Page 4460 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009

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

Deakin swimming pool

MR BARR: Madam Assistant Speaker Le Couteur, in question time you asked me a question in relation to how many leases had been withdrawn as a result of breach actions in the last 12 months. I am advised by email that none have been withdrawn. Also, in relation to a supplementary question from Ms Hunter, the proceedings that were before ACAT are continuing outside the ACAT process by mutual agreement of the parties.

Civil partnerships

MR CORBELL: Yesterday, in question time, Ms Bresnan asked me a question about whether or not regulations have been made under section 15 of the Civil Partnerships Act 2008 and, if they had been, why that information had not been made available to the public. In my answer yesterday, I indicated that I believed regulations had been made. That is incorrect. Regulations have not been made. I apologise for that error, and I provide this advice in relation to why regulations have not been made.

No regulations have been made under section 15 of the act. Until recently, the Tasmanian Relationships Act has been regarded as a mere registration act rather than legislation that truly recognises same-sex partnerships. Whether it may or should be regarded as corresponding legislation for the purposes of section 15 of our act is debatable. Victoria’s relationships legislation is in a similar position. The legislation in both of those states focuses on the legal rights, particularly property rights, of couples rather than on the recognition of the existence of same-sex relationships, and consequently the legal entitlements of the parties to that relationship.

I know that the Greens have introduced a bill into the Assembly that, if passed, will significantly alter the status of our Civil Partnerships Act. The government would welcome discussions about what legislation, if any, should be regarded as corresponding.

In short, the advice I have from my department is that the legislation in Victoria and Tasmania is not of the same effect as the ACT legislation and cannot be regarded as corresponding at this time.

Answer to question on notice

Question No 260

MRS DUNNE: Yesterday, at the end of question time, I asked the Minister for Corrections why question No 260 had not been answered. He referred that to the Attorney-General, who said that it had been answered. My office has checked with the Secretariat and that question has not been answered. I now seek an explanation for why it has not been answered, not where it is or whatever. Why hasn’t it been answered and when will it be answered?

MR CORBELL: I am advised that that response has been provided to the secretariat by my office and was done before the Assembly commenced yesterday.

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