Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Democrat amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 2, insert:

2A  Paragraph 10AA(7) (definition of spouse)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

spouse,in relation to a person, includes:

             (a)    a person who is legally married to, and is not living, on a permanent basis, separately and apart from, that person; and

             (b)    another person, who although not legally married to the person, lives with the person on a bona fide domestic basis as the husband or wife of the person; and

             (c)    a person in an interdependency relationship as defined in section 10AAA.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 2, insert:

2B  After section 10AA

Insert:

10AAA  Interdependency relationship

        (1)    Two persons (whether or not related by family) have an interdependency relationship under this section if:

             (a)    they have a close personal relationship; and

             (b)    they live together; and

             (c)    one or each of them provides the other with financial support; and

             (d)    one or each of them provides the other with domestic support and personal care.

        (2)    In addition, 2 persons (whether or not related by family) also have an interdependency relationshipunder this section if:

             (a)    they have a close personal relationship; and

             (b)    they do not satisfy one or more of the requirements of an interdependency relationship mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (d); and

             (c)    the reason they do not satisfy those requirements is that either or both of them suffer from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability.

        (3)    The regulations may specify:

             (a)    matters that are, or are not, to be taken into account in determining under subsection (1) or (2) whether 2 persons have an interdependency relationship under this section; and

             (b)    circumstances in which 2 persons have, or do not have, an interdependency relationshipunder this section.

These amendments deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise, which was made some time ago now—I think it was early last year—that he would remove financial discrimination against same-sex couples and other relationships that are interdependent. These amendments give effect to that promise in respect of the safety net which applies to Medicare. I know that this is somewhat outside the thrust of the legislation we are dealing with today but it does still apply to diagnostic imaging accreditation in the sense that diagnosis and the costs of diagnosis are captured by the Medicare safety net. The effect of these amendments would be to remove the financial discrimination that the Prime Minister said was abhorrent and to do so, as I said, for Medicare.

It would affect those in a relationship who were not previously known to be in the category of ‘partners who are legally married’. It would apply not just to those people in a same-sex relationship but also to those people who are in a relationship which is close and which is physical, in that they live together, where there is financial support provided from one to the other and where there is also a sharing of domestic support and personal care. This applies to siblings who may live together in such a relationship, to an aunt and a niece or to anyone who is not closely related but who chooses to cohabit and to have a relationship which is interdependent. There is no good argument for discrimination against such people. The same costs, the same encouragement and the same incentives should apply to those people who have such relationships and to those who are legally married—a man and his wife.

I urge the minister to accept these amendments on behalf of the government and to vote with the Democrats’ amendments, which honour the promise of the Prime Minister. If the government does not support the amendments, I would very much value advice from the minister dealing with this legislation as to when we can expect this to be the case. This was, as I understand it, an honest, sincerely made promise by the Prime Minister and now this chamber is looking for delivery. This is a perfect opportunity to do that. This is a straightforward amendment. I think everybody can understand it. The definition of ‘interdependent relationships’ was adopted for superannuation. The so-called ‘choice’ legislation introduced this concept of interdependency for those in the private sector, so it is not new and it should not be a foreign concept to the government. Again I say: the Prime Minister promised this. When will he deliver? Will it be now? I encourage that to be the case.