Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)    Page 30 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 4—Same-sex entitlements

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

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

de facto relationship means a relationship, irrespective of gender, between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship and, in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, including but not limited to:

             (a)    the length of their relationship;

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

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

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

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

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

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

             (h)    the performance of household duties;

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

              (j)    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;

and 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.

recognised partner means one of two people in a recognised relationship.

recognised relationship means any relationship that is registered with a State or Territory Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages under a State or Territory law allowing for the official registration of that relationship and includes but is not limited to relationships recognised as civil unions, civil partnerships, significant relationships, domestic relationships or relationships established through a Deed of Relationship. To avoid doubt, the requirements for beginning or ending any recognised relationship are to be determined by the relevant State or Territory law.

2  Subparagraph 4(2)(b)(i)

Omit “a person of the opposite sex”, substitute “another person”.

3  Subparagraph 4(2)(b)(iii)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

4  Subparagraph 4(3)(e)(iv)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

5  Subsection 4(3A)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

6  Subsection 5(1) (at the end of subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition of parent)

Add “or the de facto or recognised partner of the adoptive parent of the young person”.

7  Subsection 23(1) (definition of widow)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

widow means a woman who was a partner of a person immediately before that person died.

8  Subparagraph 1067C(1)(b)(i)

Omit “a person of the opposite sex”, substitute “another person”.

9  Subparagraph 1067C(2)(b)(i)

             Omit “a person of the opposite sex”, substitute “another person”.

10  Section 1067C

             Omit “marriage-like relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

11  Section 5 (table)

Insert:

de facto partner               5E(1)

de facto relationship       5E(1), 11A

recognised partner          5E(1)

recognised relationship   5E(1), 11A

12  Section 5 (table item dealing with marriage-like relationships)

Repeal the table item.

13  Subsection 5E(1)

Insert:

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

de facto relationship means a relationship, irrespective of gender, between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship and, in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, including but not limited to:

             (a)    the length of their relationship;

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

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

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

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

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

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

             (h)    the performance of household duties;

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

              (j)    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;

and 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.

recognised partner means one of two people in a recognised relationship.

recognised relationship means any relationship that is registered with a State or Territory Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages under a State or Territory law allowing for the official registration of that relationship and includes but is not limited to relationships recognised as civil unions, civil partnerships, significant relationships, domestic relationships or relationships established through a Deed of Relationship. To avoid doubt, the requirements for beginning or ending any recognised relationship are to be determined by the relevant State or Territory law.

14  Subsection 5E(1) (before paragraph (a) of the definition of non-illness separated spouse)

             Insert:

           (aa)    who is a de facto or recognised partner of another person but living separately and apart from that other person on a permanent basis; or

15  Subsection 5E(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of widow)

             Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (a)    a woman who was the partner of a person immediately before that person died; or

16  Subsection 5E(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of widower)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (a)    a man who was the partner of a person immediately before that person died; or

17  Subparagraph 5E(2)(b)(i)

Omit “a person of the opposite sex”, substitute “another person”.

18  Subparagraph 5E(2)(b)(iii)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

19 Subsection 5F(1) (at the end of the definition of parent)

Add “or the de facto or recognised partner of the adoptive parent of the child”.

20  Section 11A

Omit “marriage-like” (wherever occurring), substitute “de facto relationship or a recognised relationship”.

Note:                The heading to section 11A is replaced by the heading “De facto and recognised relationships”.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the eligibility criteria for various benefits and allowances under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This would increase the number of eligible claimants for those benefits and allowances which would have the effect of increasing expenditure from the standing appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The amendment is therefore presented as a request.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under a standing appropriation. This request is therefore in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

