Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. This is the omnibus bill seeking to implement the removal of those aspects of discrimination identified in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Same-sex: same entitlements report that were not picked up in the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 and the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008.

This suite of bills has continued the process of removing discrimination against same-sex couples in Australian laws that was begun by South Australian Liberal MLC the late Murray Hill in 1972. While noting that the opposition have referred the bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration, we completely support the principles that underpin this suite of legislation. In speaking on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, the member for Sturt noted that the federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia has for many years ‘condemned narrow prejudice as an enemy of liberalism and commits its members to oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria’.

The bill seeks to make amendments to 68 pieces of Commonwealth legislation. Certain key concepts and definitions are common to them. The intention is to treat same-sex couples and their children on the same basis in Commonwealth legislation as heterosexual de facto couples and their children. The principal mechanism for the amendments in this bill as far as de facto relationships are concerned is the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. For the purposes of the Acts Interpretation Act, a person will be a de facto partner of another person, whether of the same or opposite sex, if the person is in a registered relationship with the other person or is in a de facto relationship. A registered relationship is one registered under a prescribed law of a state or territory. A de facto relationship, under the Acts Interpretation Act, exists between two people who are not legally married to each other, are not related by family and have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. There are a number of criteria upon which the de facto status of the relationship is determined. Examination of these criteria is unnecessary if a relationship is registered under the appropriate state law.

The definition of ‘child’ is amended in a number of pieces of legislation. The formula of ‘product of the relationship’ is used to describe children. This is a description that has attracted criticism both in this place and during the Senate committee hearings on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. The full definition reads as follows:

... someone is the child of a person if he or she is the product of a relationship the person has or had as a couple with another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex). For this purpose, someone cannot be the product of a relationship unless he or she is the biological child of at least one of the persons in the relationship or was born to a woman in the relationship.

This is an expansion of the legal concept of a natural child of a couple, and it is only right and proper that the matter be considered in detail through the Senate committee process.

Although some people have been complaining that the opposition has been delaying the passage of these bills by reference to the committee, the evidence before the committee has indicated that there are concerns from across the spectrum of all interested parties as to the terminology used in respect of children. Clearly, the reference was appropriate. Further, it is a great stretch to accuse the opposition of using the reference to a committee as a delaying tactic. In fact, this is clearly not the case. The committee will be reporting on 30 September. This is a very expeditious result, given that this bill was only introduced into the House on Wednesday, 3 September. I would particularly like to congratulate opposition Senators Trood, Barnett and Fisher for their work in ensuring that the business before that committee was carried out with such efficiency.

In the Attorney-General’s second reading speech he admitted his awareness of some criticism of the bill’s approach in this area. His response was:

... without it there is a risk that we will not recognise all children in same-sex families. Whatever people’s views are, I am sure they will agree that children should be treated equally wherever they may be in Australia and irrespective of the relationship of their parents.

We in the opposition unreservedly support that principle, and we look forward to the Senate committee’s report on their considerations of the matter.

In relation to stepchildren, the bill expands the definition of ‘stepchild’ to include a child of an opposite-sex or same-sex de facto partner by a previous relationship. The current meaning of stepchild only applies to the child of a husband or wife by a previous union. The bill makes further amendments to remove discrimination against the surviving partner in a same-sex relationship, by replacing the term ‘widow or widower’ and instead referring to a ‘surviving spouse or de facto partner’. The bill deals with other family relationships, such as brother, aunt or grandparents, to ensure that family relationships will be recognised in same-sex couple families in the same way they are recognised in opposite-sex couple families.

The opposition notes with concern that amendments to the Migration Act that form a part of this bill seem likely to permit gay marriages contracted overseas to be recognised as marriages for the purposes of couples visas under regulations to that act. This comes in direct contravention of the words of the Attorney-General in his second reading contribution. The policy of both sides of parliament on marriage is very clear. It reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it is defined as such in Commonwealth legislation.

The Attorney-General is right when he says that removing discrimination against same-sex couples does not undermine marriage. However, the Attorney-General would seem to be mistaken when he says that this legislation stops short of redefining marriage—at least as far as the Migration Act is concerned. We expect that the Senate committee will deal with this matter, and the opposition certainly reserves their position in relation to any potential amendments that the Senate committee might propose.

