Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity, brief as it may be, to speak this evening on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. The purpose of the bill, of course, is to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and the children of same-sex relationships in acts that provide for reversionary superannuation benefits upon the death of a scheme member and in related taxation treatment of superannuation benefits. The commencement of the amendments to the acts governing the Commonwealth defined benefit superannuation schemes within a short time frame will enable the schemes to commence paying death benefits to same-sex partners of scheme members. Currently, persons in a same-sex relationship with scheme members are not entitled to receive any benefits upon the death of their partners, and any delay in the commencement of the amendments will in fact continue this very blatant discrimination. The reforms will be prospective in operation and the related taxation treatment provisions are expected, we were hoping, to commence on 1 July this year to align with the commencement of the 2008-09 financial year. The amendments in this bill will have a positive impact on same-sex families by enabling death benefits to be conferred on de facto same-sex partners of a scheme member and on the children of same-sex couples in situations where they currently just do not have that entitlement.

There has been an interesting debate going on this evening and I would like to make a couple of passing comments in relation to some of the contributions that I have heard. First of all, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Moreton for what I thought was a fantastic contribution to the debate, bringing a very important human element to the considerations that we are making. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution just made by the member for Kooyong on the other side of the House. There is no doubt that I understand and I have been around here long enough to realise that sometimes when we get what appears to be a controversial piece of legislation—though it should not be—we can imagine that everybody on one side has a view. In this particular case I know very well that there are people on the other side of the House who agree entirely with what we are doing. I hope that they can exercise whatever influence they have within their internal processes to ensure that any reference to a committee is not unduly delayed or held up in any sense whatsoever.

The member for Kooyong just made mention of the previous member for Leichhardt in the last parliament, Mr Entsch. An earlier speaker actually referred to him as ‘my dear old friend Entschy—I wish he was here’. I wish he was too, because he could have been part of a counter to that particular member’s contribution. That particular member’s contribution was very much in the negative and I think it strayed to the point that it had little connection at all to the bill and to the arrangements that we are discussing here this evening. There has been mention made by other speakers about the threat this will be to the institution of marriage. I have tried really hard to find any reference to marriage at all other than an explanation that it has no connection to the institution of marriage. I wish that we could stick to the subject in front of us.

The other thing is the protection of children. I have spoken today to people at HREOC to make sure that I was not misreading this. There is absolutely no threat at all in relation to children; in fact, it is putting them into the correct context in the legal sense. I am pleased to see that that is what this particular bill does.

We have heard about the category ‘interdependency’. I take this opportunity to put my clarification on the record. In 18.3.2 of the HREOC report about this particular subject, the interdependency category question is discussed. The question that has been raised is that the interdependency category does not give full equality to same-sex couples. The report goes on to explain the reality in face of that argument and says very clearly:

The interdependency category has not brought full equality to same-sex couples, primarily because it treats genuine same-sex couples differently to genuine opposite sex couples.

The problems with using an ‘interdependency’ category to remove discrimination against same-sex couples include—

things like—

The ‘interdependency relationship’ label for a same-sex relationship mischaracterises a genuine same-sex couple as different or inferior to a genuine opposite sex couple.

It goes on with other very good points. The HREOC report explains very carefully the question of interdependency. Without wishing to be too critical, if the members opposite, or for that matter anyone listening to this debate, have an objection to same-sex relationships generally, then say so, and do not try to mess with this particular bill and this particular debate. This debate is about removing blatant discrimination in the area of same-sex couples on the question of superannuation benefits. It is not to do with children, other than the fact that they benefit as well; it is not to do with marriage; it is not to do with interdependency couples; it is to do with stable, strong, recognised same-sex relationships and the removal of discrimination against them for the purposes of superannuation. It is as simple as that, really, and I wish we could just stick to that and not bring in these other arguments, which I believe confuse the discussion at hand.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found in many instances that the elimination of discriminatory terms in Commonwealth laws is necessary to ensure that our obligations under international human rights treaties are met. That is very important. Currently, under the reversionary benefits schemes, only a surviving spouse or child of a scheme member may receive a reversionary benefit upon the death of a scheme member. The definitions of ‘spouse’ and ‘child’ currently exclude same-sex partners and children of scheme members who are in a same-sex relationship where a scheme member does not have a biological link to the child.

Removing sexuality discrimination does not, as I have said, undermine the institution of marriage at all. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. Removing discrimination is about making sure that same-sex couples are recognised for all practical purposes and have the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples. That is what these government reforms will achieve.

A question that has been raised by some contributors to the debate is: why the urgency? The urgency is really, if we want to call it urgent, because it is about time this was done. Every day that it is not done somewhere in this country someone in a same-sex relationship is losing a partner to death and is being discriminated against under the current law. That is the reason for the urgency. Every day that this act is delayed is another day where we will see that discrimination continue. The urgency is also because it should have been done years ago and it was not.

I take note of the contribution from the member for Kooyong. With the greatest respect to him, I believe him when he says that on receipt of the HREOC report the previous government was planning to go down the path of looking at how it could in fact meet the recommendations of that report. I have to say that the cynic in me suggests, after hearing some—not all—of the contributions opposite, that if they were in government it may not have happened. There are some people who have very strong views, which I respect but which should not be part of this debate, about same-sex relationships generally. I am extremely pleased to be part of a government that is doing this. I know that the Attorney-General has put a great deal of work into this and I know that he is indebted to an incredibly hard working Public Service who have put all their energy into coming up with this package in the time that they have. I know that to be a fact and I would like to join him in congratulating and acknowledging the work that has gone into creating this legislation in the first place.

In the limited time that I have had I am very pleased to have been able to endorse this bill. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said on 30 April, which is not that long ago:

The economic and financial injustices faced by same-sex couples and homosexual Australians are ones that we believe need to be addressed.

But we will not under any circumstances support anything which undermines marriage between a man and a woman, nor will we give any kind of support to civil unions or gay adoption or gay IVF.

But the coalition will certainly support dealing with those things, based on common sense, which means that economic justice is brought to Australians who are homosexual.

This is not dealing with civil unions; this is not dealing with marriage; this is not dealing with gay adoption; this is not dealing with gay IVF. Thank you.

See this speech in context