Skip to main content

Opinion Pieces - Delay in same-sex fairness is wrong (2008)

LGBTIQ+

Click here to return to the Articles and Opinion Pieces Index

Delay in same-sex fairness is wrong

Author: Graeme Innes AM, Human Rights Commissioner

Publication:The Canberra Times, Page 19 (Fri 20 June 2008) and Gay Destination (Thurs 26 June 2008)


The Coalition’s decision to send the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – Superannuation) Bill 2008 - solely devoted to ending discrimination against same sex couples in superannuation laws - to a Senate Inquiry, is extremely misguided.

The coalition has justified this course of action by saying that they wanted to examine whether benefits applying to same-sex couples should be extended to people in interdependent relationships.

But covering interdependent relationships (such as two sisters or a parent and child who live together) in legislation about same-sex couples is, bluntly, bad policy.

When some coalition senators threatened to cross the floor on Wednesday it became clear that a significant portion of the coalition agree.

A year ago this week I launched the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report called Same-Sex: Same Entitlements. It found 58 Commonwealth laws which discriminate against same sex couples in financial and work-related areas. These include superannuation, tax, social security, Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits, as well as parental and carers’ leave.

In the same week that the report was launched, Get Up published a Galaxy opinion poll indicating that 71 % of Australians supported economic justice for same sex couples. Unlike marriage, which causes much more dispute in our society, economic justice for same-sex couples is a right most of the electorate supports.

For five months after the launch of the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report the Coalition government said that they would examine discrimination against same-sex couples on a case by case basis – but they did nothing.

In contrast, the Rudd Government, prior to their election, promised to remove the discrimination. True to their word, they announced in the budget that they would amend the 58 laws found in our report, plus another 40 laws which discriminated in other areas. In acting to remove this discrimination they have applied the principle of equality.

The first of the amending bills came before the senate this week, and the Coalition (using their numbers) delayed it again.

Let me be very clear - in doing this, they are extending the discrimination experienced by same-sex couples.

The issue of interdependency was addressed thoroughly in the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report.

Applying an interdependency test to same-sex couples instead of the de-facto test applied to opposite-sex couples automatically means that a loving same-sex couple have to prove their relationship under a different set of criteria to a loving opposite-sex couple. These criteria, as they seek to prove interdependency between two people, rather than a de-facto relationship, are much harder to satisfy.

Our report also found that the repercussions of this form of discrimination present a great level of uncertainty for the same-sex couples. After being together and caring for and relying upon one another for a significant period of time, they, unlike an equivalent opposite-sex couple, are not assured that they can provide financial security for their partner or their children if they were injured, taken ill or died. This is (a very painful form of) discrimination.

Finally, applying the test of interdependency to same-sex couples instead of the de-facto test applied to opposite-sex couples is a symbolic gesture. It says that same-sex relationships are not as valid as opposite-sex relationships.

If the Coalition really wanted to investigate payment of benefits to interdependent people, they could have passed the Bill for same-sex couples, and conducted this investigation separately.

I know that some members of the coalition support economic justice for same-sex couples, and that gay and lesbian Australians are numbered among their family and friends. But I question the real motivation of the other Coalition members.

This issue is about discrimination – painful, ongoing discrimination.

The coalition should remember that this time last year 71% of Australians wanted to give same sex couples a fair go.

Instead of prolonging the pain, they should remove the discrimination which we found, and turn that 71 % opinion into law.

Graeme Innes is the Australian Human Rights Commissioner.