Liberalism is a philosophy that celebrates individual freedom and choice. It abhors discrimination. As was said on 4 June in relation to the same-sex superannuation bill, the bills are long overdue—a situation for which both sides of this House must accept responsibility. The opposition welcomes this bill. The opposition supports the principles underpinning this bill. The opposition is eager to end injustice and discrimination against same-sex couples in Australia. However, the opposition strongly supports marriage as an institution of special importance to our society and we will ensure that the sincere questions we hold with respect to this bill are fully examined through the Senate committee process.

On behalf of the opposition, therefore, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of marriage to Australian society;

(2)

nevertheless recognises that partners in same-sex relationships ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and ought to be treated on a similar basis to partners in heterosexual de facto relationships;

(3)

recognises the right of children who live in same-sex households not to be discriminated against; and

(4)

notes that the Opposition has referred the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for reporting by September 30 with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:

(a)

the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;

(b)

there is no unintended recognition of same sex marriage, including through amendments to the Migration Act 1961;

(c)

the rights and status of children are properly protected; and

(d)

the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.

I reaffirm the opposition’s support for the bill and I commend the amendments to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is an honour to be the first member of the government to speak on this bill. I have a large gay and lesbian community in my electorate of Leichhardt and I know that they welcome this legislation. I was pleased to hear the member for Farrer support this legislation in principle, but I must admit that I am surprised, and I am sure members of the government will be surprised, that this legislation has been referred off to a Senate committee, particularly given the fact that we have a new Leader of the Opposition who, I would have thought, would have been here tonight representing that side of the House, the Liberal Party, and putting very firmly his views in relation to this legislation.

We need to remember that when the government brought forward the legislation in relation to superannuation earlier in the year, it was the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, who was the first speaker on this issue and who put forward the opposition’s point of view. Like me, the member for Wentworth, the new Leader of the Opposition, also represents a large gay and lesbian community in his electorate. He has communities such as Kings Cross, Darlinghurst and Paddington in his electorate. These communities are very well known within this country for having large gay and lesbian populations, and I would have thought that the member for Wentworth, the new Leader of the Opposition, would have taken a note from the former Leader of the Opposition and been here tonight to represent his constituents and show some leadership for his side of the parliament. We also need to remember very clearly his position prior to the last election when he was concerned about his seat. Where is the person who, before the last election, was jumping up and down and saying that he would fight for equality for gay and lesbian people until justice was done?

Now, after the election, we are here tonight debating this important legislation and we hear that the opposition is going to send it off to a committee. I think that constituents in the member for Wentworth’s electorate will be very disappointed in the position that he has taken this evening. I think they would be asking themselves about some of the deals that might have been done in the background in terms of his securing his position as the Leader of the Opposition—some of the deals that he might have done with some in the right wing in the New South Wales part of the Liberal Party.

I was very disappointed to hear the member for Farrer tonight, rather than supporting this legislation, basically getting wishy-washy and incorporating marriage issues in this legislation. This legislation has nothing to do with marriage. The Labor Party has made it very clear that we are not looking to change the definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act in relation to this legislation. We are about making sure that people in same-sex relationships get a fair go, and it is very clear that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, who has a very large gay and lesbian community in his electorate, is not here tonight to say what he is doing; he is out the back, no doubt talking to members of his party about how they are going to shuffle this out and play some politics around marriage in terms of this legislation. I was very disappointed to hear that this was going to be handed off to a Senate committee.

After just 10 months the Rudd government is delivering much-needed reform to remove discrimination from federal government laws against those in same-sex relationships. Twelve years of inaction by the Howard government will be washed away by these laws and finally some justice will be delivered to those in same-sex relationships.

Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.

In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground …

This is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, implemented and supervised internationally by the UN Human Rights Committee.  It is considered by many to be one of the most important human rights treaties in the world. I am delighted to stand here today to support the bill being introduced by the Rudd government. It will help to ensure that Australian legislation reflects the sentiments contained in this article. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill will end discrimination against same-sex couples and the children of same-sex relationships in a wide range of Commonwealth laws.

