Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. The conviction and the force with which the member for Sturt came into this House this afternoon indicates to me the genuineness with which he believes this. But it must have been difficult for 11½ years to sit in a government—a ministry—in which he did nothing. The ‘march to reform’ he referred to was really a screaming halt, characterised by inertia and procrastination. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Liberal Party yields to no-one with respect to these matters. Where were they for 11½ years? The best and most charitable thing I can say about them is that they are inconsistent in their position now. They talk about delays and blame the Labor Attorney-General. Where were they for 11½ years on this, and other issues such as family law reform in terms of the rights for same-sex couples to bring proceedings for property settlement in the Family Court. They opposed it. They opposed reform in that area and they opposed reform in this area simply by doing nothing—there was idleness, indolence and nothingness. To feign concern now, and to delay this, simply says everything about their attitude.

I am sure there are people in the opposition who genuinely support this, but there are others who do not. I wish the opposition leader had made the same speech as the member for Sturt, because I would have thought more highly of him. I think that the member for Sturt made a great speech and a great contribution. Unfortunately, it is not believed by the rest of his colleagues, and this amendment is simply a compromise to cover the cracks between the conservatives and those few remaining ‘small l’ liberals opposite. That is exactly what it is about. This response is about a division in the opposition, nothing more and nothing less. And the delay tactics mean that economic justice to same-sex couples will be delayed, because we know that that Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will not report until September. What they are about is delay. That is what it is about, nothing more and nothing less—papering over the problems in the opposition, procrastination and the extension of discrimination. That is what it is about. It is interesting because the opposition leader said on the Insiders program on 2 December 2007:

... I believe very strongly that the economic and social injustices faced by homosexual people across this country need to be addressed, from taxation to social policy issue.

Where was the bill? Where was the opposition bill when they were in government? Where was the private member’s bill by the member for Kooyong? Where was the member for Sturt’s bill in relation to this particular matter? It was nowhere to be seen. Why? Because the previous Prime Minister opposed it and they knew they did not have the numbers. That is exactly what it is about.

There is no need for an affirmation of the centrality of the institution of marriage to Australian society, because there is bipartisan agreement in relation to the Marriage Act. It is also recorded in the old 19th-century definition of the whole common-law case of Hyde v Hyde from the UK in relation to marriage. It is in the Family Law Act and it is in the Marriage Act. There is no need for this. And to say that somehow it is somehow necessary to look at these interdependence relationships in this context is simply a way to fudge the issue and to put off resolution of an issue which has been going on for year after year. That is all that it is about. It is exactly what it is about.

This bill will help tens of thousands of Australians and their children. It is a clear demonstration of the Rudd government’s commitment to equality before the law, to the notion of non-discrimination and to the principle that the best interest of children is the paramount consideration in all legislation which affects their rights. This bill ends discrimination in laws in relation to superannuation and taxation which deprive some Australian adults and their children of the same rights to financial and other entitlements that other Australian adults and their children enjoy. The 2001 Australian census suggests that there are about 20,000 same-sex couples living together in domestic arrangements in the one house. Of those 20,000 couples, about 20 per cent are lesbian couples and about five per cent are gay male couples with children. I think that is conservative. Like many in this House, I have gay and lesbian friends and relatives. I think it is fundamentally wrong and indecent that they are deprived of the same rights to pensions, superannuation and taxation benefits as I have. It is wrong. It is simply wrong. Why should people who live in relationships of intimacy, love and commitment be denied the same pecuniary rights as others? It is an indictment of the previous Howard government that this discrimination went on for so long.

The Rudd government is committed to ending this practice and is equally committed to treating all Australians equally when it comes to work related benefits and superannuation. This is the first stage in our plan to ensure legal treatment of same-sex couples, particularly in terms of evidence, administrative law and other areas. It is the government’s response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report which was tabled in this House on 21 June 2007. Where was the legislation by those opposite after that? It did not happen. A total of 58 federal laws were identified as discriminatory by the commission, but our audit said that it is a hundred federal laws or even more.

This bill ends discrimination against same-sex couples and their children. There is a whole raft of legislation that has been dealt with. I am not going to go through and list those off, because the member for Port Adelaide and those opposite who made contributions have mentioned them. Presently, the same-sex partner of a beneficiary of a Commonwealth superannuation scheme which is a defined benefits scheme is not entitled to what are known as reversionary death benefits on the beneficiary’s passing. In my practice as a family lawyer before I came to this House, I had many gay and lesbian clients. I knew the discrimination that I dealt with every day in terms of the challenges they faced and how they were dealt with differently. This bill deals with death benefits, which will help them where there is no current entitlement. I am sure there are many clients of mine from my old law practice who will be very pleased with this legislation.

I am not troubled by this change of reference from ‘marital relationship’ to ‘couple relationship’. I am not sure that anyone should be fazed about it. I am certainly not troubled by it. I have been married for a long time and it does not worry me if someone is defined as being in a couple relationship. It does not make my marriage to my wife Carolyn any less valid, or anyone else’s relationship any less valid or important. This change is important for children as well, because they will inherit the benefit. They will get the benefit they deserve. Interestingly and appropriately, the new definitions overcome difficulties arising from surrogacy issues where even children of a heterosexual relationship may presently fail definitional requirements in these acts.

These reforms also dovetail with the position adopted at the national conference of the Australian Labor Party, a position I supported as a conference delegate from Queensland and I am now pleased to support as the member for Blair. The national conference of the Australian Labor Party adopted the position of supporting a consistent national approach to the issue of people’s relationships being registered under state or territory law based on the Tasmanian and the Victorian model. I supported it at the national conference in Sydney. I support it now.

This bill overcomes the challenges that were left by the Howard government. It is a fair and humane bill. It ends disadvantage. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with gay adoption, gay IVF or civil unions. It ends disadvantage and it is consistent with Labor’s long-held belief in equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The bill is long overdue. It will help surviving partners and the children of the deceased with financial security. It is hard enough to cope with the loss of a loved one—a lover, a friend, a mother or a father—hard enough to handle the bereavement, without being able to be sure about the inheritance or financial support you might have been expecting.

This bill is not about undermining the traditional commitment of marriage contained in the Marriage Act. It is a position which the Rudd government supports. I know that in my electorate there are many with religious faith and many without such convictions who would support this bill. As a Christian I have no problem whatsoever supporting this bill. I do not believe it is appropriate to discriminate against people and I do not believe that it in any way interferes with my religious faith or convictions. And I do not think that the God that I worship at my church is in the least bit offended by the fact of this legislation. I do not believe that God shows any partiality when it comes to these matters. I do not believe that this bill in any way derogates the traditional institution of marriage, and I believe it is a discredit to the Howard Government that they failed to produce legislation like this.

I urge the opposition, who did nothing about this for 11½ years, to consider the children and adults who may survive parents or partners who will die in the next few months. I implore them to support this bill. I ask them to reconsider their position, because I think it is important that in this parliament we show where we stand on the issues of nondiscrimination, equality before the law and financial security for all Australians.

See this speech in context