The Law Commission is reviewing and consulting on the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). Public meetings are currently being held around the country.
The PRA governs how property is divided when couples separate or one of them dies, including married couples, civil unions and defacto relationships. The Act was amended in 2001 and 2005 to include civil unions and defacto partnerships but has not been comprehensively reviewed since it was first established.
"When first enacted in 1976, the PRA challenged and helped redefine the role of women in society. When it was amended in 2001, the PRA sought fair treatment for different relationship types by extending its application to de facto relationships and same-sex relationships. The PRA has both reflected and shaped societal values in the way people enter, conduct and leave relationships.
Yet we know that New Zealand in 2017 looks very different to New Zealand in 1976, and even 2001."
For an overview of the consultation questions, see the consultation paper or consultation website. For detailed background about the review, see the Law Commission issues paper, Dividing relationship property: time for change? / Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā? (2017).
The Law Commission also published a study paper, Relationships and Families in Contemporary New Zealand: He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau i Aotearoa o nāianei (2017).
The Commission is expected to report recommendations by November 2018. The review was initiated in December 2015 by then Minister of Justice, Amy Adams.
How to give feedback
The consultation is currently open until 7 February 2018. There are a number of ways to participate in the consultation:
- At a public meeting (October - December 2017)
- Through the consultation website
- Online or by email to firstname.lastname@example.org
- By post to: Law Commission, PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140
Relationship of family violence (including child abuse) to the PRA
There is one question in the consultation specific to family violence: Should family violence be an exception to the general rule of equal sharing? (see question 35 and 36 in the consultation paper or see the online version). Chapter 12 of the issues paper examines the issue that family violence could be considered misconduct during the relationship when considering the division of property.
The interests of children is a major area of focus in the consultation (see questions 72-78 in the consultation paper). Chapters 27 - 29 in the issues paper examine the interests of children. While questions for this area do not specifically address child abuse or intimate partner violence, many questions could consider these.
Questions 87-102 in the consultation paper address how the PRA fits with Tikanga Māori. Specifically, question 97 asks: Should a whāngai be treated generally as a child of the relationship under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976? Or should special rules determine how whāngai should be treated according to tikanga Māori?
There are other questions where feedback could address family violence (including child abuse), including access to property before separation and occupancy of the home. The issues paper states:
"Occupation orders can also be obtained under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 when there is an urgent need to respond to family violence. While there is overlap between the PRA and the Domestic Violence Act, we think it is coherent and does not create confusion or gaps in provision." (see page 300)
This is an extensive review of the PRA. The issues paper is over 800 pages long and the more reader friendly consultation paper is over 100 pages. These are some of the key consultation areas related to family violence, but there may be others worth examining.
A new report on relationship property has just been published by Grant Thornton New Zealand and the New Zealand Law Society (Family Law Section). The report, New Zealand Relationship Property Survey 2017, summarises a survey of 369 family law practitioners. The survey asked family lawyers about issues and trends related to relationship property law and the people they advise. Some key findings include:
- The most problematic issue is the non-disclosure of information (67%).
- The third most common problem issue was systemic delays in the Family Court (57%). Similarly the number one area identified for reform was speedier resolution in the family court (73%).
- Few practitioners said that children’s interests were of significant importance in managing relationship property cases (12%).
- Domestic abuse was the number three reason identified for separation by the practitioners (33%).
For more information, see the media release.
Submitted on Tue, 2017-10-31 16:54