Australia is the lucky country. We live in a healthy democracy, we have a strong human rights record and we have freedom of speech and freedom of press. But our nation’s treatment of same-sex couples is unacceptable. In the eyes of the Commonwealth law, they are not recognised. As a country, we still have a way to go to ensure equality for all of our residents. The legislation introduced by the Rudd government, being driven by the Attorney-General, Hon. Robert McClelland, is well and truly overdue. This legislation will not be without controversy. It is important that we remember this is not about special rights for same-sex couples; it is about ensuring that all couples have equal rights to the same entitlements and benefits. This is a basic human right.

This bill introduces the second part of the Rudd government’s historic reforms to amend laws that discriminate against same-sex de facto couples and their children. Earlier this year, legislation was introduced in the House to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and the children of same-sex relationships in acts when it comes to superannuation, including the payment of superannuation benefits upon the death of a scheme member and in related taxation treatment of superannuation benefits. The former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, was here to put the opposition’s response to that, but we do not see the member for Wentworth tonight. We do not see the new Leader of the Opposition—somebody who represents very large gay and lesbian communities in this country—here tonight. The bill I rise to support tonight will build on our earlier legislation and will amend a further 68 Commonwealth laws. Taxation and social security, immigration, health and aged care, and veterans’ entitlements are just a few of the areas that will be reformed. It is certainly important legislation that will have widespread implications, and it is a positive step forward not only in our legislative framework but for our country in embracing the differences in our community.

Before I go on to outline some of the more technical aspects of this legislation, I would like to commend my parliamentary colleague and our nation’s Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, for his leadership on this issue. He has acknowledged the shameful delay—that it has taken so long for a government of either side to take the necessary action to remove same-sex discrimination. As the Attorney-General highlighted in his second reading speech, it is almost 20 years since ‘sexual preference’ was added as an additional ground of discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission regulations; in 1997, a Senate committee identified discrimination in Commonwealth laws and programs regarding tax and superannuation benefits; and, in 2004, Australia was found to be in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding veterans’ entitlements, denying benefits to a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. After being appointed to office, the Attorney-General commissioned a whole-of-government audit of Commonwealth legislation. He has considered the Same-sex: same entitlements report released in May last year by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and has acted on the findings. He has coordinated over 19 government departments to bring us to this point—a significant undertaking. So it is with great pleasure that I stand here tonight to speak about this historic legislation that has been introduced, and I thank Mr McClelland for his effort to date.

Often we stand up in this place and talk about legislation that impacts on the community, and it does trickle down and impact on individuals within the community, but there are individuals out there tonight—who are listening to this broadcast and who will read the comments of members on this and the other side of the House—who will be directly affected by this legislation and will directly benefit from these changes. It is a great honour as a member of parliament to be able to stand up and know that, in making your decision, in casting your vote, you can impact directly on individuals’ lives. This will directly impact same-sex couples, many of whom have been living in relationships for well over 20 or 30 years. They will benefit from this legislation that recognises their rights as for other de facto couples. I am very proud to be a member of the Rudd government that is bringing this legislation forward and I congratulate the Attorney-General for the work he has done.

The passing of this bill will remove discrimination by amending a number of different definitions across Commonwealth legislation. The major amendments include changing the definition of ‘de facto partner’. The bill includes a new definition for the term ‘de facto partner’. De facto partnerships will encompass parties in relationships whether they are of the same or different sexes; it will be gender neutral. The new definition will be included in the Acts Interpretation Act and will become the standard definition for most Commonwealth laws.

The other major amendment includes changing the definitions of ‘child’ and ‘parent’. This bill will remove discrimination by altering the definition of a child. The term will include a child who is the product of a relationship where one partner is linked biologically to the child or where one partner is the birth mother of the child. By applying this definition, opposite-sex and same-sex families are treated equally. The definition of ‘parent’ will also be expanded where appropriate to include the parents of children of same-sex couples. This ensures that both members of a couple are recognised as parents of a child where that child is the product of the relationship.

