Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate my support for the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on 23 March 1976. Its words have particular resonance in the context of this bill:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This bill and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, on which I have already spoken, are unique and historic pieces of legislation. Together they will put into effect Labor’s promise to redress inequity of rights and entitlements and of responsibilities across our community. The bill is intended to eliminate same-sex discrimination from many areas of Commonwealth government interactions with the Australian people as a whole. In fact the bill will amend 68 federal laws.

All present in this place are familiar with the Australian Human Rights Commission 2007 report Same-sex: same entitlements. The inquiry which resulted in the report found that every day at least 20,000 same-sex couples experience discrimination embedded within our system of finance, work and governance. It found that same-sex couples are not granted carer’s leave to look after a sick partner, that same-sex couples have to spend more on medical services to gain access to the Medicare and PBS safety nets than opposite-sex couples do and that tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples are denied to same-sex couples. That discrimination also exists in non-financial areas such as evidence and administrative laws. To demonstrate the financial and emotional strain same-sex couples experience just trying to support each other and their families, I quote with permission personal accounts provided to the commission:

Put simply, I want the same rights and responsibilities to form a family and support it and nurture it. I want my partner to feel as secure in her parenting role as any other parent, without the uncertainty that comes with not being on the birth certificate, not being on the same Medicare card, not being seen as a family for tax purposes, and so on.

Again I quote:

We are productive members of our society. We are both employed, so we contribute to society with our taxes. We serve the community in other ways as well. We have been together now for 19 years. Our commitment to each other is deep, genuine and ongoing. Our relationship is utterly lawful.

Just one example of unfair discrimination from the aged care system: where a member of an opposite sex couple is incapacitated and requires nursing home care, the means test for an accommodation bond excludes the family home. However, if one member of a same-sex couple requires residential nursing care then that person’s share of the family home is treated as an asset. What this means for us is that if either of us were ever incapacitated we would face the possibility of being forced to sell our home out from the other one. It is happening to other couples now.

A serving member of the Australian Defence Force made this submission:

I am continually bemused at the Federal government’s concern—

that is, the Howard government’s concern—

that giving recognition to same-sex couples is going to disintegrate the moral fabric of society. The implementation of changes in the military came with a minimum of fanfare. We are not asking for new or unusual benefits, just to be treated in equality with those in heterosexual relationships.

A doctor’s submission put it quite succinctly:

I am a first-class taxpayer but a second-class citizen …

And a same-sex couple from my own home city of Adelaide submitted:

We are an average suburban family. We are working hard and contributing to our community …

We don’t want special treatment—just what others can expect from their legal and social community. Our rights are denied simply because of who we love.

It is our intention to alleviate the injustices that emerge so clearly from these very human stories. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill provides for this by way of revision to definitions. The bill ensures that each law amended will recognise a same-sex partner and will ensure equal treatment of children, whether of opposite-sex or same-sex parents. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 will include a new definition of a de facto partnership to be used in most instances.

This bill will put an end to discriminatory treatment presently existing in Commonwealth law of people who are in the same circumstances as those who are married. So, for example, if a same-sex couple with a child or children separates, child support will be accessible in the same way as it is presently for opposite-sex couples. Marital status discrimination embodied in Commonwealth laws with regard to stepchildren, step-parents, widows and widowers will be removed. A new tracing rule to identify family relationships is also introduced by way of the bill to ensure that these relationships will be acknowledged in the same way for both same-sex and opposite-sex families.

These measures import fairness and consistency into the law. Once again, I join with so many Australians—here, in the other place and in communities both urban and regional right across our country—in expressing my sincere view that the reforms set out in this and the related superannuation bill are well overdue. As I said on an earlier occasion, these measures are not about special treatment or special rights for same-sex couples and their families. They are about equal treatment for all Australians. They are about equal access to the rights and entitlements which not all Australians yet enjoy. And they are about equal adherence to the responsibilities that accompany those rights and entitlements.

