LGS HOME PAGES: http://www.josken.net

ISSN 1446-4896

Reprinted below are the recommendations regarding legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships as well other excerpts explaining what the De Facto and Significant Person relationships are. They are taken from the second edition of the discussion paper THE BRIDE WORE PINK; Legal Recognition Of Our Relations, prepared by the Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby is asking for people's opinions on these recommendations: whether the whole list should be presented, or whether there are objections to all or parts of it.

NSW-based individuals and organisations can send their submissions directly to: GLRL P.O.Box 9, Darlinghurst NSW 2010. You can formulate your submission in any way you like: anything from a brief yes or no to a detailed submission. Interstate-based individuals and organisations can also put forward their opinions. (Some of the legislative changes proposed are Federal and therefore of interest to all.) LGS would appreciate receiving copies of all submissions.

The GLRL is working within a very tight time period, so for submissions to be considered they need to be received by absolutely no later than March 1. response to, the inequality of partners within 1. 1994 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recently, the Legal Rights Service, drafted a new set of recommendations. These have been adopted by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby as a basis tor the Lobby's law reform activities in the area.

While noting that:

Consequently, we propose that the NSW state government be called upon to do the following:

Included in the list of NSW Acts requiring amendments are the following:

The Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service will lobby the NSW state government and the federal government to amend particular legislation to include our Significant Personal Relationships.

The Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service will not lobby the NSW state government to enact a Significant Personal Relationship Act.

what are significant personal relationships?,..

{If you refer to Chapter 7, "Current Law", you will see that) much legislation gives benefits to spouses, next of kin or family. As a general rule only spouses and blood relatives have legal rights arising from their relationships.

Recognition of significant personal relationships would give legal status to relationships involving significant emotional interdependency. This may include financial dependency, but does not assume or rely on this aspect. It covers sexual relationships, long term friendships, flatmates, or any chosen family. It also covers your relationship with a child. It is not confined to lesbian and gay relationships.

The legal definition could take the form of:

"two persons who are emotionally, physically or psychologically interdependent who wish to benefit each other and are prepared to accept certain obligations."

Both these options are about individual rights and your right to benefit whomever you choose. The difference is an Act would impact on all benefits arising under legislation or policy, whereas specific legislative amendments would impact on only certain benefits in particular Acts or policies.

Whether we recommend an Act or amendments to specific Acts is largely a strategic decision.

An Act or specific amendments to existing legislation could be introduced by the NSW state government. The federal government has no constitutional power to pass an Act about Significant Personal Relationships. The federal government can amend particular Acts to include significant personal relationships.

Benefits given to married or de facto spouses, next of kin or close relatives could extend to a "significant person".

People could choose to nominate a significant person by electing them for a specific benefit.

In crisis situations, for example death or incapacity, in the absence of any nomination of a "significant person", the courts could consider whether the claimant is a significant person. It is possible that the Court would have to consider a range of relationships and choose who the "significant person" is. You could be deemed to be a significant person. In this way this option differs from the registration system (outlined in Chapter 8.3.)

The difference between this option and the registration scheme is that:

The option is about individual rights and your right to benefit whomever you choose. Areas of benefit includo the following:

These benefits include travel allowances, relocation expenses, bereavement leave and superannuation. Particular industries have special entitlements such as allocation of shifts where both partners work for the same employer.

These benefits are granted to employees on the basis of employment. It is discriminatory to restrict the benefits to employees who are in traditionally recognised relationships such as marriages and de facto relationships.

Health funds are registered under the National Health Act 1953 (Commonwealth). Heterosexual families can pay for coverage at family rates. Generally, lesbians and gay men must pay the higher single rate whether or not they are in a relationship. Where a lesbian or gay couple have a child, some funds currently exclude them from the family rate.

If we introduce this scheme, you and your significant person (and children) could be considered to be a family.

If you die without a will, the law assumes that your blood relatives are the people you wish to benefit. The law should not make these assumptions without enquiring whether there is anyone else whom you may have wanted to benefit.

The same argument applies to the Family Provisions Act 1982 (NSW) which allows people to challenge wills in certain circumstances, heterosexual spouses are entitled as of right but we have to fit into another category and prove that the surviving person was financially dependent upon and lived with tho deceased. Under this option you would not have to prove financial dependency. You would have to prove that you were the deceased's significant person, or one of them.