The amendments contained in this bill are vital. At present, same-sex de facto relationships are not recognised in a number of Commonwealth laws which already provide recognition for opposite-sex de facto relationships. This is quite simply unjust. Until the amendments are passed through parliament, the same-sex partner of a person and that couple’s child will not be able to access the same treatment in the 68 laws outlined within the bill that is currently afforded to opposite-sex de facto couples in the same circumstances.

Another major feature of this bill which is important to note is that it will remove marital status discrimination in a number of Commonwealth laws. I disagree with the case being put forward by many members opposite that these changes undermine the institution of marriage and the family unit. But I wish to make it clear that this is not about marriage. As I have said: this is not about marriage; it is about giving people in same-sex relationships a fair go. It has never been Labor policy to change the definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act. It cannot be ignored that opposite-sex de facto couples represent a growing proportion of our population, and it is unreasonable that they do not have the same rights as a couple who are married. So it is the discrimination against people in same-sex and opposite-sex de facto relationships that we want to fix.

I agree with the Attorney-General’s sentiments that it is hard to believe that for almost 24 years it has been lawful to discriminate against a person on the basis that they are or are not married. This bill will amend some laws that treat people in the same circumstances differently based on whether they are married or not. For example, a widow—a woman who has lost her husband—may be entitled to government benefits. Presently, benefits are payable to a woman only if she was married. If she was a de facto partner, she is not entitled to the same benefits. The bill will replace the term ‘widow’ with ‘surviving spouse’ or ‘de facto partner’.

The Rudd government has also moved to alter the treatment of de facto relationships. Changes in the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 will allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the federal family law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters. This same-sex relationships bill will impact on 68 Commonwealth laws, as I have said. I will take just one piece of legislation that will change as a result of this bill as an example. It relates to medical benefits, so it is a clear illustration of the importance of passing this bill. Presently, same-sex couples have to spend more than opposite-sex couples on medical expenses to enjoy the Medicare and PBS safety nets. This bill seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, a piece of Australian law that regulates the payment of Medicare benefits. This act stipulates persons who are eligible for Medicare benefits, the arrangements for safety net entitlements and rules in relation to the provision of services that attract Medicare benefits. The passing of this same-sex relationships bill will mean same-sex de facto partners and their dependent children can register as a family for the purposes of Medicare safety nets.

As I have said, this is about making sure people in same-sex relationships get a fair go. We are not talking about changing the Marriage Act. We are not talking about changing the definition of marriage. It is about playing politics when you start going down that track. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party have the same policy on this, but we want to make sure we give people in same-sex relationships a fair go. The members opposite need to think very carefully about whether they are choosing to play politics on this and whether they want to go down this track, particularly given they have a new Leader of the Opposition who I would have thought would have wanted to distance himself from the Howard years and some of the policies and responses we have seen in relation to this sort of legislation in the past.

As I said, I have a wonderful gay and lesbian community in Cairns. Same-sex partners are members of my community and many of them are friends of mine. I am proud to stand up here and support this legislation that is going to benefit many of those individuals in my electorate. Last weekend my local gay community held the second Tropical Pride Festival in Cairns. Over 1,500 people came along and celebrated as part of the Tropical Pride Festival. There was an awards night on the Friday night and, over the weekend, people participated in the parade of lights as part of Festival Cairns. On Sunday, there was a fair at the Tanks. I had a stall there that enabled people to find out more about this legislation. We provided them with the Attorney-General’s second reading speech. I was disappointed that I could not stand up here last week and make this speech so that I could hand it out on the weekend, but I was proud to be there to support the local community.

The aim of this event is to bring the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community together and also to enable the general Cairns community to better accept and understand their lifestyles and choices. I want to congratulate members of the community for organising the event. I was pleased to support the event with a stall at the fair on Sunday. The organising committee need to be congratulated for the work that they do.

There are some great leaders within the gay and lesbian community in Cairns, and the importance of the same-sex legislation presently before parliament is best summed up in a quote that Amanda Dean, the health promotion officer at the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities, based in Cairns, gave me. They are a wonderful organisation that provide great leadership and great support within their community. The quote comes from their CEO, Paul Martin, who says:

To improve the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, we need to reduce stigma and discrimination. Legal recognition of same sex relationships is part of treating everyone equally and with dignity, and building a socially inclusive Australia.

