Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 4848 on behalf of Senator Allison, who could not be here to move it herself:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 2), after item 8, insert:

8A Subsection 10AA(7) (definition of spouse)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

spouse includes a de facto spouse and means a person who is living with another person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person, including a same sex partner.

The amendment repeals the definition of ‘spouse’ and introduces a new definition that ‘spouse’ ‘includes a de facto spouse and means a person who is living with another person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person, including a same-sex partner’. The Democrats, through Senator Allison and other senators, have moved this amendment a number of times with respect to the health legislation. They move it because the Medicare safety net continues to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families. The current legislation relating to the Medicare safety net defines ‘spouse’ as follows:

‘Spouse’ in relation to a person means a person who is legally married to and is not living on a permanent basis separately and apart from that person and a de facto spouse of that person’.

‘De facto spouse’ is not defined elsewhere in the act to exclude same-sex couples. However, the Medicare Australia website specifically defines de facto couples for the purposes of the safety net as couples of the opposite sex, even though this is not defined in the legislation. Quite frankly, I do not know how valid that is at law and whether it has been tested or should be tested. This means that same-sex couples are discriminated against as the medical expenses of one family member in a same-sex couple are not counted towards reaching the family safety net threshold. This is unjust and unwarranted. The Howard government has moved, albeit very slowly, to end discrimination in this area in various fields of legislation, including tax law, where the interdependence definition clears up the issue. Same-sex couples and their families, in our view, are entitled to the same access to the safety net provisions as any other couples—de facto, married or in any bona fide domestic long-term relationship. This amendment specifically recognises same-sex relationships so that same-sex couples and families have the same access to the safety net provision as heterosexual couples and their children.

Obviously there is a financial consequence to this amendment. But the fact that something might cost the government money is not a reason not to end an unjust discrimination in an area which is being addressed by the government in a number of fields. I think you will know that the removal of discrimination over the years has cost money. The removal of discrimination against women, for instance, cost money, as the equal value for equal work movement took hold and as women were given their due place in society. This is another area of unjustified discrimination and that is why the Democrats have moved the amendment.