No precise test of de facto relationship

Press, 29 August 1978, Page 16

No precise test of de facto relationship

PA Wellington. It is not advisable to lay down the precise criteria as to what constitutes a de facto relationship, the Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Walker) has told Parliament. Decisions on this could be made only having regard to the particular circumstances Of each case, he said during the second reading debate of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No. 2). “The ultimate test is whether the couple have so merged their lives that to all intents and purposes they are no different from a legally married couple,” said Mr Walker. He said no=one, including members of the Opposition, would suggest that a party to a de facta relationship should qualify for a domestic purposes benefit.

“This would mean that such couples would be treated more favourable than legally married couples,” he said. The intention was to place de facto couples in the same position in regard to benefit entitlement as a legally married couple. “There is nothing new about this — in fact it.

The intention was to place de facto couples in the same position in regard to benefit entitlement as a legally married couple. “There is nothing new about this —- in fact it has been the intention ever since the introduction of social security,” he said.

Mr Walker said he had been asked to define what was meant by a relationship, “in the nature of marriage.”

In the bill a new section removed the present requirement that a couple must be living together on a domestic basis as husband and wife before they can be regarded as husband and wife.

Instead, it provides that

the Social Security Commission may regard as husband and wife any man and woman who, although not legally married, have entered into a relationship, “in the nature of marriage.” “It is not good enough to say that the man is not supporting the woman and her children and therefore they are not living as man and wife. The mere fact that the woman is receiving a domestic purposes benefit can obviate any need for the man to contribute towards her sup* port,” said Mr Walker. He said the Supreme Court had referred in a recent judgment to the appropriateness of the words, “living together on a domestic basis,” and to the lack of consistency between this provision and to the definition of mar* riage in the Social Security Act.

The judge was of the view that if the legislation did not reflect the intention of Parliament, then an amendment would be needed, said Mr Walker. The other aspect Of the bill the Opposition had criticised was the clause specifically precluding strikers from receiving unemployment benefit, he said. “It has never been the intention of the Social Security Scheme to support strikers,” said Mr Walker. The purpose of the scheme was to provide income support for those who through no fault of their own were unable ta support themselves, he said.

“A worker who has voluntarily withdrawn his labour can hardly be said to be in this position.” He emphasised that the amendment did not apply

to those who were suspended by their employer because of strikes by other unions at the same place af employment. Dr A. M. Finlay (Lab., Henderson) told the House that under the amendment social welfare workers would have a duty to look into the sexual practices of the country. He said some people had a relationship including sexual and econom i c interdependence; others had a purely sexual relationship. The amendment did not take this into account.

The department was concerned more with who was sleeping with whom than who was supporting whom, he said. “Labour believed one should not be denied the domestic purposes benefit just because a relationship had not been sanctified,” he said.

Before the Furmage case, the department could not restrict physical association between two people. “The amendment bill reverses this and imposes on social welfare officers a duty to inquire into the sexual habits of beneficiaries,” he said. It meant the department would treat a couple as man and wife, on the basis of a sexual relationship. Mr A. Malcolm (Nat., Eden): “What’s wrong with that?” The bill seemed to be designed to ensure solo mothers did not form permanent relationships with a man, said Dr Finlay. It was saying to solo mothers, “Be as promiscuous as you like but don’t dare attract a steady boyfriend,” he said.