We know that the amendments as a whole are expected to be in operation by mid-2009. But, as I have also noted, every day’s delay in passing this legislation is an extra day of discrimination against same-sex couples, an extra day of discrimination that could have long-term detrimental consequences for many in same-sex relationships and for their children. Labor is committed to achieving equity in our community. I support the measures and the intention of this bill, which will lay the path for this to be achieved.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First is concerned that this bill, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008, would undermine marriage by treating other relationships as being much the same as marriage. The government says that this bill is to ‘eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and the children of same-sex relationships in a wide range of Commonwealth laws’. Ending discrimination is reasonable, but we have to make sure we are talking about discrimination rather than differentiation.

This is a major bill that would change 58 pieces of Commonwealth legislation. A number of submissions to the committee inquiry made the point that there had been no public consultation and the Senate committee had inadequate time to properly consider the full scope of the bill. Yesterday I was forwarded 15 pages of government amendments which seem designed to respond to some of the concerns around definitions of children and parents in the bill, but of course this major revision of the bill has not been presented to a committee inquiry for more thorough examination. That is not a good way to make major decisions on such an important area of policy.

Family First is opposed to two other government bills that are part of the same general package: the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. That opposition has been based on the concern that the legislation should be child focused and that marriage should not be undermined. Legislation should, as I was saying, be child focused and not adult focused. It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and a father where possible. It is vitally important to promote marriage and not reduce its status, because it is marriage where children get both a mum and a dad.

In evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry, Professor Parkinson asked a valid question: is there evidence as claimed in the bill of discrimination against children? He makes the good point:

All that this Bill will do is to define someone as a parent who is not in fact a parent. That has nothing to do with preventing discrimination against children. It is all about the adult’s claims. As so often happens, children are being used to promote adult agendas.

Marriage is the relationship which provides children with the best chance of the stable family life that they need. It is the backbone and the core of our society. This should not be reduced by any measure. Without question, marriage is the best environment in which to raise children. Family First believes that the important and overriding principle to guide us when looking at this legislation is that marriage should keep its privileged status and not be undermined. A second important principle is that relationships other than marriage relationships should be recognised as interdependent relationships rather than marriage-like relationships. Interdependent relationships could include same- and opposite-sex couples in sexual relationships, but they could also include a couple of mates or two sisters who live together, who share housework, rent and other bills and who are genuinely financially interdependent. Family First will not be supporting this bill.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to enthusiastically support the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It has been a long time coming, and I think it is fantastic that at last this federal parliament has been prepared to end discrimination against people in this community who have been vilified for so very long. Ending discrimination against gays and same-sex couples is just fantastic. We ought to go further, as my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has said, and I would hope that, when we get to the committee stage of the bill and the amendment is moved in relation to same-sex marriage, both the government and the opposition might consider supporting a conscience vote on the issue, because it is absolutely critical.

I have followed the issue of discrimination in Australia in relation to gender and sexuality for a very long time. I have to say that it is terrific that at last that discrimination is being removed from 68 Commonwealth laws so that same-sex couples can be treated equally before the law. We are eliminating discrimination, and that feels like such a good thing to be happening. This removal of discrimination will flow to other legislation, including tax, social security, health care, superannuation, migration and so on. It is a great day in Australia that we are removing this discrimination and accepting that same-sex couples should be treated equally before the law.

I want to go back to some of the history in this because this year is the 20th anniversary of a shameful episode in Tasmania’s history. In 1988, the Hobart City Council banned the gay and lesbian community stalls in Salamanca market in Tasmania on the basis that they were inappropriate in a family market. One hundred and thirty activists were arrested, and there were large-scale protest rallies demonstrating against the actions of the Hobart City Council. I am pleased to note that that is going to be put right this year when the Hobart City Council apologises to the community in Tasmania for that action 20 years ago. At last things are being put right around the country in relation to discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people.