This request for an amendment that I have moved on behalf of the Greens is for amendments that we have seen moved lots of times before. They are recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to remove the discrimination that same-sex couples face in a range of different areas of law, and this particular bill as it relates to the Social Security Act and the veterans’ affairs act are two of those areas of the 58 identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report where that discrimination exists. We used to see lots of these amendments moved under the previous government, and during the election campaign last year there were commitments from the now government to support the implementation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report—to removing the discrimination that same-sex couples face. There was not a principled, across-the-board agreement to remove the discrimination in all areas of federal law, because the Labor opposition, as they were at the time, picked out the area of marriage and said that that was one area in which they would not remove discrimination but that in other areas they would. That was the commitment that we had from the then opposition prior to the election, but we never got a time line about when that would happen or how that would happen, and that has been very frustrating for a lot of people in my own state of New South Wales.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby is running a campaign this year which is called 58 in ‘08. It says, ‘Let’s see these changes’—the commitment made by the former opposition during the election campaign—’to make sure that the discrimination is removed this year.’ So when this election commitment is actually going to be implemented is an issue of concern within the community. As soon as the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, produced his 100 days report, I got a copy of it to look through to see if there was anything there that related to removing the discrimination against same-sex couples, but there was nothing. That greatly concerned me, because it meant that this promise that was made by the government in opposition—they said they would remove that discrimination—clearly did not make it to the first 100 days. I went to many forums with the gay and lesbian community in the lead-up to the election campaign, and the Labor members there, such as Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney—she lives near me, and we are often at these forums together—made the commitment time and time again. The impression was left with the community that it was a significant priority, yet there was no indication in the document that came about in the first 100 days to say: ‘This is what we are doing. This is the time line. This is what we are planning. This is the way in which we intend to do it.’ And that is what I am asking for today.

I recognise it is a big change, and I recognise that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission framework was quite narrow. It was about same-sex couples and work entitlements. There are other areas, and I note the report in the Australian on the day of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras indicated that the Attorney-General’s Department had identified other areas. I understand there to be another 40, so there are about 100 areas of law that we need to change. I recognise that, and I was really thrilled when I first heard that, because it was the first indication I got that there was actually work going on to make the changes. So I thought that was positive. But I think that what is really important is setting out a time line so that people in the community know when these changes are going to occur. The report in the Australian on that particular day indicated that the government was planning on making announcements about a reform package in the May budget. Great. If that is the time line, it would be useful for people to know. But when there are campaigns like the one the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby are running to say, ‘Make these changes this year’, it would be good if we could have from the government a clear indication of when these changes are going to occur.

I presumed that each time we had a piece of legislation which was one of those identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as having that discrimination component to it we would see an amendment along with the other amendments being made by the government. In the first sitting week of parliament when the aged care bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, I expected to see the amendments that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission had recommended in that bill. I moved those amendments before when we were here under the former government. That is how I thought we would see them, but they were not there. There was another bill yesterday that related to superannuation where, again, I thought we would see those amendments. Again, for this bill, they are not there. I am moving this request for an amendment because that is what I thought the process would be—a gradual process over time where each time there was a bill that discriminated against same-sex couples those amendments would be brought in.

That is not the new government’s approach. They are going to do it differently. Could we just have an outline and a framework so that the gay and lesbian community know what the timetable is, know what the proposal is and are able to hold the government accountable for that time line? We have had the commitment, but we have not had delivery or implementation of it. Part of what I am asking for today is a clear time line and framework for how this is going to happen so that there is a plan that the government can be held accountable to.

I want to outline one particular aspect of the request I am moving today. As I say, they outline the recommendations of HREOC, but they also have one other aspect which there has been a reasonable amount of debate about. Where state and territory governments recognise same-sex relationships in a variety of different ways—such as civil unions or the relationship register in Tasmania—this request for an amendment from the Greens ensures that those relationships are also recognised in federal law. There is, for example, the de facto relationship. We stipulate that it does not matter what your gender is if two people have a de facto relationship. We also then go on to talk about what we are calling a ‘recognised relationship’. That is any relationship registered with a state or territory registry of births, deaths and marriages under state and territory law. There is the relationships register in Tasmania that I think came about in 2004 and there is currently debate going on about what form of civil unions or recognition of same-sex relationships will occur in the ACT as well. This request for an amendment allows the changes to the law to operate into the future in recognising that there are states and territories looking at doing these proposals. They ensure that they are caught up in the process of removing the discrimination.

The way that the Greens would like to see this discrimination removed is through a change to the Marriage Act in federal law so that people in same-sex relationships who choose marriage as the way they want their relationship identified will not experience that discrimination. Because of both of the major parties coming together and ruling that out some time ago, we have seen different forms of relationship recognition occurring at a state and territory level.

People have all sorts of different ways in which they want their relationships recognised. This request for an amendment seeks to outline the de facto relationship but also to outline that a recognised relationship is a separate entity. There are many people who have their same-sex relationship or heterosexual relationship recognised under these systems because they do not just relate to same-sex relationships—for example, in Tasmania—and they do not want their relationship to be considered as just a de facto relationship but as more significant than that. They may have had a ceremony and had their relationship recognised and so, rather than just fitting it in with de facto relationships, this request for an amendment would allow their relationship recognition in state and territory law to be recognised in federal law.

