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

I listened very carefully to Senator Bartlett’s speech on this issue. He has done his homework. I will not speak for those on the other side, but I have used arguments in the past about not agreeing to piecemeal legislation. I have also used the argument that it is outside the terms of the committee’s inquiry. Yes, those are arguments I have put in respect of not only this type of amendment but others of the same order, although not on the same topic. In other words, generally we do not agree with piecemeal amendments and we reserve our position for those areas where amendments put forward fall outside the terms of the committee’s recommendations or the committee’s examination of the bill itself, or where amendments fall outside the bill’s intention—in other words, the object of the bill.

In this instance, Senator Bartlett, you have managed to find an argument that does deserve support. The argument is that this is a new act and redrafting all of those provisions will put it in a logical, sensible position. Therefore, the argument that you raise does find favour with the Labor Party. It is right to argue for it in this instance. It is an argument where you have been able to clearly differentiate between a piecemeal approach and one that creates a coherent whole.

This legislation does require an amendment such as this dealing with same-sex partners. I make the point, perhaps a minor one, that the way you have used the definition section is a little inelegant. For example, if same-sex partners were included in the definition section of the act under a definition of ‘de facto partner’, those same-sex partners would be required to meet a similar standard of proof as heterosexual de facto partners. The only criticism I make is that it could have been better drafted. I understand the intent behind it and I understand the principle you enunciated.

I recognise that it is also time for this government to move on. Senator Bartlett is right: Senator Brandis did provide a very eloquent speech on these issues. I was actually persuaded that he might be changing his view, or the government’s view at least, on this issue. We were subsequently disappointed and I suspect we will be disappointed again. I cannot see the government picking it up. I think they should; I think it is an appropriate amendment to pick up. They should have included it in the original legislation, and I will be interested to hear why the government will not deal with this issue now. I could be surprised, as I suspect Senator Bartlett was surprised—although I hope he was not too surprised—by Labor’s decision to adopt the amendment. It was well argued and it is sensible. The government should agree to it as well, although I recognise that this government is stuck in the past and they will not.