Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House of the latest developments on the removal of discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships and their children from Commonwealth superannuation laws?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. She has been long respected for her role in promoting human rights both within Australia and internationally. Some four weeks ago I introduced the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. As members are aware, that bill has been delayed as a result of reference to a Senate committee looking at in particular, among other issues but paramount, the issue as to whether it should be extended to people in a close personal relationship.

That is despite the fact that, as reported in an article written by Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 June:

In August last year, cabinet—

of which the opposition leader was, of course, a member—

... decided against including interdependent couples because it was too hard to quantify how many there were. It was estimated that including interdependents would add between $1.8billion and $10billion to the unfunded superannuation liability.

As Mr Coorey indicates, from the other side of the coin:

Some people would also be worse off. Two elderly sisters each on a single pension would earn less if classified as a couple.

It appears that, indeed, the shadow Treasurer, according to a report in the Australian on 6 June by Patricia Karvelas, also confirmed that decision. He is reported to have told the Convener of the ComSuper Action Committee, John Challis:

... it was impossible to calculate the costs and that the Coalition would not include interdependent couples in reforms.

It seems that the opposition’s position on this matter, and in particular the reference to a Senate committee, has more to do with political procrastination to avoid an issue of some internal political embarrassment. But, fundamentally, what we are talking about here is a matter of principle. It is no more and no less, as I have indicated, than removing discrimination against a group of fellow Australians who have been discriminated against for far too long. We are aware that many opposite support that principle of removing the fundamental issue of discrimination. We encourage them and we urge them to stand up for the expeditious passage of this legislation.