Recognising a same-sex partner as legal next-of-kin is an important
part of proposed legislation giving same-sex and de facto couples the same
property rights as married couples, gay people say.

    Jools Joslin, who has long campaigned for same-sex couples to be
legally allowed to marry, yesterday told a parliamentary committee hearing
submissions on the Matrimonial Property Bill that she and her "spouse"
Jenny Rowan had lived together for 13 years.

    During that time they had raised six children, shared their incomes,
bought property together "and generally lived together in the same way as
any other couple committed to their family and their relationship".

    However, neither party could be the other's legal next-of-kin.
    The bill would change that and would mean they could leave property to
each other without fear of blood relations getting their wills overturned.
    It extends the same property rights to de facto and same sex couples
as married couples, meaning that after a relationship split each partner
was entitled to a fair division of property and other assets.

    The bill also introduces new provisions giving judges the discretion
to vary the existing 50-50 property split after a relationship split.
    Ms Joslin said she and Ms Rowan supported the bill as a first step to
same-sex couples achieving full and equal legal and human rights in all
aspects of New Zealand legislation and regulation.

    Most existing legislation excluded same-sex couples "in blatant breach
of human rights legislation and international covenants", she said.
    Nigel Christie, a Wellington lawyer who lives with his same-sex
partner, said having one set of rules for all relationships was the only
way to achieve equal property division if a relationship ended or if a
partner died.

    "There have been numerous occasions where legal next of kin have
stepped in and claimed property which a deceased person has, by will, left
to their same-sex partner," he said in his submission.
    "This has often happened where the relationship between the surviving
partner and his deceased partner's family has seemed perfectly acceptable
and compatible during life.

    "Conversely, same-sex partners have no legal standing to contest a
will by virtue solely of the fact that he or she is the surviving partner."
    In some situations, the only recourse was to make a claim under
testamentary promises legislation, which in no way recognised the
relationship of the deceased and the surviving partner, Mr Christie said.
    The New Zealand Law Society's Women's Consultative Group told the
committee it supported the bill's attempt to address the inequality which
often arose when a marriage broke down.

    "The current Matrimonial Property Act, despite its stated aims, has
not, in our view, always produced a fair and just result on the breakdown
of marriage," group co-convener Ema Aitken said.

    "There is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence which makes it
clear that women, who are still by and large the primary caregivers in
relationships, fare poorly in economic terms after marriage breakdown."
    A spokesman for the society's Family Law Section said it was generally
supportive of the need to review the Matrimonial Property Act.  However,
it was important that it was done right.

    One area of concern was defining what constituted "a relationship in
the nature of a marriage" – the wording used in the bill.
    The section suggested having a checklist of factors to establish such
a relationship, including:
    * duration;
    * whether and how frequently the parties live in the same house and
run a common household, even if one or other partner is absent at times;
    * whether or not a sexual relationship exists;
    * performance of household responsibilities.

    Conservative groups are appalled at some of the provisions in the
bill, including its doing away with the terms husband and wife to simplify
the definition of a relationship.

    The Government indicated yesterday it was open to the bill being
changed to include those terms.
    National justice spokesman Tony Ryall today said the minister should
take notice of what family lawyers were saying over the 50 50 split.

    The family law section of the New Zealand Law Society told the
committee that fiddling with the 50 50 split rule would create too much
uncertainty and the Government should instead focus on spousal maintenance
provisions.

    "The economic disparity that can occur when a relationship breaks down
must be addressed but giving lawyers an open invitation to have a go in
court is not the way to go," he said in a statement.