Thursday, October 14, 2004

De Factos

Why is the Victorian government proposing (under the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Bill) to refer power with respect to de factos to the federal government?

This bill proposes to allow the Commonwealth to legislate on the distribution of financial resources in the event of relationship breakdown. Given all the effort that has gone into providing more protection and certainty for both parties to a de facto breakdown in this State (witness eg Property Law Act amendments), why are we referring power to a government which has made its position on rights which should be granted to such people abundantly clear?

What will happen to the rights of de factos, given the federal government's clear stance on the desirability of family values, as well as the emergence of Family First as possibly gaining Senate seats (if the Liberal Party do not retain overall control)?


Blogger Paul Santos said...

Thanks for visiting my blog, and adding your insights. On the topic of, what I call, "The Tourist Tax," and their right to vote, I do feel that the tourist continues to pay for our policies once they've left. Import/Export taxes. Many American business, controlled by American regulations, are doing business on foreign soil. Shouldn't those tourists have a say in how those companies are operated? What about airlines? Jets go all over the world, rarely staying in one city for more than a few hours. Even though they're "AMERICAN" jets, can you really say that they have a home?

-Paul Santos

7:14 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home