The last 20 years have been horrendous for many people in this community. When I was a member of the House of Assembly in Tasmania, gay law reform was introduced in 1990. It was actively discouraged and opposed by all others in the parliament. We brought the legislation in time and time again and, eventually, we got it through. There was much vitriolic antigay debate. Some members of parliament in Tasmania called for the forced removal of gay, lesbian and transgender people from Tasmania and the reimposition of the death penalty for homosexuality. That is the sort of nonsense that went on for so long in Tasmania, to the point that, in 1996, under a majority Liberal government, the penalty was increased under the Criminal Code for practising homosexuality. The penalty went from a 21-year jail sentence to a 25-year jail sentence. That was as recently as 1996, I repeat for the Senate. In 1997, under a Liberal minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power, I am very pleased to say that it was my bill that ended discrimination in Tasmania. We went from having the worst laws in the Commonwealth in relation to the severity of punishment for and discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people to having the best laws.

I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work and sacrifice of the activists in this community who have worked so long to end discrimination and who will continue to work until same-sex marriage in Australia is achieved. In particular, I want to name, of course, most prominently, Rodney Croome and Nick Toonen because of the campaigns that they ran for a long time but also high-profile Justice Michael Kirby for having the courage to speak out as he has done. I quote him when he was referring, in a speech he made, to the Freedom Charter in South Africa, where the ANC introduced that Freedom Charter. One of the noted freedom fighters in South Africa said at that time:

What has happened to lesbian and gay people is the essence of apartheid—it tried to tell people who they were, how they should behave, what their rights were. The essence of democracy is that people should be free to be what they are. We want people to be and to feel free.

This is what Justice Michael Kirby said of that:

Perhaps those who have felt the pain of discrimination on the basis of their race and skin colour (which they cannot change) understand more readily than many Australians the pain and wrong-headedness of criminalising people on the grounds of their sexual orientation (which likewise they cannot change).

Fortunately, that has been changed and the Commonwealth is moving today to end the discrimination under federal law against same-sex couples and their children. It is a great day and a great step forward, but we would like to see all of the recommendations of the HREOC report carried out. As I have indicated, I hope that the government and the opposition will consider a conscience vote when the amendment is moved to support same-sex marriage.

I want to comment briefly on those who talk about a weakening of the institution of marriage. If anything, it strengthens it, because there is an aspiration by all people who want to move to demonstrate their commitment and love for each other to do it through the institution of marriage. I really fail to understand how you can deny that to people who love each other in that way. I thought that was what we were trying to encourage more of in our community, rather than more discrimination, more vilification and more hatred. I think that one of the really wonderful things about what is happening today is this: not only does it end the discrimination under the law against same-sex couples but it actually increases pressure on the general community for people to rethink the sorts of things that they say and to recognise that any sense of a notion that they might have had of an institutional legitimacy backing what was a discriminatory and cruel point of view has now gone. There is no legitimacy for discrimination of any kind and there is no legitimacy to sneer at people because of their sexuality. So I do think that this will make such a difference to the attitude, hopes and aspirations of same-sex couples and those in the gay and lesbian and transgender community generally in Australia.

I would like to finish by saying that I was at a dinner celebrating gay law reform in Tasmania many years ago, after we finally achieved it, and at that dinner Justice Michael Kirby read from a poem called Song of Hope, by Oodgeroo of the Noonuccal. Oodgeroo was talking about an end to discrimination on the basis of race. I would like to read part of that poem today because it summarises how I feel about what this parliament is doing, about what an important day it is for the Australian community to end yet another form of discrimination and about how it follows from the apology earlier this year to the stolen generation and also the seeking of permission by the Prime Minister for this parliament to meet on Aboriginal land. We are, in this first year of the Rudd government, addressing a number of areas of discrimination, which makes us all feel better as Australians and helps to lift our self-definition of ourselves and to restore something that was lost for so many years under the last federal government. I remind my colleagues in the Senate that in June 2006 we had a debate in this house concerning the Australian Capital Territory civil union legislation and at that time I said to the Howard government members:

