University of Otago family law specialist Prof Emerita Nicola Peart. Photo: Gregor Richardson When you have significant assets or an existing family home and you get married for the second time, should your new partner be entitled to a share of them if your relationship breaks down? It is among many questions that will be examined by legal experts from across the country this week, after the Property (Relationships) Act was deemed ‘‘unfit for purpose in the 21st century’’ by the Law Commission. University of Otago law researchers will lead a national conference — ‘‘The Property (Relationships) Act 1976: Fifty Years On’’ — at Parliament, where presentations from some of the country’s sharpest legal practitioners, including judges from all the courts, will be given in a bid to help reform the legislation. University of Otago family law specialist Prof Nicola Peart said when the Matrimonial Property Act was introduced in 1976, it brought a ‘‘radical change’’ by shifting the legal focus to contributions to the relationship, rather than to property. ‘‘Its premise was that marriage is a partnership to which each spouse is presumed to contribute equally, but in different ways.’’ Each partner shares equally in their matrimonial property, which applies on separation, unless certain exceptions apply or the spouses contract out of the Act. The Act had worked well in many respects — particularly for couples whose first relationship had ended and who built up their assets during the relationship, she said. Former partners started from an entitlement to an equal share of their relationship property. However, the Act did not work well for second relationships, or for couples who came into the relationship with significant assets, she said. ‘‘The family home is classified as relationship property, even if it was owned and fully paid for by one of the partners before the relationship began, which is now seen as unfair. ‘‘One of the partners has not contributed to its acquisition and should not be entitled to a half-share on separation. ‘‘The partners can contract out of the Act, but that requires independent legal advice and the non-owning partner is likely to be advised not to sign a contract that excludes an entitlement to a half-share of the home or other relationship property.’’ The Act was amended in 2001 to include de-facto partners of three or more years and relationships ending on death. It was again amended in 2005 to include civil unions. While the amendments reflected more diverse relationships, New Zealand had undergone a period of significant social change since the law was first enacted. University of Otago Children’s Issues Centre director Prof Nicola Taylor. Photo: Supplied University of Otago Children’s Issues Centre director Prof Nicola Taylor said more people were living in de-facto relationships, more relationships were ending in separation and re-partnering was more common. ‘‘New Zealand is also more ethnically diverse and our population is ageing. ‘‘These demographic and social trends are intensifying, so it is vitally important that the law continues to keep pace with people’s patterns of partnering, family formation, values and attitudes as to what is fair when property is divided at the end of a relationship.’’ Prof Peart said the present climate of uncertainty and the state of the economy meant there was little political will to to repeal the act and create new legislation. ‘‘We hope that by holding this conference in the Beehive, that Parliament will be persuaded to take action.’’ john.lewis@odt.co.nz
