Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to the Senate for the need to call for a quorum. I move the amendments that have been circulated in the name of Senator Allison, as I understand it:

Page 7 (after line 4), at the end of the bill, add:

National Health Act 1953

1  Subsection 4(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.

2  Subsection 4(1) (definition of spouse)

Omit “spouse” (second occurring), substitute “partner”.

3  Subsection 84B(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of spouse)

Omit “spouse”, substitute “partner”.

These amendments should not be a surprise to anybody, or they certainly should not deal with a topic that anybody is now unaware of. The Democrats have repeatedly moved amendments of a similar nature countless times over many years, since the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission tabled their report at the end of June, entitled Same sex: same entitlements, which specified what in their view was the best way to address the widespread discrimination towards people in same-sex relationships across about 58 different pieces of Commonwealth legislation. The Democrats have used that as a template.

We have tried every approach. I would make it clear that this is not just some one-off incident to try and make a point or to be inconvenient. We have tried every approach genuinely. We tried the omnibus bill. We put forward an omnibus bill, as recommended by HREOC, to amend all of the acts in a consistent way—applying a consistent definition with regard to same-sex relationships across all of the pieces of legislation identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. That bill received such a stonewall that the government would not even support it being sent to a Senate committee for examination. I must say, I remain more than disappointed by that, but, be that as it may, that is what happened. So there was no opportunity for that to be progressed even that far. We have thus, instead, taken the approach of moving amendments, using the definition of a de facto relationship and a same-sex relationship as recommended by HREOC for each of the acts identified by HREOC in their report—hence, the amendments to the National Health Act. We are simply following through on the recommendation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report.

I should make the point that there is a significant degree of disadvantage experienced by people in same-sex relationships under the Health Act. It financially disadvantages them, purely because their relationship is not recognised, because it involves two people of the same gender. The amendments before us simply equate same-sex relationships as coming under the definition of de facto relationships, regardless of whether the people are of the opposite sex or the same sex. That is the impact of the amendment. As I said, it is an issue that we have raised many times before. It is now in lock step with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s recommended approach—an approach that I would have to say has been supported verbally by many people across all parties, including many members of the coalition, but it has yet to get the support where it matters, which is in this chamber, to amend the law, which is where the discrimination remains.

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

For the same reasons that we supported this amendment in the last piece of legislation that we dealt with, I can indicate that we will support these amendments as well.

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

Could I say to Senator Bartlett and Senator Allison that, for what it is worth on this issue, I do not believe that you are grandstanding inappropriately. I will just say that the government has no plans to change its policy at this time.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to ask the parliamentary secretary one question on this piece of legislation whilst he is here. I did not make a speech in the second reading debate on this, but I just seek to ask about an issue that was raised in a recent migration committee inquiry into temporary visas and the 457 visas. I note that the Bills Digest on this piece of legislation mentioned that a possible effect of these proposed amendments is that holders of a 457 visa may face higher health insurance costs as a result of the removal of the complying health product provisions. The issue of health insurance costs was raised in the inquiry that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration held.

I ask the minister—sorry, the parliamentary secretary; he does such a good job that he is ministerial in all aspects of his demeanour—whether the government has examined this potential consequence and whether it will be undertaking any activities to monitor any impact, not just on 457 visa holders but on a whole range of visa holders who have to take out health insurance as part of their visa criteria. That can be an expensive undertaking. Has consideration been given to the possible impacts? If so, should there be concerns, will it be okay or is it just one of those things where we will have to see how the market evolves, and you will give me a commitment that you will monitor it closely, which I will welcome?

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

I am advised that, in the context you have just raised, this bill will make no difference, but we will monitor the situation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.