Legislation And Legislative Change In Australia

In recent decades, there has been a shift in the definition of a family to better suit the new emerging alternative family arrangements in today’s society. A family is defined as the natural and fundamental group unit of society especially in relation to the upbringing of children. However, this Eurocentric, nuclear family construct has evolved as alternative family arrangements such as de-facto and same sex relationships as well as adoptive families have become part of the term ‘family’. The domestic legal system has introduced and amended laws to deal with these contemporary issues. Similarly, there are non-legal responses such as the media and various non-governmental organisations, which advocate for various changes to the law in order to achieve greater justice for these families.

'[t]he courts no longer approach a statute with scissors in one hand and a dictionary in the other'.

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

Australia 's Federal System is dynamic and the division of lawmaking power between the Commonwealth and State since 1901 has changed dramatically; Critically discuss, focussing on the major reasons for those changes.

H, 1999, para 9 &13). After separation, M “sought an order for partition and sale of the house and other relief” and spousal support under the Family Law Act” (para14). Both M and H settled their financial disputes (para18). However, M challenged the s.29 of the FLA and argued that definition of spouse in the act was only apply to heterosexual married couples and to unmarried couples who cohabited for maximum for three year (para 50) .The Supreme Court of Canada held that the s.15 (1) of the Charter is infringed by the Family Law Act. Further, the impugned legislation is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter (134). In addition, the FLA constructs distinction between the same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples that resulted in unequal benefits and protection to the claimants and also make same-sex couples vulnerable (para 62, 69). The Supreme Court of Canada declared remedy and gave Ontario six month to change the definition of the spouse (147).

Changes in legislation have also given rise to family diversity when the Divorce Reform Act was passed in 1969 thousands of women freed themselves from the possession of

man to bring a divorce case to court he had to prove 1 out of 3

The aim of Australia’s family law while responding the ever changing values of society, is to achieve justice in any activity it undertakes. The success of this is valued and determined by whether any significant action has been taken as a result, and what the effects of such actions are on improving the situations of all parties involved. The effectiveness of family law on changing values cannot be determined when regarded as a whole. However, when broken down into certain values, such as in the topic of best interest of the child during separation and the issue of surrogacy, it can be seen that Australia’s family laws are not effective in levelling with the community’s changing values.

EDE 325 Assignment 1 Case study (30%). Due 20th June, 2016, 1500 words (10% leeway +/-) Includes intext references.

People most often simply lived apart or separated from one another. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1923 equalized the grounds for divorce by allowing woman to sue an adulterous husband for divorce.

Australia adopted its democratic system from both the Westminster and United States pre-established versions. The structure of separation of powers intends to delegate the power of the state to three branches in order to minimise the abuse of this power and ensure justice through its protection. The powers pertaining to each branch are mutually exclusive to each arm of government . The legislative branch, responsible for the drafting and establishing of laws, the executive, aimed at putting the laws into force and implementing them and the judiciary designed to interpret the laws, are evidence of the exclusivity of each branches function within the Australian government. The legislative

e. Matrimonial Causes Act in 1923 gave women the right to the same grounds for divorce as men.

In 1966 the House of Lords announced that it would in future be prepared to depart from a former decision by the House when it appeared right to do so . It is vital that the judges update the law according to the society and values today. An example of this case of R v R where a man was charged for raping his wife. This matter was brought up to the House of Lords, the judges pointed out that the ‘status of a married woman in our law have changed quite dramatically. A husband and wife are now for all practical purposes equal partners in marriage.’ They also highlighted that the common law is ‘capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments.’ This implied that judges (House of Lords) can change the law only if it is a necessity.

Yet, various attempts of reform since 1973 have been unsuccessful. The most notable is the Family Law Act 1996, which received royal assent however, part 11 which covered the area of divorce was repealed in 2011. The central aims of this were to strengthen marriage and allow marriages to be ended in a dignified, thoughtful manner with minimum distress and humiliation to the parties. It could be argued that if these provisions were implemented that the law surrounding divorce would appear very different today in that it could

In the world today, many men and women believe divorce is always a dreadful thing that occurs, but there is actually a beneficial side to it. Divorce has been around for many years and mainly just men were the only ones capable to make the decisions. Until, The Guardian states,” The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce.” Under this new law, it was capable for women to make the decision, they just had to prove the facts to withhold a divorce. Following 1857, in 1923 there was a private member’s bill that allowed women to petition for a divorce for adultery. However, it only made it a little bit easier, they still needed to prove the reason. A few years later, they were able to pass another law, this law allowed divorce