Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 4848 on behalf of Senator Allison, who could not be here to move it herself:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 2), after item 8, insert:

8A Subsection 10AA(7) (definition of spouse)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

spouse includes a de facto spouse and means a person who is living with another person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person, including a same sex partner.

The amendment repeals the definition of ‘spouse’ and introduces a new definition that ‘spouse’ ‘includes a de facto spouse and means a person who is living with another person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person, including a same-sex partner’. The Democrats, through Senator Allison and other senators, have moved this amendment a number of times with respect to the health legislation. They move it because the Medicare safety net continues to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families. The current legislation relating to the Medicare safety net defines ‘spouse’ as follows:

‘Spouse’ in relation to a person means a person who is legally married to and is not living on a permanent basis separately and apart from that person and a de facto spouse of that person’.

‘De facto spouse’ is not defined elsewhere in the act to exclude same-sex couples. However, the Medicare Australia website specifically defines de facto couples for the purposes of the safety net as couples of the opposite sex, even though this is not defined in the legislation. Quite frankly, I do not know how valid that is at law and whether it has been tested or should be tested. This means that same-sex couples are discriminated against as the medical expenses of one family member in a same-sex couple are not counted towards reaching the family safety net threshold. This is unjust and unwarranted. The Howard government has moved, albeit very slowly, to end discrimination in this area in various fields of legislation, including tax law, where the interdependence definition clears up the issue. Same-sex couples and their families, in our view, are entitled to the same access to the safety net provisions as any other couples—de facto, married or in any bona fide domestic long-term relationship. This amendment specifically recognises same-sex relationships so that same-sex couples and families have the same access to the safety net provision as heterosexual couples and their children.

Obviously there is a financial consequence to this amendment. But the fact that something might cost the government money is not a reason not to end an unjust discrimination in an area which is being addressed by the government in a number of fields. I think you will know that the removal of discrimination over the years has cost money. The removal of discrimination against women, for instance, cost money, as the equal value for equal work movement took hold and as women were given their due place in society. This is another area of unjustified discrimination and that is why the Democrats have moved the amendment.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate on behalf of the Labor Party that we will be supporting the Democrat amendment. We concur that a definition of ‘spouse’ is required and the issues of inequity that have been raised are valid. During the second select committee of inquiry into Medicare, the issue was raised, particularly with respect to the application of the safety net. What it means in effect is that a heterosexual couple will qualify for application of the safety net far earlier than a homosexual couple in similar circumstances. A heterosexual couple with an ill child will achieve the threshold of the safety net far earlier than a homosexual couple with a child who is similarly ill. We have to ask: where is the equity in that? How fair is it that one child would receive support from the government because that child’s parent just happened to be heterosexual, whereas the other child—simply because the parent happened to be gay—missed out on support through the Medicare safety net? We still maintain our concern about the application of the safety net in a broader question, but the clarification of the definition of ‘spouse’ would at least provide some equity to families in the application of the safety net. For those reasons Labor will be supporting this amendment. I urge the government to give it consideration.

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate senators opposite and Senator Murray acknowledging that discrimination in statutes and elsewhere within our community is being progressively eliminated—that is something that can be placed on the record—by all parties represented in the chamber, and that is good. However, at this point the advice that I have received—and the amendment has been considered by the government—is that the amendment would have a significant impact on the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act, particularly the safety net arrangements under the Medical Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I have been advised that the amendment would require much fuller consideration and that at this point it cannot be accepted by the government.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to the minister: Minister, you will not be able to answer immediately and I request that you take this question on notice. Can the government particularise an estimated cost and the estimated policy effects, if I can summarise it that way, of introducing this change? My view is that it is going to happen in due course, but the sooner the government says to us exactly what it involves the sooner a planned introduction can be considered.

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that question on notice and undertake to get back to Senator Murray with an answer.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.