Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister inform the Senate what the Rudd government is doing to remove discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships under Commonwealth superannuation laws and if there are any obstacles?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important question and I thank Senator Lundy for raising it in the Senate. The Attorney-General has outlined the government’s plan to remove discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships from acts governing Commonwealth superannuation schemes. The reforms would ensure that same-sex couples are no longer denied the payment of death benefits from superannuation schemes or the tax concessions on death benefits currently made available to opposite-sex couples. These reforms honour an election commitment of the Rudd government. These reforms are long overdue. The reforms will remove the discrimination and replace it with decency and fairness. The policy will make a practical difference to the lives of a group of our fellow Australians who have suffered discrimination for far too long.

Unfortunately, senators will be disappointed in this house to hear that the coalition are delaying this long-overdue reform. Not only are they referring it to a Senate committee—they did that this morning—but they have refused even to give the committee a reporting date. Instead, the Liberals, on the other side, have moved a motion, and had it carried, preventing the committee from reporting until it has also reported on other legislation that is yet to be introduced.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. The records of the Senate will show that the minister is clearly misleading the Senate. Specifically he is trying to reflect on a vote in the Senate which in fact is not a reflection on a vote because we did set a date in relation to the inquiry.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak to the point of order. There is no point of order. In fact—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will decide whether there is a point of order.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask you to rule that way, then. What Senator Abetz has in fact said, if you listened carefully, and I am sure we all did, was that he was raising a reflection in respect of a vote in the Senate. But he ultimately denied that it was a reflection on the vote in the Senate, before he resumed his seat. The point that I make is that it is quite factual for me to say that what has occurred in this house, what the vote was in respect of that—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are starting to debate it, Senator Ludwig. What is your point of order?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, Senator Ludwig, it is my decision to decide whether there is a point of order or not. You suggested, Senator Abetz, that the senator was misleading the chamber. I do not know why you accused him of misleading the chamber, but I do not believe there is a point of order, because Senator Ludwig is not reflecting on a vote of the chamber; he is using the opportunity of answering a question to explain his government’s position. I ask you to continue with your answer, Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Make no mistake about what this delay will mean: by delaying these reforms, the Liberals are prolonging the hardship suffered by a group of our fellow Australians. Children and other dependants of superannuation schemes and members who die before the reforms are passed will miss out on these benefits.

Let us look at what the coalition, the Liberals, are saying. What these issues show is that the actions of the Liberals are not about the policy at all. The referral is just a cover; the Liberals are in fact split on the issue. You would think, surely, that these practical reforms to remove discrimination—they are simple, practical reforms to remove discrimination—would enjoy the support of the opposition. We have seen Dr Nelson flip, flop, stonewall and delay these important reforms. We should ask Dr Nelson—but he is not in this chamber—what he told Glenn Milne after taking the Liberal leadership. It is insightful. As we read in the Australian on Monday, Dr Nelson confided that he believed in these reforms. He said that the reforms were well overdue. Well, they are well overdue. They should start from 1 July. He was right. In fact, 12 years of neglect and inaction under a Liberal government have made these overdue. These reforms do need to start from 1 July. It is an embarrassment for the opposition to find themselves split on this issue; they cannot fix a simple superannuation issue. So why has the opposition leader apparently changed his mind? Well, of course, Dr Nelson has not changed his mind. I know there are senators opposite who do agree with the government and who actually support these reforms and want the reforms to operate from 1 July. (Time expired)