That is something which Australian National University senior law lecturer Wayne Morgan talked about in the article I was referring to in the Australian on the day of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He said that couples should be able to access federal entitlements by registering a relationship at a state and territory level, and that is what is provided for in the Greens request. I just wanted to indicate that that is the only way in which there is any deviation from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and it is to encapsulate something that is happening now, which is the relationship recognition registries that we are seeing at state and territory levels.

These are amendments that all of the non-government parties under the former government committed to. Because we have not seen a timetable or an outline about how discrimination will be removed from the bill—and this bill is third time lucky where discrimination could have been removed but has not been—I thought it was appropriate to come in here on behalf of the Greens and move this request for an amendment so that that election commitment from the Labor Party could be honoured. I commend this request for an amendment to the Senate.

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

The Democrats, not surprisingly, support this request for an amendment along the lines that the Democrats have moved similar amendments repeatedly to a raft of legislation. Perhaps before the end of June I should tally up the number of times we have moved them over the decades, just for historical purposes. I imagine that it would run to over the 100 mark. We have a track record of zero success with them, which is very unfortunate. Although, having said that, I should also put on the record the fact that such progress that was made under the previous years of the Howard era did occur because of the perseverance of the Democrats in areas such as superannuation. That was not through an amendment like those in this request but through negotiation with Mr Howard. He did choose to talk to people sometimes about these sorts of things when he needed to get other legislation through and we were able to get some improvements via the superannuation choice legislation.

He held up that legislation for about three years, I think. The notion of choice was obviously not so important to him that he would actually allow that choice to expand to people in same-sex relationships, but after about three years of hold-up he did agree to a modified version to allow people in co-dependent relationships to more clearly share their superannuation entitlements—though that does not apply to the public sector as yet, unfortunately.

That is one example. I should take the opportunity to put on the record that the Democrats were able to successfully move things forward and enable some people in same-sex relationships to have the same access to their partners’ superannuation entitlements as all the rest of us enjoy. It is an example of the benefit of negotiation and perseverance over a long period of time. That is why it is good that this request for an amendment is moved, because it is another example of perseverance, of continuing to put it on the record and of continuing to highlight that this inequality still exists.

If we moved an amendment along these lines to a particular act, the usual response from the then Liberal government—and usually, though not always, from the Labor opposition—was to say, ‘You can’t make this change in a one-off capacity; you’ve got to do it across the board all at once.’ Of course, the Democrats have also had legislation before this chamber for more than 12 years which does precisely that and does do it all at once. When we brought that on for debate we were told, ‘You need to do it one at a time and look at it case by case.’ That sophistry was used to basically make no progress at all and to have that discrimination continue.

It is a clear commitment of the new government to remove that discrimination. I am actually relatively confident that they will end up doing that sometime within the next year or so. It is appropriate to put on the record in this context once again the role of former senator Sid Spindler. I mentioned this yesterday during the debate on the condolence motion, but I take the opportunity to put it again that back in 1995 he was the first in this chamber to introduce legislation that sought to do precisely what this request for an amendment does—that is, to remove the discrimination. His legislation would have applied across the board; this obviously just applies to the Social Security Act. I also note his role in instituting a comprehensive Senate inquiry which was the precursor in many ways to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Same-Sex, Same Entitlements inquiry that Senator Nettle referred to. So I wanted to once again pay tribute to the legacy of Sid Spindler and many others who have continued to put this before the chamber.

It is worth noting with regard to social security specifically that it is often said that people in same-sex relationships actually benefit from the existing discrimination because one partner’s income is not counted against the other partner’s and therefore they have higher payments than a couple would if one of them were working, and also they are entitled to two single payments as opposed to a couple payment, which is less than two single payments. So in some aspects the differential treatment does benefit a same-sex couple, and that was made clear in the HREOC report. But it should also be emphasised that in some cases the differential treatment does have a negative impact on same-sex families. For example, a same-sex partner is not entitled to partner allowance, to concession card benefits, to jailed partner pension, to widow allowance or to bereavement benefits.