At present donor insemination schemes are only available to heterosexual couples. Single women and lesbians, either in relationships or not, are denied access. Policy could be amended so that women in significant personal relationships have access. (For single women, see Chapter 8.5.)

The Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service will lobby the state government for inclusion of lesbian and gay relationships under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW). The Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service will lobby the state government to fund education campaigns to inform people of the potential consequences of the legislation.

The Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights service will lobby the state government to fund legal advice to assist people with cohabitation and separation agreements. This would enable them to opt out of the legislation.

What is a de facto relationshp?

A de facto relationship is something which is in fact, not in law, a marriage. The De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW) defines a de facto relationship as:

"the relationship between de facto partners, being the relationship of living or having lived together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not married to each other".

Some of the factors, initially derived from the Social Security Act 1947 (Commonwealth), used to determine whether a couple have lived as do facto spouses are:

The De Facto Relationships Act 1984 provides a mechanism for resolving property any financial disputes on the ending of a relationship

The Act also impacts on other legislation and this has the effect of conferring benefits on de facto partners equivalent to those conferred on married spouses. For example, a de facto spouse is entitled to the same share of a deceased partner's estate on interstacy as a married spouse of the deceased would have been entitled.

The NSW Government could enact legislation by amending the current definition of a de facto partner. The new definition of de facto partner could be:

"a person who is living or has lived with another person whether or not of the same gender on a bona fide domestic basis but is not legally married to the other person".

NOTE: the above are but three sections from the discussion paper. The paper itself also includes, among other things, pro and con arguments for the two proposed sets of legislative changes. It also explores two other possible options: Registered Partnerships and Individual Status. The former is considered unfeasible as far as getting legislation accepted and passed: the latter is an option to be looked at in the future under a coalition of lesbian and gay organisations with other interested groups.

For a full discussion of the whole issue of relationships it is recommended that copies of THE BRIDE WORE PINK are bought from the Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service. It can be contacted by phone on Tuesday evenings between 6pm and 8pm on (02) 360 6650.

The provisional opinion of LGS is to reject the 'De Facto Realtionship' option and support the 'Significant Person Relationship' one.

De Facto, once legislated, is binding on all relationships which fall within its definition. (On the other hand, once in it, a couple can then opt out of it).

De facto is also very restrictive and prescriptive. Many people who do want to confer/obtain certain benefits but who don't fall within the definition of de facto will miss out. (Which would happen if de facto amendments wore accepted by the government but not the signficant person relationship amendments.)

Significant personal relationships are optional, flexible and multiple (eg different significant persons for different benefits.) They therefore have the double benefit of moving away from enforceable and prescriptive definitions of family/relationships as well as leaving people with a range of options regarding who their significant persons are.

There are some very immediate needs for legislation, in particular in the area of sickness, death, disposal of the body and inheritance. This is of special concern to people sick with AIDS and their loved ones and friends.

Wo believe that a political decision needs to be based on both the immediate needs and longer term considerations. The longer-term aim is that of de-privileging "family", wrenching such decisions away from State interference and allowing people to order their emotional, affective and sexual lives as they will (see Susan Ardill's article "I'm Still Not Family" in the Sydney Star Observer, issue no.228. 11/2/94). Any immediate legislative choice needs to provide immediate results while furthering the movement towards the longer-term goal. Conversely such a choice should not block or impede futuro developments.

We suggest that the 'De Facto Relationships' option does not meet these criteria. It is an impediment. On the other hand the 'Significant Person Reaitionship' option is a progressive way forward.

As already stated, this is our provisional position. Further discussion and submission from people associated with LGS will help us finalise a decision.

CURRENT NEWSLETTER AND ARCHIVE OF PREVIOUS NEWSLETTERS

Mannie has a personal web site: RED JOS: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM

Mannie's blogs may be accessed by clicking on to the following links:

MannieBlog (from 1 August 2003 to 31 December 2005)

Activist Kicks Backs - Blognow archive re-housed - 2005-2009

RED JOS BLOGSPOT (from January 2009 onwards)

This page updated 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 and again on 24 APRIL 2017

Page 27