I cannot stress how important this bill that I am supporting today is to my local constituents, and I believe that quote sums up my, and many in the community’s, sentiments perfectly.

The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill is an important piece of legislation. It is the right thing to do. It means a new standard of fairness and consistency in Australian law. I am proud to be part of a government that will end discrimination in 68 pieces of Commonwealth law. As found by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, it is not good enough that more than 20,000 same-sex couples experience systematic discrimination on a daily basis; it is not good enough that same-sex couples and their families are denied financial entitlements and benefits; and it is not good enough that same-sex couples are not able to receive tax concessions that opposite-sex couples can. The Rudd government’s action to introduce this legislation will seek to rectify this.

This bill builds on our bill introduced earlier this year regarding the treatment of same-sex couples when it comes to superannuation, and it builds on our Family Law Amendment Bill, which is also presently before the parliament. That bill will allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples to access the family law courts on property and spouse maintenance matters. Unlike the opposition, we are committed to stamping out discrimination against same-sex couples. I was very concerned by what I heard this evening in relation to these bills. We are committed to ensuring that people in same-sex relationships get a fair go, and we are working hard to ensure this. We committed to this before the election and we are delivering on that commitment within 10 months of being elected. I am very proud to be part of the Rudd government, delivering on its election commitments again. I urge the House to support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak in support of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. This bill reforms federal law to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families. This phase of the process of reform commenced in May this year, with the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. This dealt only with the issue of superannuation. I supported that bill and I welcome the government’s commitment to end discrimination against same-sex couples in other areas of federal law. I am pleased that this additional and significant instalment has been introduced so promptly.

The impetus for the reform process was the Same-sex: same entitlements report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This report resulted from a 14-month inquiry into whether Australia’s laws relating to financial and work-related entitlements complied with our human rights obligations with regard to same-sex couples and their children. The inquiry found that 58 federal laws relating to financial and work-related entitlements discriminated against same-sex couples. Subsequently, an audit by the Attorney-General’s Department requested by the Attorney-General, which covered non-financial areas, identified approximately 47 additional pieces of discriminatory legislation.

Our laws discriminate against same-sex couples and their families in all areas of life and in all manner of everyday experience. The areas affected include employment, health, age care, immigration, taxation, social security, family law and superannuation. Same-sex couples do not receive the same tax concessions as opposite-sex partners. They cannot register for the Medicare and PBS safety nets as a couple or, if they have children, as a family. They are not treated equitably as regards social security assessments. They are denied the usual guarantees to some of the minimum workplace conditions, such as parental and carers leave. The impact is that gays and lesbians—thousands of them—are denied rights and opportunities that are available to their fellow citizens. This differential treatment is unreasonable and it is unfair. It is inconsistent with the fundamental values we espouse as a nation and it has persisted for too long. HREOC concluded that the discrimination manifest in federal law breaches the most fundamental of all human rights principles: the right to non-discrimination and to equality before the law and the protection of the best interests of the child.

The Howard government committed itself to review the commission’s recommendations and to confer with interest groups in preparing its response. In the election campaign we put forward a policy which extended death benefits to same-sex couples under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. This policy accorded with the federal platform of the Liberal Party, which commits it to oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria. We never implemented that policy because we lost government, but this bill addresses the same issue. It addresses the elimination of discrimination based on irrelevant criteria, and I support it strongly.

This bill addresses the unequal treatment of same-sex couples by basically implementing the solution recommended by HREOC: changing the relationship definitions that currently exclude some same-sex partnerships. The commission recommended retaining current terminology insofar as possible while redefining it to include same-sex couples. As the explanatory memorandum states:

The general approach taken by the Bill is to extend the existing meaning of these terms to include same sex relationships.

