Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the explanatory memorandum and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill 2007, co-sponsored with my colleagues Senators Bartlett, Murray and Stott Despoja, responds to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) report which revealed that, in Australia, 20,000 same-sex couples and their children experience systematic discrimination on a daily basis and recommended an end to this discrimination through simple changes to 58 existing laws. This bill, if enacted, would bring about those changes.

The discrimination identified by HREOC in its report Same-Sex: Same Entitlements has no place in a modern, tolerant nation. Further, the discrimination is inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under various international treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has criticised Australia for this.

The bill would remove from Australian laws statutory provisions which encourage or allow discrimination against same-sex couples in areas including taxation, superannuation, employment and family law. These changes are long overdue and indeed many have been previously moved by the Democrats. The bill would establish a definition of “de facto relationship” that would include two people of the same sex living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, and it would insert this definition into various acts and regulations.

The bill would also change several laws to recognise the relationship between a child and both parents in a same-sex relationship for the purpose of protecting the best interests of the child and complying with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The deficiencies of our laws in this regard, and their effect on Australian families, have been well documented by HREOC.

Same-sex couples and their families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements available to opposite-sex couples and their families. The purpose of this bill is not to bestow upon same-sex couples special privileges; the purpose is to achieve equality. There is no reason why this discrimination should continue.

The discrimination, under existing laws, arises in many circumstances. For example, same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner. They have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme safety nets. And they are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

Under existing law, the same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner, and the same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner. Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities.

The discrimination affects not only the members of same-sex couples themselves but also their children. According to HREOC, approximately 20 per cent of lesbian couples and 5 per cent of gay couples in Australia are raising children. The financial disadvantages imposed on same-sex parents will inevitably have an impact on their children.

Some of the changes to social security laws will benefit same-sex couples and their children by making them eligible to receive payments they had previously been denied. Other changes, however, will disadvantage same-sex couples by denying them benefits they currently receive. This bill would change the laws so that they apply equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples.

The bill does not establish a phase-in period for the denial of benefits to people in same-sex relationships who are currently receiving them. However, a phase-in period is something this parliament might wish to debate as a possible addition to the bill. The rationale is that it would allow time for other benefits to kick in —for example, taxation benefits or other welfare entitlements —before a member of a same-sex couple is denied the entitlements he or she might currently receive. The AIDS Council of New South Wales has said this would mitigate the negative impact on those affected:

Given that changes to social security would bring significant obligations as well as rights to people in same-sex relationships, reform in this area should not take place before rights are given in legislative areas. Further a ‘phase in’ period should take place to allow for people who will be negatively impacted to adjust their financial situation.

If this bill were enacted, it would be important for the Government to audit the policy and regulation instructions affected by the changes that the Act would bring about. Further, government departments and other bodies affected by the changes should be properly educated of the effect of the changes, and the Government should run a campaign to inform same-sex couples of the changes to the law and their implications.

It will also be important to establish a complaints-based mechanism for people who are denied benefits despite changes to the law. This should be achieved through a separate Act.

The Australian Democrats believe it is beyond time that we put an end to this discrimination. Our consciences should demand that we do so —and, according to a recent Galaxy poll, more than 70 per cent of Australians would like to see the HREOC recommendations implemented.

Why, in this age, does the fight for equality remain so far from won? Legislators in other countries have woken up to the inhumanity of maintaining laws that malign their gay and lesbian constituents. But here, in this respect, we are shamefully behind the times.

Let’s move out of this moral shadow-land.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.