Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

More than once. There is a little bit of hypocrisy there in suggesting that 64 days is rushing something. Sixty-four days is obviously enough time to consider the legislation.

One of the other bits of information that I would hate the public to be misled by was the idea that there is no definition of de facto. Any lawyer knows that there is significant case law dealing with definitions of de facto, especially in succession law, where I used to work. There is lots of case law on some of the things that the member for Mackellar put forward. Obviously there is family law. There are lots and lots of cases, precedents, both at the state and federal level, and obviously also even in superannuation law, dealing with some of the examples that the member for Mackellar put forward.

Let us return to the facts and the bill before us. This bill amends the Family Law Act 1975 to allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the federal family law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters. This is hardly an introduction to a piece of legislation that would suggest it is revolutionary, as was put forward by the member for Mackellar. In fact, it sounds dry and almost perhaps a little bit boring. Nevertheless, this bill before the House goes another small way towards restoring fairness to our community—in fact, to all of our community. It is yet another example of practical equality from the Rudd government.

I turn to one of my favourite books, To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. That book is largely about suggesting to people that they need to consider what it is like to step into someone else’s shoes to understand what the world is about. That is the major theme, I guess, in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. There was a similar theme used in Paul Keating’s famous Redfern speech, when he urged us to judge fairness based not on our own experience but through the eyes of others. The fundamental tenet in Keating’s famous speech was that concept: how would I feel if this were done to me? I ask members of the House to imagine that these discriminatory laws applied to them. Keating’s magnificent speech was obviously about another form of discrimination, but the principle still holds true.

If we aspire to true equality in Commonwealth law, then we must amend legislation that discriminates against some sections of our society. The legislation before the House is about bringing fairness into play when we are dealing with separating de facto couples. It is quite simple, despite all the smoke and nonsense from the preceding speaker.

Unfortunately it is often the case that we have to fight for fairness. The struggle to give de facto couples equal property rights has been no different. It was first suggested as far back as 1976 that the powers of property rights of de facto couples should be referred to the Commonwealth. I was in grade 6 in 1976. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would have been in grade 1, I think! It is a long time ago. The struggle continued until a 2002 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, when the Commonwealth, state and territory governments agreed for the states to refer these powers to the Commonwealth. Remember who was in power in the Commonwealth in 2002. Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have already put legislation in place to refer these powers to the Commonwealth.

Another five years of typical inaction by the coalition government passed and finally today we are debating legislation that will finally restore fairness for de facto couples. This is especially important now that an increasing percentage of Australians live in marriage-like relationships in preference to formal marriage. I am not sure how this is going to play out for politicians. I send out wedding anniversary cards to people that reach their 50th anniversary and the like. I am not sure if I am able to obtain a de facto 50th anniversary card. I will have to work on that. Love is a complicated enough thing for heterosexuals who enter into a normal marriage. When things go bad, sometimes unfortunately we need the helping hand of the state to try and make it as easy as possible for people to sort out their differences.

Under the current state and territory based laws, de facto couples have different rights in different states when it comes to property settlement and spouse maintenance. With the much more mobile Australian community these days, this creates extra headaches, especially in places like Queensland, where people on the Gold Coast can easily go back and forth over the border. Where de facto couples have children, they might deal with children issues in a federal family law court and then property issues in a state court. Further complications arise where couples own property in different states. This places unnecessary costs and stresses on families already facing the hurt of a relationship breakdown.

The bill ensures that issues regarding children and property will be dealt with under a single set of consistent laws. I have been a lawyer and lots of my friends are lawyers. I will have to apologise to them for creating less work for them, but obviously it is a good thing when the Commonwealth is able to simplify some of these issues. I believe that, wherever possible, people should work to resolve these matters without courts and lawyers—they make enough money. But my friends who are family lawyers assure me that every now and then people will resort to lawyers at 50 paces. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, on occasion people insist on using the courts to bludgeon each other, so it will be useful to have some legislation that simplifies some of these issues.

We must ensure that everyone has access to a fair and equitable system. The bill before the House will enable the Commonwealth to set up a system for handling the financial and property matters of de facto couples. The federal family courts will deal in the one proceeding with both financial and child matters for separated de facto couples. It will provide greater protection for separating de facto couples and simplify the laws governing them. That is a good thing.

This bill also introduces equality for de factos with regard to their superannuation. And isn’t the superannuation tale a wonderful Labor tale? Think of the sacrifices that Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating had to make to introduce superannuation to the Australian people. Once upon a time it was only a couple of coalminers, a couple of farmers and a few well-off people that had superannuation, whereas now normal working people—people working in bars and the like—have superannuation assets that they are able to talk about and look at online to see how their retirement plans are progressing. That is a wonderful achievement for the Labor Party and those Labor governments.

The legislation before us allows de facto couples to split their superannuation interests in the event that they separate. I note that this has been available to married couples under the Family Law Act since 2002, but not to de facto couples.

These reforms will apply to de facto relationships that have lasted for two years or more or for a shorter time than that if there is a child from the relationship.

This bill does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. It redefines ‘de facto relationship’ to apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples.

I especially welcome the support for the bill from that esteemed body the Law Council of Australia. Law Council President Ross Ray QC—that is Ross Ray, not Robert Ray; he was a different legal authority enforcing a different set of rules!—said:

Any step towards eliminating discrimination brings us closer to meeting our international human rights obligations, makes us a fairer, more just community and ought to be greeted with strong approval.

That is strong praise indeed from the Law Council of Australia.

That other august body the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have also given their support to the intent of this bill to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their children. When HREOC says something, it is a good idea to listen. HREOC is a pretty good weathervane as to where the winds of fairness are blowing. To quote the great poet and songwriter Bob Dylan, from his song Subterranean Homesick Blues:

Keep a clean nose

Watch the plain clothes

You don’t need a weather man

To know which way the wind blows

When HREOC is coming out in support of this legislation, it is a very good thing. I too support this bill, because it is right that separating de facto couples should have the same rights as divorcing couples. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context