The bill adds a new standard definition of ‘de facto partner’ to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, extending it to include same-sex de facto relationships. Where appropriate, it also amends existing references to ‘de facto’ or ‘unmarried couple’ relationships so that they encompass both opposite- and same-sex couples. The bill extends what are mostly financial and work related rights to existing parent-child relationships to accord with the fundamental principle that all children should have equal rights under the law. Where appropriate, the bill extends the definition of ‘child’ to provide legal recognition of the child-parent relationship in same-sex families in cases where it did not previously exist. This recognition will also be extended to the stepchildren of de factos. Under current law, only the stepchildren of married couples are recognised. The amendments in this bill expand existing definitions of ‘stepchild’ and ‘step-parent’ to include the stepchildren of de facto couples. This change applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples.

This bill removes discrimination against same-sex couples and their families across a wide spectrum of federal government activity, including health, social security, education, tax, defence and veterans affairs. I cannot do justice to all these amendments in the time permitted, but it is important to take a measure of the consequence of this new equality for people’s lives. In the core area of taxation, for example, there can be no justification for inequality. As a submission to the HREOC inquiry stated:

If we are to pay the same tax as our heterosexual and de facto fellow citizens, we should be entitled to the same privileges.

Yet, in the tax area, HREOC established that same-sex couples are ineligible for a range of tax concessions and rebates currently enjoyed by opposite-sex de factos. Despite meeting all the other criteria, a same-sex couple is not eligible for the dependent spouse tax offset. In 2007-08, the maximum amount that could be claimed for this was $2,100. Similarly, a member of a same-sex couple is unable to access the tax offset for supporting their partner’s parents. This can amount to a maximum of $1,540.

In the area of health, same-sex couples and their families cannot register as such for the Medicare and PBS safety nets. This financial disadvantage is compounded by the fact that same-sex couples and their families also do not qualify for the medical expenses tax offset. This bill will rectify these inequalities.

In the area of employment, this bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which governs federal employees’ workers compensation. Under the current law, same-sex partners of workers covered under Comcare do not receive lump sum death benefits upon the death of their partner. Similarly, the ordinary consideration that would be taken of the employee’s dependent spouse and children in a determination of a compensation payment may well fail to apply. The amendments made by this bill will redress this situation.

I think it is important that we note that the amendments required to remove discriminatory treatment from the Workplace Relations Act that affect entitlements to parental, carers and compassionate leave are not part of this bill. But the government has committed to incorporating the necessary changes within the industrial relations legislation it plans to introduce later this year.

In the area of aged care, same-sex couples face considerable financial hardships when one member of the couple enters permanent residential care—a hardship which would not apply to opposite-sex couples in like circumstances. This is particularly the case when a same-sex couple is faced with the prospect of paying an accommodation bond. Accommodation bonds can involve large sums of money. The amount payable for them is not fixed; the amount depends on the assets of the person entering aged care. For many couples, their home is their main asset. The Aged Care Act provides that, if one member of the couple enters aged care and the other member of the couple continues to live in their home, the value of the home is not included for the purposes of the asset test. As same-sex couples are not currently recognised under present definitions, an elderly same-sex couple is unlikely to benefit from this exemption. Their home will usually be counted in the assets test. Potentially, this discrimination could result in a same-sex couple losing their family home despite it still being occupied by a member of that couple. This bill amends the Aged Care Act to terminate this discrimination.

I think it is important, while we are talking about equality, to face the fact that equality can also result in less favourable financial impacts. Every person who enters residential aged care must pay a basic daily care fee, the amount of which is determined by an income test. For legally recognised couples, the income test takes into account the income of each member of the couple, adding them together and then dividing that by half. However, as a same-sex partner is not recognised as a partner, only the income of the partner entering residential aged care is included in the income test. As a single income would often be less than the income of a couple, a same-sex couple may find themselves at a disadvantage when compared to an opposite-sex couple in the same situation.

Similarly, equity with opposite-sex couples in the area of social security will have both positive and negative financial consequences for people in same-sex relationships. There are some social security payments, such as the bereavement and widow allowance, for which same-sex partners are ineligible because the Social Security Act does not recognise their relationship. The bereavement allowance provides people with low incomes and few assets a living allowance for up to 14 weeks following the death of a partner. The widow allowance supports women born before July 1955 who have lost a partner late in life and who are without any recent work experience. Same-sex partners also cannot receive the healthcare concessions that ordinarily flow to the dependent partners of social security concession card holders. These cards provide benefits such as discounts on PBS medicines and access to bulk-billed doctors appointments. This bill will address these inequities.

