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

I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5378:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

5  Subsection 10AA(7)

Insert:

de facto partner means one of two people in a de facto relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender;

             (c)    to avoid doubt, two people may still be in a de facto relationship if they are living apart from each other on a temporary basis.

6  Subsection 10AA(7) (paragraph (b) of definition of spouse)

Omit “spouse”, substitute “partner”.

7  Subsection 23DZZID(1)

Insert:

de facto partner means one of two people in a de facto relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender;

             (c)    to avoid doubt, two people may still be in a de facto relationship if they are living apart from each other on a temporary basis.

8  Subsection 23DZZID(1) (definition of spouse)

Omit “de facto spouse”, substitute “de facto partner”.

This is our standard amendment, which would remove the discrimination against same-sex couples, which is inherent in this bill—and, I might say, as we found in the inquiry that was conducted, the report of which was tabled today, is inherent in 58 acts. That was discovered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is our view that it is time to end the discrimination against same-sex couples, and this amendment would have the effect of doing that.

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

I indicate that the Labor Party, consistent with practice, will be supporting this amendment. Whilst we have had the view over the question of discrimination against same-sex couples that we wanted to have a comprehensive response to that issue—and we would do that if we were fortunate enough to gain government in this country—in this case we will support this amendment from Senator Allison. While I have the opportunity, I ask the minister: where is the logic that says that the teeth of an individual are the responsibility of the state and yet the health of the rest of the body of the individual is the responsibility of the Commonwealth?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address both issues. Firstly, the same-sex couples issue: Senator Allison, I understand the amendment you are trying to move. I do not think this is the time or the place to address that issue again. There are no plans to change current government policy at this time. I will just leave it at that. I suspect that at some other time there will be a debate on the issue. In relation to Senator McLucas’s question about the responsibility for health, since Federation the primary health care of Australians has been, primarily, the responsibility of state governments.

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

In his response to my amendment the minister says that at some other time there will be a debate. Could the minister indicate when that time will be?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, I am sure that at some time in the future of this parliament there will be a full debate on this particular issue. It will be at another time, at another place, but not this afternoon.

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

I have one other question. Minister, why is it then that the Commonwealth funds GP visits which, one would assume, is primary health care, but refuses to play its part in the dental health of this nation through cooperatively working with the states to be able to deliver a comprehensive national dental health plan for this country?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, the Commonwealth did not do that until 30 years ago. That is a fact. At that time the dentists in this country decided that they did not want to become part of Medicare. That is the historical fact.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.