… you do have a Senate majority … but let me tell you that, after next year’s federal election, that Senate majority will be gone, because the Australian people are desperate to rescue the Senate from the intolerance and heavy-handedness that we are seeing from this government. People do not like the abandonment of multilateralism. Don’t you think Australians are humiliated today that on the London Tube people can pick up a free newspaper and see that Prime Minister John Howard has moved to overrule the civil union legislation in the ACT? The whole of London can pick that up today and see where Australia is going as the deputy sheriff to the United States—abandoning … even the principle of fairness and equal treatment under the law.

That was in June 2006, and so it has come to pass. It was obvious at that time that Australians were starting to feel ashamed of the values that the government of the day were putting out there and demonstrating to the rest of the world—values that were not shared in the Australian community. So today we are celebrating the values which are shared in the Australian community, values based on fairness and equality under the law. That is why today is so special. So I share the excitement that will be out there in the gay and lesbian and transgender community with the passage of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008 and I look forward to supporting the rest of the package of this same-sex legislation as it comes through. I end by reading part of Song of Hope, by Oodgeroo of the Noonuccal, as read by Justice Michael Kirby at that dinner celebrating gay law reform in Tasmania back in 1997:

Look up, my people,

The dawn is breaking,

The world is waking,

To a new bright day,

When none defame us,

Nor colour shame us,

Nor sneer dismay.

Now brood no more

On the years behind you,

The hope assigned you

Shall the past replace,

…            …            …

So long we waited

Bound and frustrated,

Till hate be hated

And caste deposed;

Now light shall guide us,

And all doors open

That long were closed

See plain the promise,

Dark freedom-lover!

Night’s nearly over,

And though long the climb,

New rights will greet us,

New mateship meet us,

And joy complete us

In our new Dream Time.

To our father’s fathers

The pain, the sorrow;

To our children’s children

The glad tomorrow.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Xenophon’s speech.

Leave granted.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I support the second reading of this bill and note that my comments relate to both of the Same Sex Relationships bills currently before the Senate. These bills have generated considerable debate in the community, evoking responses from those who are in strong support and those who strongly oppose. Many opponents of these bills see the proposed measures as ‘sanctioning’ same sex relationships. Meanwhile, many supporters would argue that these bills are not about special rights, they are about equal rights.

A generation ago, the South Australian Parliament led other parliaments around Australia in repealing laws that criminalised homosexual conduct, and those laws, in turn, were part of changing a culture of homophobia and outright hostility towards homosexuals. I believe those changes to the law were an unambiguously good thing.

I am old enough to remember the terrible and tragic death of Adelaide University Law School lecturer Dr George Duncan, who died essentially as a result of being a homosexual man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He drowned as a result of a hate crime. It was a immense injustice. I still remember from my time in law school in the mid 1970s when Horst Lucke, one of our lecturers, was involved in a campaign for justice to unearth the truth of what happened to Dr George Duncan, his colleague.

It is a blemish on my state and South Australia’s justice system that the investigation into his death was deeply flawed and charges were not brought in a timely manner against the perpetrators of the incident that led to his death. That a person died because of their sexuality is the ultimate tragic result of ignorance and discrimination. However, if any good can be said to come from Mr Duncan’s death, it was that archaic laws in my state were forced to change.

Over thirty years later, these events continue to underpin my support for the end of any form of discrimination against same sex couples. Thus, I support the broad intent of these bills. To those who oppose the bill because they believe it will undermine the institution of marriage, I respectfully disagree with that proposition.