Finally, in the area of veterans affairs, the same-sex partner of a veteran is not eligible to a range of entitlements available to the opposite-sex counterparts. In the case of a war widow or widower pension, to take just one example, this discrimination results in a financial disadvantage of over $500 per fortnight. Even if the surviving partner of a veteran meets all other criteria, they remain ineligible for the entitlements given to opposite-sex partners in the same circumstances because the current legislative definition of ‘partner’ or ‘member of a couple’ denies them recognition. The injustice of such discrimination is poignantly illustrated by testimony given before the HREOC inquiry.

I note that the Attorney General, in his second reading speech, has dismissed requests that the reforms be extended to embrace interdependent couples. I believe that a number of the reasons that he advances for this limitation are not well based and stretch the imagination. Nonetheless, I believe that it would be wrong not to support this bill because of his arguments with respect to interdependent couples.

The bill has been referred to a Senate committee, where it will be considered alongside the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. I had hoped that this bill would have been passed prior to 1 July, and I would now urge the Senate to consider and pass these two bills as quickly as possible.

In conclusion, I regard the reforms contained in this bill as long overdue. Debates over wording and semantics have preoccupied us for far too long. There is no objective or just reason why these financial and work related rights should be denied to people because of their sexual orientation. The reforms will provide greater dignity and equality to many thousands of Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Kooyong. He has a deep understanding of these issues and has campaigned long and hard on them in the past. I pay my respects to him and express my admiration for him for the lonely task that he has undertaken for so many years. Unfortunately, I never had the same faith in the Howard government that he obviously had during his many years sitting on the backbench. In 2002, the Howard government came to an agreement with the various states and territories on family law reform and made announcements in relation it. But what when it came to helping those in same-sex or de facto relationships to gain rights of property settlement and spousal maintenance, the Howard government simply did nothing during all those years. It has been left to the Rudd Labor government to introduce legislation in that regard, which it did just a few weeks ago. That is compelling evidence of the failure of the Howard government on law reform concerning same-sex and de facto relationships. That says it all, despite the valiant attempts by the member for Kooyong and other small ‘l’ liberals in the Liberal Party.

I speak in support of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is the second phase of the Rudd government’s commitment to legislate so that all Australians and their children are treated equally in the eyes of the law. The first phase of this reform, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, was considered in June 2008. This bill received frustration and obstruction in the Senate by those opposite. They raised concerns about marriage and interdependency, yet the bill was effectively about children and partners in same-sex relationships receiving Commonwealth superannuation scheme entitlements—reversionary benefits in circumstances where there was suffering due to the loss of a partner or parent and all the tragedy that that brings. The first bill ensured that those people who were struggling with that loss would be provided for financially. It is difficult enough to cope with the loss of a loved one or a parent, let alone have to worry about financial security and safety.

The first and the second phases of this legislation are not about marriage, gay adoption, gay IVF or civil unions. They do nothing to denigrate the institution of marriage. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might wonder why I am talking like this. I saw the list of speakers from the opposite side and remembered that a number of them had spoken on the first bill when it was before the House. You would have thought that the floodgates were opening and marriage was under attack—the thin end of the wedge. It was nothing of the sort. There is bipartisan support for the classic high definition in the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act for marriage. It is the union of a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life. That is what the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act say—a formal monogamous heterosexual union for life. That is our position and the position of those opposite.

We know that, despite the legislative definitions in the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act, and despite the empowerment of the courts with legislative definitions about preserving and protecting the institution of marriage, the reality of human existence is that people break up. That is a fact. In my research into this particular area, I looked at ABS data, I looked at information from Relationships Australia, and I looked at information from the Australian Institute of Family Studies and my own experience as a family lawyer working in this area for nearly a quarter of a century. About 30 per cent of first marriages fail, often within the first five years of the union. Second and subsequent marriages are more likely to fail, perhaps as many as one in two. So marriage itself is a very uncertain thing. Those of us who wear a ring on our finger know how difficult married life can be. This particular bill—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.