Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5383:

(1)   Page 17 (after line 14), after Schedule 5, insert:

Social Security Act 1991

1  Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

de facto partner means one of two people in a de facto relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender;

             (c)    to avoid doubt, two people may still be in a de facto relationship if they are living apart from each other on a temporary basis.

2  Paragraph 4(2)(b) (definition of member of a couple)

Add at the end “and includes a de facto partner and people in a de facto relationship”.

3  Subsections 4(2), (3), (3A) and 24(2) (definition of marriage-like relationships)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship”.

4  Paragraph 5(1)(a)

After “parent” (twice occurring), insert “or adoptive de facto partner”.

5  Section 1067C

Omit “marriage-like relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “de facto relationship”.

6  Subsection 1067C(1)

After “married to” (wherever occurring), insert “or is in a de facto relationship with”.

This amendment circulated in my name deals with the same topic that the Democrats have moved many amendments on—most recently about one hour ago to the health legislation. This amendment seeks to remove the discrimination against people in same-sex relationships and match the recommendations of the HREOC report Same-sex: same entitlements, which was tabled in the parliament towards the end of June.

The Democrats have sought to address the entrenched discrimination against people in same-sex relationships via a range of mechanisms over many years—without success. But we will continue to persevere with that, particularly given the repeated and widespread statements made by many people, including many people in the coalition and the Prime Minister himself. As long ago as late 2005 he said that he did not support discrimination against people in same-sex relationships with regard to their financial entitlements. He has nonetheless not supported efforts to remove that discrimination—which is rather frustrating—except on a few occasions. Back when I was leader of the Democrats he supported efforts with regard to a component of superannuation entitlement. That was good to see although it took a while—but the rest has taken even longer.

I will not speak at length on this because the issue is well canvassed and the position that each side is taking is also well canvassed. I do note, though, that amendments to remove discrimination in this area of social security could well, and indeed would in some areas of social security, lead to a reduction in entitlements for people in same-sex relationships because they would be treated as a couple. That would mean that if they are treated as a couple then their payment eligibility would go down because the income of one partner would be taken into account in assessing the income of the other. There are people in same-sex relationships where one partner is working full time but the other partner is entitled to welfare because their partner’s income is not counted because they are not recognised as a couple. So this would be a saving for the government, quite probably.

In the nature of these things, some people, particularly in relation to family payments, might end up with greater financial entitlements. But I do not think there is much doubt that the social security area in particular is one where people in same-sex relationships may end up financially worse off if their relationship is recognised. Certainly, from all the feedback I have had from people in the gay and lesbian community and those more widely who have been campaigning for this most basic issue of equality, this is not a problem for them. They want equality, and where equality means less money that is part and parcel of it. But it is worth making the point that this does cut both ways in terms of financial costs. If there is any time when the government have no excuse not to support this, this is it because it will probably save them money. So I look forward to hearing the minister enthusiastically supporting this money-saving measure. But, more importantly, it is about equality.

We would prefer an approach that matches that of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which is for an omnibus piece of legislation that does the whole lot in one sweep. People might gain on the swings and lose on the roundabouts. It is not about money per se; it is about equality and recognition. That is still lacking and has serious and wider consequences beyond just money. We would prefer that approach, but, as I have said previously, that approach has been stymied to date. We have legislation before the Senate that implements the HREOC recommendations. The referral of the legislation to a Senate committee was refused by coalition members in this place. An ad hoc parliamentary committee of interested MPs was established to examine it in an unofficial capacity and that included members from the House of Representatives and coalition parties. For people who are interested and want to chase it up, I would note that Senator Allison tabled the report of that ad hoc committee in the Senate an hour or two ago. It is probably no great surprise that the majority of that committee recommended that the bill should be passed and that the HREOC recommendations should be supported—nor should it be a surprise, because it is clearly the right thing to do and it is a change that is long overdue; hence our determination to continue persisting with amendments such as this.