Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Let us hope Senator Nettle is not either. Labor are not prepared to support Senator Nettle’s amendments. In fact, Labor oppose them. It is surprising to me—it may have been an oversight, I do not know; Senator Nettle may wish to clarify—that these amendments do not extend the benefits to same-sex couples. The reasons they do not do that, in Labor’s view, is that there is no specific inclusion of same-sex partners in the proposed amendments, as in the Labor and the Democrat amendments. These amendments do not offer sufficient coverage for same-sex, de facto partners and sufficient certainty that they are in fact covered.

Federal law has not defined a de facto relationship to include same-sex couples. The Family Law Act, for instance, states, ‘A de facto relationship means a relationship between a man and a woman who live with each other as spouses on a genuine domestic basis, although not legally married to each other.’ The dictionary defines de facto as, ‘in fact, in reality’. Given that the Marriage Act specifically excludes marriage or same-sex partners, it is hard to see how a same-sex relationship could be construed as de facto unless it was more specifically defined. If you look at the previous case law on this, in 1995 Brown v Commissioner for Superannuation examined a similar issue. In that case, the question was whether the phrase ‘ordinarily lived with that other person as that other person’s husband or wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis’ could include same-sex couples. It was ultimately decided that it did not. Although there are obvious marked differences between Brown and the present situation with the Greens amendments, it does show that at least in that instance Australian courts have been hesitant as to whether to accept same-sex relationships as de facto couples. You would have to go through the process to see if in fact it was, whereas in respect of the Democrat and the Labor amendments you do not expose yourself to a court case for the determination of that fact. The amendments proposed by Labor and the Democrats make it clear that same-sex couples are covered under the pension scheme. The amendments proposed by the Greens do not.

This is an example where you can see that the Greens are trying to achieve something, but you cannot actually trust the Greens to do something constructive. I accept that, on many occasions, their principles might push them, but it seems that they harp about these things and they actually fail to get them right. The Greens amendments would not extend benefits to same-sex, de facto couples; instead they would slightly extend the existing scheme and create two parallel schemes for de facto relationships. On that basis, Labor oppose the Greens amendments.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.