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

I have endured the speeches from your side; you might pay me the same courtesy. It is a pity that those opposite do not listen to Senator Fielding and drop their irresponsible opposition to this measure.

Compared with these threats to many Australian marriages, the fact that equality in superannuation and other matters is being extended to opposite-sex and same-sex couples seems to me to be a very minor threat indeed. I think it is something of an insult to married Australians to suggest that their commitment to marriage and to one another is so weak that it can be ‘undermined’ by the extension of equality to other people and other relationships.

The third reason I wanted to speak on this bill is that it is a good example of how Commonwealth-state relations should work and how they are in fact working under the Rudd government. This bill has been made possible only by the willingness of the six state governments to refer the necessary powers to the Commonwealth under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. It has been more than 30 years since the issue of the property rights of de facto couples, and the need for uniform national laws on this matter, was first raised by Frank Walker, then Attorney-General in the New South Wales Labor government. But agreement could never be secured among the various federal and state governments. With a Labor federal government and six state Labor governments, the necessary referral was finally achieved.

During the 2007 election campaign, those opposite tried to scare the electorate by raising the spectre of ‘coast to coast’ Labor governments. Mercifully, the Australian people were not diverted by that scare campaign any more than they were by the campaigns against ‘union bosses’ and other bogeymen concocted by those opposite. Now we can see the very real benefits of having governments at state and federal level who are willing to work together for the national good. I hope that will continue now that we have a coalition government in Western Australia. I pay tribute to the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and to the six state premiers and their attorneys-general for their willingness to work together to achieve the outcomes that these bills represent. I look forward to equally successful outcomes on other issues, such as water.

As I said in my first speech in this Senate, the states have their legitimate interests to defend, and there will not always be immediate or easy agreement among them or between them and the Commonwealth. But with a federal Labor government and Labor governments in the majority of states and territories, we are far more likely to get a constructive outcome now than we were under the Howard government—a government which saw the states as enemies and sought to centralise all decision making in its own hands.

I would like to say how pleased I am that the opposition has decided to support this bill. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to say that, because it is not clear at the moment what position the opposition will be taking. In the other place, some opposition members supported the bill, at least in principle, while others, such as Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, objected to it on the spurious grounds that it would legitimise polygamous relationships. That is, of course, a complete nonsense. This bill does not represent condoning polygamy. It is a matter of fact that it is possible for two relationships to exist in a legal sense, that is to say it is possible for a person appearing before the Family Court of Australia to be in both a marriage and a de facto relationship simultaneously. Mercifully, the judiciary have the discretion to weigh these matters properly; nonetheless, it is possible that more than two parties have rights at any one moment. That is a fact. That is not polygamy. Ms Julie Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, moved a rather puzzling amendment that did not oppose the bill but did not support it either. Instead it raised concerns about ‘the central importance of the institution of marriage in Australian society’ and ‘the rights and status of children’. I am sure Ms Bishop is a good enough lawyer to know that neither the status of marriage nor the rights of children are in any way threatened by this bill.

The opposition had 11 years in government, during which they failed to act on discrimination against same-sex couples in superannuation and family law. In June 2004 Senator Coonan, who was then Minister for Revenue, said in a media release that the Howard government would legislate in the area of superannuation. She said:

The Government will expand the potential beneficiaries of tax-free superannuation death benefits to include ‘interdependent’ relationships …

              …              …              …

same-sex couples who reside together and are interdependent but who may not be recognised under the current rules will be eligible to receive superannuation benefits tax free upon the death of their partner.

It is sad, but not surprising, to record that this promise was not kept—apparently because of opposition in the cabinet. Perhaps Senator Coonan can enlighten us about what happened to that promise. It may give us some insight into the schizophrenic approach of those opposite who have sought to placate all sides of this debate while delivering nothing. Now, after only 11 months in government, Labor is delivering these important reforms. It is disappointing to see that the opposition is trying to have it both ways on this bill—not openly opposing it but apparently intending to move amendments so that they can pander to certain elements of their constituency who are totally opposed to the recognition of same-sex relationships—elements who seek to continue discrimination. I call on them to stop this posturing and to actually come to this place with a view.

This is an important and enlightened piece of legislation which will relieve a burden of unjust discrimination from a significant number of our fellow citizens—law-abiding, tax-paying Australian citizens. It is long overdue and I commend the Attorney-General for bringing it forward so early in the government’s term. I commend the bill to the Senate.