I do not believe it is inconsistent to support the institution of marriage and to also support the removal of discrimination against same sex couples. Members of Parliaments are trusted to do a lot of things. One of the most fundamental tasks that we are given is to protect our citizens. And that means protecting them from discrimination. I support the second reading of this bill.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008 introduces the second part of the Rudd government’s historic reforms to amend Commonwealth laws that discriminate on the basis of sexuality. The Senate has, of course, previously debated on second reading the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, which I will refer to as the superannuation bill. Together, these laws, and the Family Law Act de facto reforms, implement the Rudd government’s election commitment to removing same-sex discrimination, and its commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Same-sex: same entitlements report. I want to take this opportunity to thank the commission for its work on that report.

This is a significant day. This is the Rudd government implementing its election commitments, and I want to note that, over the course of Australia’s history, it has been the task of Labor governments to legislatively remove discrimination. This was previously done in relation to race and gender, and it was done some 20 years ago in adding sexual preference as an additional ground of discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission regulations. So, despite years of this issue having been discussed by the Howard government, we now have a Labor government—yet again—willing and able to put in place legislative reforms to remove discrimination. I also want to acknowledge that this is a reform that has been argued for and campaigned on by a great many members of the Australian community—in particular, members of the gay and lesbian community—who have worked very hard to achieve the equality in Australia that is being provided for in this legislation.

The bill before the chamber removes discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in 68 Commonwealth laws. These reforms are long overdue. The general approach taken in the bill is as follows: inserting a non-discriminatory definition of ‘de facto partner’ usually based on the new definition of a de facto partner which is to be inserted into the Acts Interpretation Act; recognising certain registered relationships under prescribed state and territory relationship registers; recognising children and parents in same-sex families where the child is a child within the meaning of the Family Law Act; removing marital status discrimination by expanding the meaning of ‘stepchild’ beyond its current meaning of ‘a child of a husband or wife by a former union’ to ‘a child of a de facto partner’; inserting a non-discriminatory definition of a step-parent; and inserting a tracing rule to recognise other family relationships—such as brother, aunt and grandparents—for relatives of non-biological parents.

In relation to the definition of ‘de facto partner’, the bill utilises the new definition of de facto partner which is to be included in the Acts Interpretation Act by the superannuation bill and will apply to de facto partnerships whether the parties to a relationship are of the same sex or different sexes. This definition of a de facto partner will recognise two different types of relationships. The couple will be taken to be in a de facto relationship if they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, having regard to a number of circumstances included within the definition. Registered relationships will also be recognised where that relationship is registered under prescribed state or territory laws as a prescribed kind of relationship for the purposes of the Acts Interpretation Act. The definition will, however, not apply to a number of acts such as the Social Security Act 1991, the Migration Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which currently have their own particular approach to defining who is a member of a couple or a de facto partner or a child of a person.

The government has tabled parliamentary amendments to the general law reform bill. The majority of the amendments make changes consistent with the first recommendation made in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and they reflect community input into the committee’s inquiry. I thank the committee for its work in consideration of the bill. As was noted in the debate on the superannuation bill, there were criticisms that the particular term used in relation to the expanded definition of a child would create interpretational difficulties. As a result, the amendments will build on the bipartisan support for amendments to the Family Law Act and adopt the definition of ‘child’ within the meaning of that act. This was one of the recommendations of the Senate committee.

On 18 September, the Attorney-General announced that the government would reform access to child support to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families. From 1 July 2009, parents with children from same-sex relationships will be able to seek child support from the other parent if the relationship breaks down. Presently, the non-biological parent in a same-sex couple where the couple has had a child is not liable for child support if the relationship breaks down, and this situation arises because the Child Support Scheme expressly relies on section 60H of the Family Law Act, which, until recently, did not confer parentage to the same-sex partner of a biological parent of a child born within that relationship. Recent amendments to that section mean that female same-sex couples will be recognised as the parents of children born as a result of artificial conception procedures, and these amendments will apply for child support purposes from 1 July next year. Similarly, amendments to the new section 60HB in the Family Law Act for children born under surrogacy arrangements regulated by state and territory laws will also apply for child support purposes from 1 July 2009. Government amendments will update the child support legislation to also refer to section 60HB in addition to the current reference to section 60H.

