Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 1014 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I make one small reference to an issue which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised in its report. It referred to the fact that there could be viewed to be an element of retrospectivity in the way in which the legislation both creates rights and in doing so, in a sense, removes rights as well. Take the case, for example, of the estranged wife of a man who has had a relationship with another person for, say, five years. That man on his death would, before the change in the law - that is, at the present time - leave his estate to his wife if there was an intestacy. Under the new law, on the death of that man the estate will pass to his new partner in its entirety. Mr Speaker, that could be said both to create rights in the new partner and remove rights from the spouse. That is true and the Assembly does take a decision, in a sense, to alter the situation with respect to the rights of parties in that circumstance; but it does so quite deliberately because it acknowledges that there is an inequity in the present situation. In order to properly acknowledge the rights of people as they now stand, rights which have grown up because of a relationship with a particular deceased person, there is a need to alter those rights and obligations, and this legislation does so, albeit retrospectively in respect of some people.

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge that the Government has considered that question but has decided that that is an issue which, nonetheless, should be put in this form. We could provide that this legislation operates only for those, for example, who make wills subsequent to the passage of this legislation, or who were born or who form relationships after the legislation is passed. That would be unnecessarily onerous, I think, for those who are presently suffering from a lack of recognition. I hope that there will be acknowledgment of that, therefore, through this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Debate resumed from 28 March 1996, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .