Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Our challenge is to sincerely ask ourselves: ‘How would I feel if that were me? How would I feel if I had a son, a daughter, a brother or a sister in these arrangements?’ It is not desirable to be overly emotive about these matters, but it is appropriate to ask: what is the situation of a person who is potentially the beneficiary of a reversionary benefit in circumstances where the superannuant dies before this legislation is passed?

I note that there is a suggestion for backdating. But the problem is that when you are talking about reversionary benefits you are usually talking about a fortnightly or monthly contribution; that is, a contribution that is in lieu of income and sustains the person. If there is a gap—particularly a substantial gap—there are complications as to how that individual is to sustain themselves and their family until the legislation is passed. There are complications. I appreciate the numbers in the Senate, but I would implore those opposite to prevail upon their senators to conduct their inquiry as expeditiously as possible.

The Rudd Labor government recognises the important and tireless contribution of carers to the community. However, the issue of whether to recognise interdependent relationships such as a caring relationship is complex, as I have indicated by the examples I gave. Indeed, it is no secret, although it was not the intention of the government in removing discrimination, that there will at the end of the day be a saving to budget as a result of removing discrimination. This is because many persons who are currently entitled to greater benefits as individuals will end up having their benefits determined on a collective basis; in other words, effectively as couples. In that sense, the proof of the pie is in the eating. In the specific example that I have given in respect of the aged couple, that will necessarily be the case.

In other words, careful consideration should be given to these complex issues to do with recognising interdependent relationships, particularly caring relationships, in Commonwealth legislation. Indeed, how to best recognise caring relationships is being considered by an inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth. However, this is a separate issue to removing discrimination against same-sex couples and should not hold up the implementation of these important reforms.

As the introduction of the bill highlights, the government believes that people are entitled to respect, dignity and the opportunity to participate in society and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexuality. The government is committed to removing discrimination against same-sex couples and their children. This bill will implement the first part of this commitment by removing same-sex discrimination from Commonwealth superannuation laws. Put simply, the same-sex partner or a child of a same-sex relationship today does not have an equal right to receive important superannuation benefits, literally to sustain them. Those rights will be provided by the passage of this bill. This approach imports a new standard of fairness and consistency into the law in this area and ensures that same-sex families are treated with fairness and equity.

Some opposition members want to have it both ways, with respect. They want to have same-sex relationships not equated to a married relationship but also want to support the removal of discrimination against same-sex couples. With respect to those opposite—and I appreciate their good intent—they cannot have it both ways. Removing discrimination simply means that same-sex relationships are treated equally to de facto opposite-sex couples. The reforms in this bill will recognise real family situations, and this is the only way to remove discrimination against same-sex families and their children. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context