In addition to those reforms, the government amendments, which were tabled on 11 November 2008, will apply the general approach taken in the bill to the child support acts by amending provisions in the Child Support (Assessment) Act that relate to the concept of a parent so as to maintain consistency between that act and the Family Law Act as amended by the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, amending the definitions of ‘de facto relationship’ and ‘member of a couple’ in the Child Support (Assessment) Act to recognise both same- and opposite-sex de facto relationships and registered relationships within the meaning of section 22B of the Acts Interpretation Act, as we propose to amend it, and inserting a tracing rule in the Child Support (Assessment) Act and Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act.

I want to turn very briefly to some implementation issues that have been raised. The Senate committee’s report on this bill included a recommendation to develop and implement user-friendly initiatives and strategies to inform clients and staff of the proposed changes by no later than 31 March 2009, and I note that Senator Hanson-Young raised the issue today. Can I indicate to senators that relevant government agencies have been consulting with community representatives to ensure that the concerns of affected community members are carefully considered in the implementation of these reforms. Each portfolio will be responsible for the dissemination of information to its particular client groups. Each relevant department or agency is in the process, I am advised, of developing specific communication strategies in order to reach such groups.

As part of this development process an interdepartmental communications working group, comprising representatives from relevant departments, has been established. This group will consult with community representatives to identify the communication tools most effective in disseminating information to the community and to ensure that the employment of any communication strategies is done in the most appropriate and targeted manner. I understand that the working group will meet with community representatives on 14 November.

Agencies involved in this process are developing specific communications strategies to reach client groups. These include a public awareness campaign, targeted communication activities, updates to current materials, training of staff where necessary and updating of policy manuals. In addition, certain departments currently providing services will also be available to assist clients to adjust to the reforms—for example, Centrelink will provide access to its financial information service and social workers to those clients affected by the changes.

The government also has in place a process to monitor the broader implementation of the reforms to ensure effective and orderly introduction. This is being auspiced by the interdepartmental working group, which is charged with monitoring the implementation of the reforms for a period of two years. Further meetings will be held as needed.

Some community groups have requested that certain parts of the reform be delayed. The government’s view is that extension of the commencement dates beyond 1 July 2009 would not only continue discrimination against same-sex relationships in the social security laws but also affect other Commonwealth acts which interact with those laws, possibly creating inconsistencies in legislative outcomes.

In relation to some of the specific comments raised by honourable senators, I will make the following comments. It has been proposed by the Greens that the Acts Interpretation Act definition of ‘de facto partner’ should directly recognise overseas relationship registration and civil unions. Recognition of overseas civil unions as conclusive proof of a relationship does raise certain complex issues. So, whilst a same-sex couple will not be able to use an overseas relationship registration or civil union to conclusively prove the existence of the relationship, the bill provides that registration may nevertheless provide evidence which will make it easier for such a couple to prove the existence of a de facto relationship. For example, evidence of an overseas civil union may demonstrate a mutual commitment to a shared life for the purposes of proposed section 22C(2)(f) of the definition of de facto relationship in the Acts Interpretation Act. It may also be relevant to the reputation and public aspects of the relationship for the purposes of other sections of that definition in that act.

In some overseas jurisdictions there may be little distinction between a same-sex marriage and a civil union. The government retains its view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Government policy on the recognition of overseas civil unions must have regard to the requirement of the Marriage Act 1961, which reflects that recognition, and it is the case that the government is not proposing to recognise overseas same-sex unions as marriages in Australia.

The Greens have also proposed to introduce the new umbrella term ‘couple relationship’ to cover all forms of relationship: marital, registered and de facto. The introduction of such a term would require extensive amendment to legislation—much more than is currently proposed. The approach that has been taken by the government is a functional one to remove discrimination without a major legislative overhaul.

