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

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 5325 revised 2 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), item 1, before the definition of salary, insert:

child of a de facto relationship means:

             (a)    a child born of a de facto relationship; or

             (b)    a child adopted by the persons engaged in that relationship during the period of the relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the two people are not legally married:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender.

Note:   A person in a marital relationship is taken to be legally married—see subsection 8A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1A  Subsection 4AB(1)

After “basis at that time”, insert “and includes a de facto relationship”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1B  Section 4AB

Omit “marital relationship (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1C  Section 4AC

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(5)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 26), after item 10, insert:

10A  Subsection 10(2)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(6)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 5), after item 11, insert:

12A  Subsection 11(3)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(7)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:

12A  Subsection 12(3)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

I propose to move the same amendment that Senator Ludwig voted for. As you heard, he said he was a little distant from us on this matter. He actually voted for it, and if you look carefully you will see that that was a matter that was divided on. The division related to the same amendment, which was designed for the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which was moved earlier this week. There was a division on it and it had the support of Labor, the Democrats and the Greens versus Family First and the Liberal and National parties. So when you hear Senator Ludwig say he is slightly apart from us, perhaps it is with respect to this bill; it certainly was not with respect to the income tax act, because he voted for it.

This week we have dealt with this on a systematic basis. I do not intend to engage the minister in his rebuttal of my position. I could continue rebutting his and we can go backwards and forwards and, I suspect, he will use his barrister skills and I will use my deep understanding of superannuation financial figures. But it is probably best left alone at this time of night and at this time of the week.

I would indicate, for the assistance of the chamber, that this week this amendment has been rejected by the coalition with respect to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. They will be rejecting it for the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disabilities and Death Benefits) Bill, I am sure. They rejected it with respect to the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. They have indicated they will reject this for the Judges’ Pensions Act and the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act. They rejected it with respect to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act and the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990. They rejected it with respect to the Social Security Act 1991. They rejected it with respect to the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Act 1990, and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1993. And they rejected it with respect to the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

That totals 12, so this is hardly an attempt to leave out sergeants and include judges, which I thought the minister might have thought because he might not have been paying attention to other legislation. He has a busy life as a minister, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But we have made a systematic, holistic and comprehensive approach to this matter. I have said that I will not engage further in debate—and I will not, unless provoked. I simply move my amendments.