The position of the partners vis-a-vis each other, their dignity in themselves, and their relationship towards each other and their status as between themselves and their family will not in a normal marriage rely on an Act of Parliament. If it is not there by virtue of the matrimonial bond, no Act of Parliament will provide it. In essence what we are talking about when we are talking about law in this area is law to deal with the minority of marriages that are less than full marriages and I concede that this legislation is, unfortunately, needed to deal with that type of marriage.
In regard to the exception to the general rule, where there is not the full matrimonial relationship, where a husband does not consult his wife about the affairs, legal, financial and cultural and so on, that concern them and their family, and where the status between them is not full and free, there is need to protect wives. Again we are talking about wives being in the weaker position. When we consider injustice in the marriage, it is the wife who suffers more often than the husband. This Bill is to cure what has been a scandal—the occasional sale by a husband of the family home over the heads of his wife and children. It serves a social need but will not make any difference to the vast majority of marriages, nor will it raise the status of a wife, as she already has that status by virtue of the marriage bond.
At the moment I am not convinced that compulsory joint ownership is the answer. I would like to hear further views in other places at other times on that question. Perhaps the Law Reform Commission may consider this in due course if they are charged to do so by the Attorney General who sets up the programme in consultation with the Government. It is not correct, to say that that body have not commenced operations as was, perhaps, suggested by Senator Robinson because they are seized with the problem of domicile. They have advertised for submissions from the public on that question. They are also considering the reduction of the age of majority and on that too have asked for submissions from interested members of the public, which will include Members of this House, whose views on these subjects will certainly be welcomed by the Law Reform Commission in coming to their conclusions on those subjects. There is no doubt that the question of compulsory joint ownership would appear to be a possible subject for them to deal with and it may be possible to have it included in their programme. Again it will be a question of priority as to what is the more urgent business. I think this Bill will probably reduce the question of compulsory co-ownership to a lower place in the queue of priorities, because the evil that the Bill sets out to remedy, and the evil which co-ownership would also be directed against, that is, the evil of the vindictive sale, is covered in this Bill.
Again, compulsory co-ownership is something that might not suit all wives. One could envisage a situation where the house might be bought, for example, by the wife. She might not be a bit keen on having a situation where there was compulsory co-ownership. One could envisage a situation where perhaps due to the wife having separate means, perhaps her "fortune", if I may use such an old-fashioned term in the context of this Bill, she applies it towards buying a family home. If, after a number of years of marriage, it turned out that the husband was improvident or was showing improvident tendencies, she might wish the family home to be in her sole name. If we were to have compulsory co-ownership she would not have any choice in such a situation. I mention that as an indication of some of the difficulties that could follow from compulsory co-ownership.
Senator Robinson took the point why is there no constitutional impediment in the Succession Act where we say there might be a constitutional impediment to compulsory co-ownership. There is a distinction there: compulsory co-ownership would, in effect, be taking the property from one spouse and putting it in the joint names of the spouses. It would be reducing the property in the hands of one spouse by giving it into the hands of both spouses. It would be reducing the quantum of ownership. The Succession Act does not take property from a party; it merely restricts the right to dispose of property. That is the distinction to be made between the two situations.
Senator Robinson said that the impact of this Bill would be diminished because legal aid is not available. That may be but I do not think that will be so in practice. I cannot see any situation arising under this Bill or under any of the family law reform measures which we have passed where a wife would be deprived of her rights by the absence of legal aid. The onus on taking proceedings under this Bill by and large rests on the husband. If he wants to sell the house he has to apply to the court for consent if consent is withheld. In the case where a wife wants to intervene in relation to a disposition of chattels or where there is some interference by the husband with the home, she will have to get a solicitor. It would be easier for her to get a solicitor obviously if there was free legal aid but it would be unreal to suggest, in the context of our society, that a wife would not be able to get a solicitor in the case of an emergency such as that. I do not think there would be any difficulty in her obtaining the services of a solicitor. If we get down to the——
