Senate debates
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — Superannuation) Bill 2008
Second Reading
8:24 pm
Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
Madam Acting Deputy President, with your indulgence I am happy to reassure the senator opposite that I was simply quoting from Hansard and repeating what former Senator Hill was directed to answer on behalf of the former Prime Minister, which was a quote from Triple J saying that the former Prime Minister does not really condone, but does not want to discriminate against, gay relationships—an answer that effectively said, ‘But we will continue to discriminate against same-sex couples and their superannuation’, all expressed in fairly gobbledegook terms. Senators, I ask you: did former Senator Allison ask former Senator Hill about gay marriage? Or did she ask whether the former Prime Minister’s professed aversion to discrimination extended to a commitment to legislate for equal super rights some time soon? Well, you do not need to be a genius to answer that question and you do not need to be a genius to work out what that rant about gay marriage was really about in this context. It was about, as has happened many times in this place, distracting attention from the fact that, despite his protestations against discrimination, the former Prime Minister had absolutely no intention of ever ending discrimination in the fundamental matter of superannuation entitlements.
The fact that the Howard government never had any intention of ending the discrimination against same-sex couples in superannuation law was even more clearly demonstrated the following year. In 2001, the government voted down its own superannuation choice legislation after it was successfully amended in the Senate to allow gay and lesbian couples the right to leave their superannuation contributions and entitlements to their partner. On that occasion, former Senator Greig had this to say:
... the Federal Coalition is hopelessly out of touch with community attitudes and the majority of States and Territories, most of which have already ended this discrimination at a local level.
“The Superannuation industry is understandably seething over the Howard Government’s inflexibility and are shaking their heads at last night’s decision.
“It is ridiculous to promote a Bill about Superannuation choice, if that Bill denies some people the choice to unambiguously nominate their partners as beneficiaries.
“Without exception, every Superannuation company and Industry Group supports ending discrimination against same-sex couples in superannuation contributions, death benefits and reversionary pensions,” ...
Former Senator Greig also pointed out that this was the first time in federal parliamentary history that antigay prejudice had led a government to sabotage one of its own bills. What an extraordinary step for a government to take! It just shows the great lengths the previous government was prepared to go to to avoid ending discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth superannuation laws. It just shows the extent to which the government was held captive by the bigoted attitudes within its own caucus on this issue.
Well, senators opposite now have a crystal clear, cut and dried opportunity to finally do the right thing on this issue, and it is wonderful to see the bipartisan support for these measures. But they have been far too long in coming. Many people have died, without their partners receiving the full benefit of their superannuation.
It is well past the time for this arbitrary and unfair discrimination to be brought to an end—not indirectly and incompletely and not by trying to shove same-sex couples under the carpet by lumping them in with some catch-all interdependent category, but by openly, directly and completely giving same-sex de facto couples exactly the same rights under our superannuation laws as the rights of heterosexual de facto couples. Why shouldn’t we? This bill does just that—nothing more, nothing less. People in same-sex relationships today see themselves as the same as any heterosexual couple, with the same kinds of family, social and community commitments and with the same kinds of loving, mutual obligations to each other. We have spent so much time fruitlessly debating equal super rights for same-sex couples in this place and, because we have been banked up against this issue, we have not had the time or the opportunity to address the many other forms of discrimination affecting same-sex couples and their children. That is why it has been left to Labor to catch up on everything, to bring us up to date and to give same-sex couples the same substantive rights that other couples enjoy. I trust that, on that basis, this bill will be passed so that we can finally move on to deal with all of those issues of discrimination against same-sex couples regarding financial entitlements, many of which were addressed by the recent groundbreaking report of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
As senators are aware, the government has before the Senate a further bill which addresses these more wide-ranging issues through a large number of much needed reforms to legislation affecting taxation, social security and other critical financial entitlements.
This government’s readiness to take the initiative on these matters, to be bold, to be thorough and to be fair stands in sharp contrast to the prevarication, deception and half--heartedness that characterised the record of those opposite on these matters. I commend the government on moving so swiftly to address all of these matters upon coming to office. It means a great deal to me personally, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the Senate
No comments