Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. That explains the situation I was talking about in my speech in the second reading debate. A friend of mine had their family home not excluded from the value of the assets. The advice she received at the time was that it was because she was in a same-sex relationship. I read that clause differently. The government clarification that that clause does not include a same-sex couple would explain the reason she was treated differently from a member of a heterosexual couple.

The minister also spoke about the desire to deal with these issues holistically. Legislation does not come to the parliament holistically. It comes in an ad hoc way, so that is the way in which we are able to amend the legislation—as it comes along. That is the reason why I am doing this now. In addressing my first amendment, the minister spoke about the need to consult about what impact putting in the reference to not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation would have on other departments. I ask the government to undertake that consultation, because I want to assure the minister and the chamber that on the next occasion that we have an aged-care amendment bill before us I will move a similar amendment. I flag that now so that, if there is a need to do that consultation and see what the impacts are, the government can do that and perhaps be in a better position to deal with this the next time we come to one of these pieces of legislation and I again move that we deal with this issue of not discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. I will leave my comments there and commend my second amendment to the chamber.