David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill amends the Family Law Act to allow opposite-sex and same-sex de facto couples who live in a bona fide domestic relationship to have access to the federal family law courts on property and maintenance matters.

The bill allows the Family Court to make orders about property related issues brought by people in such relationships. The bill is part of a package of bills, of which the first instalment was the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. Collectively, these bills are designed to remove significant areas of discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples, although they also affect the situation of opposite-sex unmarried couples in some respects.

For the purposes of these bills, a person is said to be in a de facto relationship with another person if they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis but are not married or related to each other. So it thereby includes same-sex domestic and sexual relationships but does not include situations where, for example, siblings or other relations are living together.

Presently, the resolution of disputes over financial and property matters between de facto couples is subject to state and territory laws and these laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This bill will offer couples covered by the bill a nationally consistent financial settlement regime and will also offer them access to the Family Court and its services for determination of their financial matters arising upon relationship breakdown.

The bill allows one court, whether it is the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court, to deal in the one proceeding with both financial and child-related matters arising between separated couples. This will save not only the time of the courts but also couples and individuals money, time and stress involved in potential multiple proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.

I have sought to speak on this bill for several reasons. The first is that it is a good example of the determination by the Prime Minister and the government to keep their election commitments. One of the things that all senators need to know about the Prime Minister of this government is that he means what he says and that when he makes a commitment, it is kept. For this government there are no ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises.

Labor went to the last three elections with a commitment to end discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples. I would like now to acknowledge the persistent efforts of two members in the other place, Anthony Albanese and Michael Danby, whose work when in opposition on behalf of their constituents led to that commitment. I also would like it noted that Senator Sherry, in this place, has also been a consistent advocate of equality in matters pertaining to superannuation.

We adopted our policy in the full knowledge that some of the supporters of those opposite would use it to play cheap wedge politics against us in the broader electorate. I think that is because the other side assumed—perhaps, I dare say, wrongly—that there was a reservoir of intolerance in the community into which they could tap for their own venal political purposes. Despite this and despite any attendant political risks, the Labor Party has adopted a policy to end discrimination because it is, of course, the right thing to do.

The second reason I sought to speak on this bill is that it reflects the values that I spoke about in my first speech to the Senate. One of the founding and most important core values of the Labor Party is its determination to eliminate discrimination wherever it is found, whether it be discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or belief.

This bill and the package of bills of which it is a part are steps along the road of eliminating discrimination on grounds of gender and sexuality. These bills ensure that both opposite-sex and same-sex couples—in fact, all people who live together in bona fide sexual and domestic relationships—will enjoy the same rights that married couples enjoy in the field of superannuation and in access to the Family Court.

In the light of some of the contributions we have heard from the opposition both here and in the other place, it is important to stress that this bill does not affect the status of marriage. The definition of marriage as enshrined in the Marriage Act has not been altered or changed in any respect by these bills. It has never been Labor policy to change the definition of marriage and that remains the case today.

As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I have had the privilege of attending the hearings on these bills in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, and I read many of the submissions made to the committee by various interested parties. While I certainly respect the sincerity of all those who made submissions, I do not accept the views stated by some—and shared, I believe, by many of those opposite—that extending equality of treatment to unmarried opposite-sex and same-sex couples will in some mysterious way undermine the institution of marriage.

The passage of these bills will make no difference at all to the fact that the great majority of Australians will continue to get married nor to this government’s efforts to support married couples and their families though our social and economic policies and programs. It seems utterly perverse to me to argue on the one hand that marriage is the bedrock of our society and on the other hand to argue that marriage is so fragile that it must be protected by denying fairly elementary rights to people who choose for whatever reason to organise their lives and their personal relationships in a different way. However, I certainly do agree that there are many threats to the stability and security of married couples and their families in Australia today. An example of such a threat is the decreased affordability of housing, thanks to 10 increases in interest rates in a row under the Howard government. That trend is now being reversed under the Rudd government. Today we saw the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announce a $10 billion stimulus package, which will include almost $4 billion directed towards low-income families, and a doubling of the first homebuyers grant from $7,000 to $14,000. That is how this government supports families, not by cheap populist stunts, not by demonising minority groups, not by playing to the most difficult or intolerant tendencies in our community but, in fact, by coming up with simple and practical measures that will help Australian families.

Another example is the decreased security of employment thanks to the Howard government’s iniquitous Work Choices laws, which we are also reversing. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced legislation that will restore fairness and balance to Australian workplaces. This is a practical example of helping Australian families.

Another example is the rising costs faced by many families struggling to raise children in the face of rising costs whether they be traditional or non-traditional, same-sex or opposite-sex families. Today the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had good news for these families: as part of the government’s stimulus package, families who are eligible for family tax benefit A will be paid $1,000 for each child, as will those who have dependent children on other benefits such as youth allowance. Almost four million Australian children will now receive this payment.

Another example is the acute shortage of child care in many areas, particularly inner city areas, thanks to a decade of neglect by the Howard government. This issue was also addressed in the Rudd government’s first budget, in which we delivered on our election commitment to provide substantial relief to families struggling with the high costs of child care. The child care tax rebate was boosted from 30 to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses for approved child care costs. This government has also lifted the maximum amount of the rebate, from $4,354 to $7,500 indexed per child per year.

Another example of a real threat to many Australian families and many marriages is binge drinking, which we also addressed in the budget. This problem will not be addressed if those opposite block our efforts to make pre-mixed alcoholic drinks less attractive.