Abstract:
In February 2002 the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) came into legal effect in New Zealand resulting in significant changes to how property can be divided between partners on divorce or separation. One change is a widened discretion to address issues of economic disparity between relationship partners after divorce, arising from the roles they took up during the relationship, which allows judges to depart from an equal division of property at the end of a relationship. The second major shift was the inclusion of cohabitating couples into the same property division regime covering legally married unions. Within this new legal context this thesis has examined how marriage and heterosexual cohabitating relationships have been constructed. Of particular interest was to investigate how financial and non-financial contributions in relationships were viewed in light of this legislation. The empirical work included a quantitative analysis of a survey study, and discursive analyses (DA) of public submissions on the PRA and face-to-face interviews. The research was conducted from a critical feminist social psychological perspective.
Overall the results of the research challenged the notion that marriage and cohabitation are fundamentally different, although difference was an important rhetorical resource for constructing various types and aspects of relationships. Study One found a great deal of similarity in married and cohabitating couples' levels of commitment, legal knowledge, and how they valued financial and non-financial contributions. In both the submission and interview studies the idea that cohabitation differs from marriage in its financial and role allocation practices, was both upheld and denied. Culturally normative ideas about the two relationships were found such as marriage being more committed, financially integrated, and more stable, than de facto unions. However, the status of cohabitation and marriage was also flexibly constructed in ways that blurred these widely understood notions of difference.
The analysis revealed the operation of sexist discourses that functioned to undermine the value of non-financial contributions and the primary caregiver role. It is suggested that if the judiciary are not conversant with how discriminatory views about cohabitees and sexist views about women's roles and contributions are subtly and pervasively communicated in talk, and how these may be mobilised in disputed property settlements, then the equitable outcomes aimed for in the PRA may not be achieved in practice.
