Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House of what the government is doing to remove discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships, under Commonwealth superannuation laws? Attorney, are there any obstacles to these moves to remove this discrimination?

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

I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question; he has been a long-time advocate for the removal of discrimination. Three weeks ago I introduced the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill. That bill will do nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination against a group of Australians who for far too long have suffered an injustice and, moreover, will remove discrimination suffered by children brought up in those households. Many members will be disappointed to learn that today the opposition has used its numbers in the Senate to delay passage of this legislation by referring it to a committee without any end date and specifically with a provision that it will not report until subsequent legislation is introduced and considered.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could backdate it!

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

The legislation will not undermine marriage. Both sides of this House have supported legislation that confirms marriage is between a man and a woman; it is the position of both parties. Indeed, so much was acknowledged by the shadow Attorney-General when he was asked about it in a radio interview on 5 June. The question was:

Could you answer me and our listeners really, really simply, how a change in a piece of legislation regarding superannuation will in any way question or challenge or chip away at the institution of marriage?

And the reply from the shadow Attorney-General was an honest:

I don’t think it will.

One of the main reasons the opposition has referred the legislation to a committee is because of its proposal to have coverage of people in close personal relationships—the example given was of two elderly sisters living together and caring for each other. But we have made it perfectly clear our purpose is to remove discrimination as a matter of principle, and in that process there will most certainly be winners and losers. For instance, two elderly sisters on the age pension would each currently receive $546.80 per fortnight. If, as the opposition proposes, they are recognised as a couple under Commonwealth laws then each would receive $456.80 per fortnight. In other words, they would be $180 worse off per fortnight. Indeed, they would also lose $500 per year in a utilities allowance. We would certainly ask the opposition to have regard to that. They made great play earlier in the year at the prospect of carers suffering a reduction in benefits; this is most clearly something that would reduce the benefits to carers by about $180 per fortnight.

There is no question that this delay will cause hardship. It is inappropriate in these matters to be overly dramatic or emotional, but it is unquestionably the case that there is a prospect of superannuants dying before this legislation is passed and their partners or their children being deprived of the benefits of the legislation. Perhaps to avoid embarrassment, perhaps indicating some goodwill on the part of members opposite, it has been proposed that it can be backdated—indeed, I heard an interjection to that effect during my presentation. But the trouble with that is that we are talking about reversionary benefits, benefits that are paid fortnightly or monthly—in other words, sustaining the family—that are a regular income for the family. The delay would effectively deprive or create a hiatus in the income of that family unless and until that legislation is passed. It would also introduce very complex issues with respect to recovery. The law, as I understand it, is that trustees are required to make payments; they have a duty to make payments under the law as it currently stands, and in circumstances where that law was subsequently changed there are very complicated issues regarding recovery.

In short: this law will do nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination against a group of Australians and their children who have suffered an injustice for far too long. Indeed, I think that was recognised, in fairness to him, by the member for Sturt in his contribution in the debate. I would again implore those opposite to support the expeditious passage of this legislation.