Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I do not want to detain the Senate for an excessively long period on this, but I do think it is worth emphasising what specifically is stated here. I am sure Senator Mason will listen to this information and take it on board—he is now in a position of much more power, authority and influence these days, as is Senator Johnston behind him. Senator Mason might not be aware of the full background to this, but the Prime Minister is capable of supporting amendments such as this because he did do so once—about three years ago. It was the only time during my period as leader that I chose to have a joint press conference with Mr Howard. I sat at one of those little lecterns out in his fancy courtyard, where we were able to talk about the fact that he had agreed to amendments that would open up access to superannuation entitlements for same-sex couples. It was part of reaching agreement on the superannuation choice regime. Not surprisingly, Mr Howard was more keen to talk about superannuation choice and I was keen to emphasise the same-sex couple changes; nevertheless, they were agreed to.

It took, I think, about three years. The government actually held up their own superannuation choice regime. They quite rightly thought the regime was a good idea—and, after it was tinkered with by the Democrats, it was reasonably good. But they were willing to hold up the entire thing for three years because of just this issue. I am thankful to the Prime Minister, and I think Senator Coonan in particular should be noted for enabling that change to occur. But it does need to be emphasised that the Prime Minister himself said at the end of 2005 that he does not support discrimination against same-sex couples in regard to access to entitlements, and he thinks most people would not. That is totally separate to issues of marriage, adoption and those things. But there has been no action.

We have had a HREOC inquiry in great detail that has reaffirmed the enormity of the discrimination that exists in a whole range of acts. To me, it really goes to the issue that there is a range of people in the coalition who, due to all the other distractions that we all have, have not been across the detail of what has been said on the record by the Prime Minister and what the past record is.

I would also point to some speeches. We are putting great store in the Prime Minister here, but I think we should not totally belittle the role of the humble backbencher, which every minister was once upon a time. I can recall some very fine speeches in this chamber towards the end of last year, again on this very topic and on the Democrat sexuality discrimination bill, which has been in this chamber since 1995, seeking to address issues like this. There was a very supportive speech given by Senator Brandis, as I recall. If I might say so myself, it was a better speech than the one I gave. It went to the point so well—it was so well constructed. Maybe that is the reason why he has become a minister! Perhaps Prime Minister Howard heard it and thought: ‘He’s a man after my own heart. We’ll make him a minister.’ Maybe that is why he got Arts; who knows? And it was not just Senator Brandis but one or two others as well who made very good, cogent arguments about how this is completely appropriate in principle. But still we see nothing happening.

It needs to be emphasised that it is one thing to just put up an argument and say, ‘No, this is bad policy; we don’t support it,’ for whatever reason. Frankly, in some ways it is worse to be continually making statements saying, ‘Yes, we do think this discrimination is bad; we don’t think it’s good; we do think it needs to change,’ and then still have nothing happening. In some ways that is actually worse. So I urge all coalition members to revisit this issue, to look for an opportunity to add to that pressure that I know is being applied to see if we can get change. There is the report from HREOC that I think will be tabled in this parliament by the end of this sitting fortnight. I fully expect that it will strongly reinforce the case that the Democrats have been making for 12 years or so in this place, as have senators from other parties and Senate committee reports, including reports from the Senate committee on superannuation and including specific reference committee reports. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence. There are now an overwhelming number of statements in support. All we need is that action.

I would suggest that it goes to an issue of credibility, beyond just the pros and cons of the policy. If you have statements being made continually of a certain position or belief and they are not then followed up with action, it does call into question the integrity of the belief and indeed the integrity overall of that party and their leadership. If they make repeated statements and then do not follow up on them, it is a bit hard to do anything other than draw the conclusion that perhaps they are not genuine. If they are not genuine on that then maybe they are not genuine on other things either.

It might seem like a second-order issue to a lot of people, but to many people it is a top-order issue, not least because it has been promised for so long and so little has been delivered on it, despite the bits that the Democrats have managed to get over the years, particularly in the area of superannuation. So I do urge people, in the period between now and the election, to look at that HREOC report when it is tabled and perhaps even after that consider acting on it.

I should say as well that I welcome Labor’s support on these amendments. It has not always been forthcoming on all occasions, and it is pleasing to see that being more consistently applied as well, so that it is acted on if they do get into government.