NSW squibs on relationship recognition

Rodney Croome

May 17, 2010

Opinion

Comments 7

NSW's planned relationships register doesn't go far enough.

It was once my hope that as more states enacted schemes to formally recognise unmarried couples they would build on existing schemes by granting ever more recognition to an ever wider range of relationships.

I'm not saying I wanted these schemes to replace marriage. That is something they could never do.

Instead I expected them to evolve to become ever more responsive to the needs and aspirations of partners who want to formalise their union but can't or don't want to marry.

I saw them becoming a third tier of relationship recognition; a viable alternative to marriage and de facto status rather than a poor substitute for the former or an add-on to the latter.

Tragically, this is not happening.

The Relationship Register soon to be established in NSW is the lowest common denominator of schemes already in existence.

Unlike schemes in Tasmania and the ACT, the NSW Register doesn't allow for official ceremonies. And unlike the Tasmanian and Victorian schemes, the NSW Register doesn't recognise a diversity of relationships, including relationships between companions, extended family members, and carers and the people they care for, as well as same and opposite-sex partners.

The NSW scheme insists couples declare they are in an existing cohabiting, de facto relationship, unlike the three other schemes, which do not put such strict conditions on who can enter a formalised partnership.

The NSW scheme demeaningly registers partners, rather than registering a civil-union-equivalent Deed of Relationship or Civil Partnership, as is the case in the other states.

NSW allows for the recognition of couples in interstate unions but only as de factos, which is an insult to ACT, Victorian and Tasmanian partners who have chosen to formalise their union precisely because they do not want to be de factos.

Far from being "consistent" with other schemes, the NSW Register is a parody of them.

Far from combining the best features of the existing schemes it is an amalgam of their worst. There are two reasons for this.

First, the NSW initiative has been almost entirely driven by the Federal Government.

In the lead up to the election it wants to fend off the demand for same-sex marriage by fulfilling its commitment to "nationally-consistent relationship-recognition schemes".

But it also wants to appease the religious right by putting the brakes on what's possible.

It did this in the ACT by direct intervention to water down official ceremonies.

It couldn't meddle with Tasmania's scheme so it lied that Tasmanian couples register an existing de facto relationship, when in fact they enter a completely new legal relationship like civil union or married partners.

Not content with this, the Federal Government pressured its NSW counterpart not to recognise diverse companionate and familial relationships despite the fact these relationships have been recognised in Tasmania and Victoria for years without a problem.

Second, the NSW Greens and the state's gay and lesbian community completely dropped the ball. They made no serious attempt to improve the State Government's proposal. They fell for the Rudd Government's myths, lies and spin about what is possible.

Why they did this I do not know. Were they pre-occupied with other issues? Do they feel other states have nothing to teach "the First State"? Whatever the reason, they have let down not just their state but the nation.

Yes, the NSW scheme will be useful, particularly for unmarried couples who want to easily secure and prove their relationship rights.

But in every other respect it is a step backwards for relationship law and equal rights in Australia.

Rodney Croome is a spokesman for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and worked closely on the Tasmanian Deed of Relationship registry.

7 comments

I really dont know why this is such a surprise. The NSW government is in thrall to anyone at all that can deliver it votes. They worked the numbers and sadly determined that tolerance isnt a vote winner. And when the federal labour government renegged on its carefully worded [non core?] allusions to something similar prior to the last election, NSW was left with its out, and the ability to try and say its not its fault. Look at their response to the attempt to end the trial of a ethics course in schools, at the behest of the holier than thou relegious lobby. I can only hope that continued failures by the left to actually live up to its rhetoric will mean that voters will start to view them with a more nuanced eye, and that they seek to hold them accountable for what they say, or at least what they want you to infer from what they say. Weasel words are just that, no matter who utters them, but to vote for the ALP because of their commitment to [but continued failure to deliver on, refugees, equal rights for gay and lesbian couples etc] social justice is a waste of a vote. Look at what the parties promise, and look at what they do. At least the luddites in the coaltion tell you what they think about these sorts of issues, it makes it easy to vote against them, cause you know what they think.

Commenter

Matt

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 8:24AM
Surely a deeper rethink of marriage is necessary here.

A lot of the structures around traditional heterosexual marriage were really about the economics of it. This provided protection for women who didn't have a paying job, and eased the financial burden of raising children.

Surely in a modern society that rejects traditional marriage as the norm, we need to rethink what we expect of marriage.

I'm still in favour of assisting those who are raising children but it is a minefield that needs to be thought through carefully, so that we don't create economic incentives to play games with custody in the event of divorce. There is more than enough destruction and game playing in divorce already.

We might define other areas where special laws should apply. For example, someone who takes an economic hit to be a full-time carer might deserve special consideration.

Beyond that, what are you left with?

If someone wants to enter into some sort of shared property ownership arrangement, I don't see why it should be restricted to married, defacto, gay, straight or whatever. I don't see why someone should get a tax break because they are in a relationship.

And if someone wants a civil ceremony blessing their relationship, I don't mind that provided they meet the cost of the ceremony.

Commenter

Wazza

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 9:01AM
Surprise, surprise. The most regressive "Labor" government in the country offers gay and lesbian NSWers a relationship register that is worse than no recognition at all.

I find it pathetic that in ACT, my partner and I were able to have a legitimate and public civil union ceremony with friends and family, but if we lived across the border we would have to settle for legislation that is equivalent to registering a pet cat or dog.

Any gay or lesbian person who preferences Labor, a party that clearly holds queer people and their relationships in contempt, either has rocks in their head or is massively deluded. We have had years of broken promises and duplicitous statements to still believe they are serious about equal rights.

Commenter

ajb

Location

Canberra

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 9:13AM
One reason of many that they shall be gone next election.

Commenter

Sam

Location

Sydney

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 9:31AM
This is partially the result of Britain not having had the equivalent of the French or American revolutions nor having home g under the rule of Napoleon for any period of time. This left Britain and its colonies with many grey areas concerning the role of the secular state and those who believe that they are in communication with invisible supernatural beings who instruct us how society is to be regulated.
The result is we have religious institutions that seem to think cases of sexual abuse are internal administrative matters and not directly subject to the criminal law and that sexual relationships can only be legitimised through their agency in accordance with divinely inspired instructions set out by long dead patriarchs.
In European countries where civil law is based on the 'code Napoleon' you have the right to conduct a 'marriage' ritual under what ever form the cult you happen to follow dictates but to legitimise that union you have to undergo a civil ceremony conducted under the auspices of the state.
It is in jurisdictions such as these where marriage between same sex couples has been easily facilitated.
Like many British institutions, the current marriage laws are a fudge between pre-enlightenment values and the needs of a modern secular society.
Australian politicians from the major seem either ignorant of any historical perspective on these issues or are actually in the thrall of some cult or other,

Commenter

Michael Rogers

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 9:52AM
So the gay lobby who used to shun government intervention in their relationship status are now falling all over themselves to be registered and thus officially recognised. But only if their welfare benefits aren't affected, of course. Then it's a different matter. Pathetic.

As for straight non married couples, who think that marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper, you obviously don't want your relationship recognised so stop pretending it's as valid as that of married people. It's not. Again, pathetic.

Commenter

James

Location

Mortdale

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 10:35AM
"This is partially the result of Britain not having had the equivalent of the French or American revolutions nor having home g under the rule of Napoleon for any period of time."

Given the power of the religious right to stuff up people's civil liberties and equality there, I wouldn't bother mentioning the States in this context!

Commenter

LL

Date and time

May 18, 2010, 4:48PM