Senator Hanson-Young also asked why not all acts identified as discriminatory by the HREOC are being amended. There are a number of reasons. First, on further review some acts were found not to be discriminatory; second, some acts relied on definitions in other acts which are being amended; third, some acts were determined to have little practical effect; fourth, subsequent to identification, some acts were repealed or are intended to be repealed; finally, some acts are intended to be amended or repealed as part of other government reforms.

The Greens have also proposed an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to remove all discrimination against all forms of relationship. Any such amendment would need careful consideration, and the government will carefully consider this issue in the context of the broader review of the Sex Discrimination Act that is being undertaken by the legal and constitutional affairs committee. Alternatively, the government may consider this issue in the context of any consideration of a sexuality discrimination bill.

The government needs to ensure that any extension of the SDA to recognise a same-sex relationship does not lead to any unintended consequences. Exemptions for Commonwealth, state and territory laws would probably be necessary and, whilst the general law reform bill introduces wide-ranging reforms, there remains widespread discrimination in statutory instruments, which would need to be either exempted or reformed. The government is moving to remove same-sex discrimination in statutory instruments.

Finally, the Greens have called for a conscience vote by all senators on amending the Marriage Act. The government’s position—and, for that matter, the opposition’s position—on this issue is well known.

This bill completes the government’s package of reforms to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in a wide range of Commonwealth laws.

In conclusion, it is acknowledged by the government that recognition of same-sex relationships may lead to financial disadvantage for some. These reforms are about equality and extending the same treatment to persons in de facto partnerships, regardless of their sexual preference. How much value is to be placed on having equal recognition before the law and having the same entitlements and obligations as mixed-sex de facto relationships? Under the government’s evidence reforms, for example, which are currently before the Senate, same-sex de facto partners of people charged with offences will be able to object to being required to give evidence against their partners. The entitlement to object currently applies only to married couples and mixed-sex de facto partners.

In the event of a breakdown in the relationship, what value can be placed on having equal access, equal to that of mixed-sex relationships, to the federal family law courts on property and maintenance matters and also to the same entitlement to seek child support from the parent of the child of the relationship? As part of the reforms to the Bankruptcy Act, for example, the recovery and distribution of a bankrupt’s property depends in part on whether a person is regarded as a related entity, close relative or a family member of a bankrupt. By virtue of these amendments, a partner in a same-sex de facto relationship will be included within the definition of ‘related entity’ and ‘close relative’ under that act.

In its inquiry, the Australian Human Rights Commission discussed the importance of formal recognition of same-sex relationships. It also discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of the different recognition models. The commission did observe that there was a consensus that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights to financial and work related entitlements as opposite-sex partners.

It is the government’s view that the reforms in this bill are fair and equitable. It is the government’s view that this legislation is the right thing to do. We commend the bill to the Senate.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I have just summed up on behalf of the government. I understand that we will be moving into committee in relation to the superannuation bill and then subsequently on the general law reform bill. So there is the opportunity for Senator Joyce to make a contribution there. If Senator Joyce is intent on making a contribution now, the government will grant leave on the basis that it will be one or two minutes.

Leave granted.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to note that it is quite obvious that this bill, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008, remains very close to a conscience vote. My concern is that the outcome that could be represented in a conscience vote by those who have a more conservative view on this issue might be worse than where we could end up here.

I also want to note for the record that there is still a strong issue of concern held by people who may not be drawn, for reasons, to vote against this legislation but who are certainly not in support of it. I think that has to be brought out. The issue remains one about the institution of marriage. If, as I said, you pull down everything else but the word ‘marriage’ then you have obviously affected what a marriage is and you have obviously affected the principal part of a marriage, and that is how children are brought up. This is another move towards a diminution of the rights of the child. I know that other people see it differently, but that is something that, as a senator, I have a right to say, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of so many of my colleagues who hold very strong views on this issue as it is at this point.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Just for the sake of clarification, can I confirm that the opposition’s position is as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate earlier in the day.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of this bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.