Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 is a difficult one to sort through, given it involves a number of complex issues about fairness and the importance of marriage as the basic building block of our community. Family First believes that people in interdependent relationships, such as same-sex couples or couples who are not in a sexual relationship but who are financially dependent on each other, should have shared access to their superannuation. But Family First comes at this from a different angle to the government, regarding these relationships as essentially ‘interdependent relationships’ rather than ‘marriage-like relationships’. Family First has a concern about the approach of the draft laws, which undermine marriage by placing a number of relationships including marriage into a catch-all category of ‘couple relationship’, as though all these relationships were of equal value. The danger of course is that marriage becomes just another relationship option and loses its special status.

By coming up with the new term ‘couple relationship’ the bill lumps marriage and other relationships all into the same category—the bill treats all these relationships as the same. The bill does not mention marriage, or husband or wife. These words have been deleted. If this is the model on which the government will base other legislation, these important words will start to disappear from all federal laws. The term ‘couple relationship’ should instead be replaced by reference to ‘marriage and interdependent relationships’ so that we do not do away with references to marriage. Family First believes that the important and overriding principle that should guide us when looking at this legislation is that marriage should keep its privileged status and should not be undermined.

Legislation should also be child focused, not adult focused. It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and father when possible. So it is important to promote marriage, not reduce it status, because that is where children get both a mum and a dad. Without question, marriage is the best environment in which to raise children.

I am a great believer in marriage and the value of working on your relationship to stay married. I share the community’s great concern over the rate of marriage and relationship breakdown. We know from evidence to the committee, from the Australian Institute of Family Studies for instance, that marriages last much longer than de facto relationships. Different measures were pointed to, but one overriding fact was that de facto relationships are three times more likely to end within five years than marriages are. It is the greater stability of marriage that is one of the important things about marriage that provides that reassurance and confidence to children.

These are among the reasons marriage is so important to the community and why marriage should continue to be promoted and placed above other relationships. This bill should be about giving people in interdependent relationships the ability to share their super. But by focusing on same-sex relationships, and not on the broader category of interdependent relationships, the concern is that there is not a broad, equal treatment of all relationships separate to marriage. Interdependent relationships could include same- and opposite-sex couples in sexual relationships, but it could also include a couple of mates or two sisters who live together and share pay, housework, rent and other bills and so on, who are genuinely financially interdependent. I note the argument that not many interdependent people have claimed superannuation under the existing provisions. But, as more and more people reach retirement age after spending their working lives contributing to superannuation, that will change.

There is also a strange definition of ‘child’ in the bill, which says that ‘a child is the product of the person’s relationship’ with their partner. But children can only be created, without technical intervention, by a man and a woman. I agree with the comment by Professor Patrick Parkinson, who recommended to the Senate committee that examined this bill that a better test would be whether the child is dependent upon the person entitled to the pension, not whether they are the product of a relationship.

Family First does not believe this bill is the best way to ensure people in interdependent relationships can share their super, because it takes the approach of making all couple relationships equal. Family First does not believe they should be equal, as legislation should be child focused and marriage should be advantaged above the other relationships to help provide the best environment in which to bring up children.