In the context of the earlier part of the debate on this legislation with regard to the burden of carers and the impact when one partner dies, I think a recognition needs to be put on the record that the partner’s relationship is not just about money. It is not all about, ‘There’s an entitlement over there; I want it because somebody else can receive it.’ It is about recognition, and that is at the core of this. That is why, as was demonstrated to HREOC during the course of their inquiry, and as is clear in their report, many same-sex couples make clear that they will willingly lose advantages. They will lose financial benefit in the social security area. They are quite willing to do that in exchange for equality and recognition. To me that is what is so crucial about this—it is not so much about people having equal financial entitlements or whether they lose or gain. On balance I suspect that, if this request for an amendment were successful, there would actually be a net saving to the taxpayer, in this area at least.

But it is about recognition, and that particularly comes into play when you are talking about bereavement, caring and the death of a partner. It is a pretty awful thing, and I would urge people to read some of the examples in the HREOC report or, indeed, in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report that was tabled in 1997. It is 10 years old, but the heartache that was seen during that inquiry and reflected in that report is just as real today. It is happening today in the same way. One of the most heartbreaking instances is when one partner dies and the other partner, who may have been with them for decades, is shut out, has no entitlements and, in some cases, has no recognition. I am sure we could all imagine how it would feel when your partner of decades dies and you are just shut out and seen as having no particular role or significance in what is going on. That can be amongst the worst forms of discrimination even though in itself it has no financial component to it at all. To me that is what this is about more than anything else—it is about recognition of the importance and significance of people’s relationships and equal treatment.

So, with those broader contextual comments, the Democrats support this request for an amendment. Now that the government has indicated a preparedness to make this change as a policy commitment rather than having to be browbeaten into it via Senate crossbench leverage, I think it probably would be more efficient to do it as one big block. I repeat the point that the modern-day version of the original Spindler legislation is still before the Senate in the name of all the current Democrat senators and that it does reflect precisely the two very simple recommendations of the HREOC report Same-sex: same entitlements. That would be an easy way to go.

I do note—with some interest and a slight bit of surprise—reports that the current government’s investigations into this issue identify more laws where this discrimination exists than even HREOC did. I think HREOC found 58 federal laws that denied same-sex couples and their children basic financial and work related entitlements that are available to opposite-sex couples and their children. I have seen reports that the number of those laws is apparently up around the hundred mark. That does surprise me in the sense that I had expected that HREOC would have identified almost all of them. It is not a shock that they might be out by one or two, but to find that there are that many more is a surprise. So we do need to ensure that it is done properly.

It would be more efficient, I think, to do it across the board in one go because, if you are amending 100 pieces of legislation, with all of the flow-on effects through various departments, that is a big job. You want to make sure that it is done coherently and cohesively. But I would also say that it has got to be done quickly. People have waited a very long time, and they are getting pretty sick of excuses. For that reason I think there is nothing wrong with doing it piece of legislation by piece of legislation, passing this amendment now and bringing it into social security, which would be one of the areas that would have one of the biggest flow-on changes in terms of the calculations of entitlements, reconstructing of IT systems and the like. Getting started early on that one has its arguments, but the main thing is to get on with it, and I hope the minister at the table today gives some indication of what the time frame is for when people can expect to see this very important promise delivered on.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that I am not trying to close the debate, but I do want to provide a response to the issues raised by both Senator Nettle and Senator Bartlett. The first point to indicate is that the government does not support the request for an amendment and will not be voting for it. At the risk of sounding like I am practising sophistry, I want to explain why.

It is not true to say that there is no progress being made. I do acknowledge that both the Democrats and the Greens have been persistent on this. Even their worst critics could not claim that they have not been consistent and persistent on this issue. Like Senator Bartlett, I acknowledge Senator Spindler, Senator Greig and a whole range of Greens senators, culminating with Senator Nettle, who have pursued these matters vigorously in the parliament. But our approach is to honour our commitment to removing same-sex discrimination in Commonwealth laws in a number of areas, including social security benefits.

I do not think anyone can claim that the government has not been honouring its commitments. Senator Nettle may be frustrated after 100 days, but I think, to be fair, these are complex matters, and no-one has said that in the first 100 days we are going to solve all the problems of government or honour all the pledges we have made for reform. I think this is one of the most complex areas. It will require a great deal of work, and I think one can be a little bit more generous. Even Senator Bartlett has been fairly generous today. I acknowledge that; I am sure it will not last. I think to argue that somehow the government is wrong in not delivering in the first 100 days on complex, major reform of over 100 federal laws is a little bit rich.

