to be conducted. I know there is support for this in the community. The registrar already conducts ceremonies attached to marriage. The Marriage Act requires people to exchange certain prescribed words in order for a marriage to be lawful, and I suppose that invites an attached ceremony.

I have attended marriage registrations at the registry office with ceremonies attached. I see no reason why the same thing could not occur for any registrable domestic relationship. I am happy to move my amendment and to have it circulated.

Greens amendments circulated by Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.

Ms PENNICUIK — I distributed it to all parties quite a while ago, when the bill first came to us, and I have mentioned it to parties, so I think everybody is aware of the amendment I am proposing today. It is a very simple amendment to a very simple bill that is correcting anomalies. They could have been corrected a long time ago, but I am pleased to see that they are being corrected now.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

New clause

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:

Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 5—

'A    Registration

After section 10(3) of the Principal Act insert—

“(4)  The Registrar may conduct a ceremony in connection with the registration of a registrable domestic relationship under this section.”.'

Way back in 2008 I moved a similar amendment to the bill that established the register in the first place. As many speakers have said, a lot of people who avail themselves of this register to register their relationships are same-sex couples who are not able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Marriage Act 1961 because we do not yet have marriage equality in this country, although I am very confident we will have at some stage.

Under the Marriage Act certain words have to be spoken to make the marriage lawful. This amendment would simply allow the registrar to conduct a ceremony in connection with the registration such that for two people — be they a same-sex couple or any two people of whatever sexuality or gender they may be — who want to register their relationship as a registrable domestic relationship it is not just a matter of signing a form and then going away. As I mentioned before, a person I know who has registered their relationship and is not part of a same-sex couple said to me that it felt a bit like registering your car. There was not much joy to it. To allow the registrar to conduct a ceremony would be welcomed by many people, and that is certainly the feedback I had way back in 2008 and have had over the years right up until now. That is why I have moved this amendment again. That is simply what the amendment is — a means of allowing people to have some small celebration attached to the registration of their domestic relationship.

Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — The government will not be opposing Ms Pennicuik's amendment, though I would caveat that by restating the concerns I expressed in the second-reading debate. We are keen for there to be discussions with the registrar of births, deaths and marriages. We are not convinced that this is workable. We note that there is nothing in the current act that precludes people from having a celebration or a ceremony to coincide with the registering of their relationship. A formal ceremony involving the registrar of births, deaths and marriages is not something that is legislatively required for registration. I make the observation that Ms Pennicuik's proposal does not alter these registration requirements.

I indicate that we will not oppose this amendment, but we will take the opportunity between now and the next sitting week to seek the advice of the registrar about the workability of this provision and consider those matters in the new year.

I have considerable sympathy for Ms Pennicuik's intention, and it is very much consistent with and complementary to the work that the government is doing in many other respects. I think we can all be touched by the observation from Ms Pennicuik's friend, who felt like they were registering their car.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — I would like to rise to briefly support the amendments, and I agree that allowing for some form of ceremony or recognition of when a relationship registration and the signing take place is important. It possibly does not need to be done with fabulous frou-frou dresses and three-piece suits and top hats, but to have some recognition of the importance of that relationship is necessary, so when someone does choose to register their relationship they do that with some thought about the importance of that relationship. Recognising that at the time that it occurs is completely in line with, as the minister mentioned, the government's moves around recognising the importance of same-sex relationships and ending the discrimination that same-sex couples still receive throughout our legislation. I am very supportive of this amendment.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) — I refer the minister to her second-reading speech, which she just touched on, about the workability of this amendment. She indicated that she would seek advice from the registrar over the immediate break about whether this is workable or not. Is it the minister's advice then to the Parliament that we might not be able to make a decision on this pending that advice?

Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — I thank Mr Ondarchie for his question. We have our doubts about whether Ms Pennicuik's amendment will achieve what she is hoping it will achieve, but we will not oppose it, and we would be very happy to see a successful passage of this legislation today before the Parliament adjourns for the summer break. That would then of course require a message to be transmitted from this house to the Assembly, if indeed this amendment is successful in the house today, indicating that. By the time the Assembly was in a position to consider the message, we would have had an opportunity to further ascertain how workable this arrangement is.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I want to make the same point that has been made by Mr Ondarchie. The first anyone heard of this so-called concern was in the minister's contribution earlier, and there is discussion around the chamber that there may be some problem, but the fact is this amendment was circulated weeks or months ago, and there seems to me to be no explanation as to why the Attorney-General or whoever is responsible in government did not make this advice available to the chamber earlier. There seems to be no logical reason why this bill could not have been dealt with a little earlier in the day and then taken to the lower house for a quick tick, as it were, later in the day.

This seems to me to have been an attempt by the government — and I am putting this on the record — to stymie this outcome by either incompetently organising the legislative agenda or deliberately seeking to frustrate this amendment.

Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — The government has made very clear to all members of the house — to the opposition and the crossbenchers — that our primary objective this week was the continued debate of the legislation dealing with the port of Melbourne lease arrangements. The member may not have noticed, but that is something that the Parliament has been considering in a fair bit of detail since the commencement of this sitting week. But it is very much our intention for this bill to be concluded tonight.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) — In relation to Ms Pennicuik's amendment, it would seem to me that there could be some opportunity for Victoria through this amendment. Is the minister able to advise the house how many new jobs could be expected as a result of this amendment?

Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — I thank Mr Ondarchie for his question. The intention of this legislation is to enhance the operability of the relationships register, which is a very proud reform of the former Labor government, in two ways. This legislation is around enabling existing relationships from other jurisdictions to be recognised, about ensuring that couples who may reside across state borders can be recognised and about allowing partners seeking to enter into a registered relationship to do so. That is the objective of the legislation, and while we do many things that are about creating jobs, this has some other purposes at its core.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) — I am going to touch on Ms Pennicuik's contribution and also that of Ms Patten. Would the minister agree that there is possibly some economic value for Victoria through fashion, through food, through — —

Mr Davis — Milliners!

Mr ONDARCHIE — Milliners. There is a whole range of things, including the fact that those who will conduct ceremonies will provide an economic uplift for Victoria out of this amendment. Would the minister agree?

Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — Mr Ondarchie may offer to stop with the questions about the economic benefits of enhancing the relationships register if I can indeed confirm to the house that there are quite possibly some economic opportunities for the cake makers and the milliners of Victoria. I happily concede that that is a possibility.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) — I simply wish to advise the house that I have no further questions.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank those people who spoke in support of the amendment. People who register their domestic relationship are obviously people who love each other, and that is why I think just a little bit more is required than simply signing a form. We know with the requirements under the Marriage Act 1961 that the number of words is not many, it is a few words, and so it could be a few words that are said to add some more emotion and feeling to the occasion than simply just signing a form and walking away with the form. I take on board what the minister is saying. I am not sure I am convinced by what she is saying, but I take it on board. I appreciate that the government will not oppose the amendment and hopefully it can pass the Council today.

New clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendment.

Report adopted.