ISSUE 1
The PRA should contain an objects clause. The objects of the legislation should be:

• to recognise and respect the diversity of relationships covered under the Act;
• to recognise and respect people’s right to order their own financial affairs subject to certain safeguards to ensure any agreement reached between them is voluntarily made and fair;
• to facilitate a just and equitable resolution of financial matters at the end of a domestic relationship; and
• to provide a fair, timely and affordable process for resolving financial matters at the end of a domestic relationship.

ISSUE 2
Should the definition of de facto partner in the PRA be applied consistently across all relevant legislation in NSW? Why or why not?

ISSUE 3
Are the provisions in the PRA concerning de facto relationships appropriate for recognising and regulating close personal relationships? Why or why not?

If not, how should close personal relationships be recognised and regulated?

ISSUE 4
Should the PRA be extended to cover people in domestic relationships who do not live together? Why or why not?

Should the cohabitation requirement apply to both de facto and close personal relationships, or to just one of those categories? Why or why not?

ISSUE 5
Which of the Commission’s options do you prefer? Why?

If a registration system is the preferred option, how should it work?

Chapter 3

ISSUE 6
There should be legislative clarification that a parenting order is not required for a child to be a child of the parties to a domestic relationship, where one or both of the parents is a functional parent. This clarification should be achieved by amending section 5(3)(d) of the PRA to read as follows:

a child for whose long-term welfare both parties exercise parental responsibility (within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998) without necessarily having a parenting order in their favour (emphasis added).

ISSUE 7
The current and pending step-parent adoption provisions should be amended to include lesbian and gay step-parents.

ISSUE 8
Should a lesbian co-mother be presumed to be the legal parent of her child? Why or why not?

Should a lesbian co-mother be able to adopt her child under modified step-parent adoption provisions? Why or why not?

Is there any other way of recognising the relationship between a co-mother and her child?

ISSUE 9
Should an automatic duty to maintain a child be imposed upon co-mothers? Why or why not?

Should there be a statutory provision, equivalent to the step-parent provisions of the FLA, imposing a discretionary child support duty on a functional parent who has been in a domestic relationship with a child’s legal parent?

ISSUE 10
Should there be an examination of all the areas of non-recognition of the functional parent/child relationship with the goal of assessing whether the lack of recognition is consistent or inconsistent with the purpose of the law in question?

If a comprehensive statute audit is not undertaken, are there any particular areas, such as intestacy, that should be examined?

Chapter 4

ISSUE 11
Legal advice should continue to be a requirement for a binding financial agreement. Financial advice may also be obtained, but not receiving it will not affect the validity or enforceability of the agreement.

Solicitors should be required to give legal advice only. The Act and the Regulations (Form 8: solicitor’s certificates) should be amended to reflect this.

ISSUE 12
The Act should include a discrete section which makes provision for the various grounds for setting aside or varying a domestic relationship or termination agreement. Those grounds should be where:

(a) the agreement is void, voidable or unenforceable;

or the agreement is void, voidable or unenforceable (including where one of the parties has made the agreement under fear of domestic violence);

or the agreement is void, voidable or unenforceable AND include a separate section outlining the principles that the court is to follow, one of which highlights that domestic violence can affect people when they enter financial agreements;

(b) the circumstances between the parties have so changed since the date of the agreement that it would lead to serious injustice if any or all of the provisions of the agreement were to be enforced;

(c) circumstances have arisen since the time when the agreement was made making it impracticable for its provisions, or any of them, to be carried out;

(d) the agreement was obtained by fraud (including non-disclosure of relevant assets and liabilities).

ISSUE 13
Should the PRA redress the economic disparities between the parties that are a direct result of their functions during the relationship?

ISSUE 14
How should domestic violence be taken into account in property adjustment proceedings?

(a) as a factor affecting contributions? Does its impact need to be proved or should it be implied once domestic violence is established on a balance of probabilities?

or

(b) should the impact of domestic violence on the abused party’s future needs be an express factor for the court to consider?

ISSUE 15
Which is the preferable option for reforming s 20 of the PRA? Why?

Chapter 6

ISSUE 16
Are these factors appropriate? Are there any other factors that should be included?

ISSUE 17
What factors should be taken into account when determining whether a close personal relationship exists between the parties?

ISSUE 18
Should the PRA be amended to allow people under the age of 18 years access to its provisions?

If so, what should be the new age limit, if any?

ISSUE 19
Should the PRA require cohabitation at all?

If so, should a minimum period of cohabitation be required?

If yes, what should the period be?

Should the PRA limit the court’s discretion in determining whether there has been a “substantial contribution”? If so, how? Should the requirement of “serious injustice” apply to this exception?

ISSUE 20
Should the PRA specify in what circumstances a relationship will be taken to havehas ended?

If so, what should these circumstances be?

ISSUE 21
Should the residency requirement be retained in its current form? Is there any need for it?

If there is reason to keep it, should it be modified to make it less onerous as in the initial model recommended by the QLRC?

ISSUE 22
Should an adequate explanation be required before a court will allow an applicant to bring a claim out of time?

Should hardship be the only relevant factor?

ISSUE 23
Should the court be able to consider contributions made prior to the domestic relationship when making orders for property adjustment?

ISSUE 24
Should contributions made during the earlier periods of the relationship be considered when making a property adjustment order upon cessation of the last period of cohabitation?

ISSUE 25
Should the duty of full and frank disclosure be expressly included in the PRA?

Should parties be required to submit a financial statement stating their assets and liabilities?

Should non-disclosure of assets be expressly included as a ground for setting aside or varying an order?

ISSUE 26

Should consent orders be subject to the court’s approval that they are “just and equitable”?

ISSUE 27
Should interference with the rights of a third party be a specific ground for setting aside or varying orders?

Should any other grounds for varying or setting aside orders be added?

Chapter 7

ISSUE 28
Which is the preferable option for dealing with superannuation entitlements on the breakdown of de facto or close personal relationships. Why?

Chapter 8

ISSUE 29
What role, if any, should repartnering play in relation to the availability of maintenance under the PRA?

ISSUE 30
Which is the preferable option for reforming the partner maintenance provisions in the PRA? Why?

Chapter 9

ISSUE 31
Which proposal do you favour concerning the most appropriate jurisdiction to hear disputes under the PRA? Why or why not?