These discrimination issues will be considered as part of a comprehensive, whole-of-government process. We are not going to do it bill by bill in the first few months of the parliament. We are not going to take a piecemeal approach. We have got to work out how to handle these issues and apply a whole-of-government approach. As you know, the social security legislation is lengthy and complex. The Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 are currently around 2,400 pages combined—not as big as the immigration act, as I am finding, but pretty big. Given this complexity, we want to get any amendments right.

We have commenced the process. It is being driven by the Attorney-General’s Department. As you know, the department has finalised an audit of Commonwealth laws that more broadly identifies provisions that discriminate against people in same-sex relationships, taking account of the HREOC Same-sex: same entitlements report tabled in parliament in June last year. The A-G’s audit found over 100 federal laws which discriminate against same-sex couples and their families. Areas of discrimination include taxation, social security, superannuation, workplace laws, privacy and education assistance. I remember dealing with these issues in Defence when I had that portfolio in opposition. This covers virtually the whole of government as an issue, and there is a great deal of complexity involved.

But I want to make it very clear, particularly to Senator Nettle, that there is no lack of resolve in the government about this issue. There is no lack of commitment, and we are at work. No-one is more committed than the Prime Minister to delivering on the election commitments he gave. He has made it very clear to each minister that they are expected to deliver on every election commitment made by the government. There is that commitment in relation to these issues. That commitment will be implemented when we are able to get it right. Work is being done. We have every intention of delivering on the promise. It is appropriate for senators to seek to hold the government accountable but, as I say, I think to expect us to have completed this work in 100 days is not reasonable.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby campaign is occurring, and that is perfectly appropriate. I think the suggestion of Senator Nettle was that we had to respond because they have a campaign running. We understand that lobby groups and pressure groups want to keep up the pressure on the government and want to be active around their issues, and that is fine. But the government is doing a very serious piece of work here. We are committed to delivering on the election commitment for reform in this area, and I can provide the Senate with the assurance that that commitment will remain.

Senator Nettle asked me to give her a timetable. The answer is that I am not going to give her that. Those sorts of decisions have not been taken as yet. We are working through the issues; we are seeing how we can implement our policy. When cabinet have been able to pull all that together and determine how we are going to proceed, an announcement will be made. But this is very serious, very complicated work across 100 federal laws. We are not going to sign up for an amendment requested by the Greens in isolation on one bill until we have done all that work and until we are clear on how we are going to proceed.

It seems to me that the sort of request for amendment that Senator Nettle is moving is pretty close to the mark. It is consistent with the HREOC report, but obviously, from what I have been told about some of the advice we have had, it will not be exactly what we will move. This, as I say, is complex, so we will be working through those issues. We will deliver on that commitment, but we will not be supporting the request for an amendment today.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In acknowledging the concerns raised by Senator Nettle and supported by Senator Bartlett on this issue, the coalition will not be supporting this request for amendment. As the chamber would be aware, when the coalition were in government this issue was discussed quite regularly in this chamber and we indicated that these issues were under consideration as part of a whole-of-government approach. Nothing has changed from that perspective for the coalition. We are considering this matter and others in a holistic manner for a whole-of-government approach. We do not believe it is wise to consider this on an individual, piecemeal or case-by-case legislative basis. That is the reason we will be opposing this request.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask another question of the minister, but I am sure Senator McLucas, the parliamentary secretary who is now at the table, will be able to assist. An article in the Australian on 1 March, when the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras was being held, said that the government was planning to announce much of the reform package in the May budget. I want to check whether that was correct because it is not a quote from the minister; it is part of the article. I want to check whether that was correctly reported in terms of giving people an idea of the sort of time frame.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nettle for the question. I understand that the reforms that are proposed do have budgetary implications so they are being considered in the context of developing the budget. The words you quoted from the Australian I am not sure are exactly indicative. I hope that answers your question: it is being considered in the context of the budget because there are budgetary implications for the reforms that are required.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be a little more explicit: is it the government’s expectation that, following a government decision, there would be legislation that would pass through the Senate prior to the changeover in the Senate? That is another way I can ask the question. There may be implications were the government to seek the support of a different Senate in July.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot give that undertaking here today. As Senator Chris Evans explained, there is a very complex and intricate set of work that is required to be done. There are a large number of pieces of legislation that have to be amended. I cannot give you an undertaking today that that will happen in the life of this current Senate, I am sorry.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.