Rodney Croome . gay advocate

58 in 08?

The honeymoon is over.

The new Federal Government has a commitment to removing day-to-day legal, financial and workplace discrimination against same-sex couples.

This is a long over-due reform that has occurred in all the Australian states, and at a national level in all other western countries except the United States.

Readers of this site will remember it’s also an issue that was taken up with verve by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Last year HREOC issued a report which not only strongly endorsed reform but recommended that to achieve it government should recognise same-sex de facto partners.

Having, as it does, an aversion to same-sex marriage, the Government seems keen on the de facto route to spousal entitlements.

Fine, so when will see some reform?

Sadly, that’s a question no-one seems able to answer.

Almost from day one the new Government was faced with calls for reform.

Its standard response has been, “it’s a high priority but we’re still working on the detail”.

It wants to make sure that reform captures all the obscure statutes and regulations HREOC may have missed.

This is fine in principle, but how long do we have to wait?

In the last couples of weeks advocates on particular issues have begun to highlight the urgent need for reform in some areas.

John Challis from the Commonwealth Superannuation Action Committee has noted,

“discrimination (in superannuation) adversely affects a considerable number of elderly former public servants, judges and defence personnel and is therefore urgent.”

Steve Singer from the GLBT retirement association, GRAI, goes further.

“In regard to the specific matters of the Aged Care Act, it should be noted that an aged gay/lesbian couple of limited financial means could at any time between now and the full implementation of the HREOC report have their lives destroyed if one of the couple needs admittance into assisted living and the couple's family home is deemed under current discriminatory rules to be a financial asset which then leads to very high upfront and ongoing payment for care - money that doesn't exist except by selling the family home and dispossessing the remaining party in the relationship. None of the harm can be undone later on by passing the HREOC amendments - we can be sure they won't apply retrospectively even if undoing the financial damage in any way compensates for the distress caused to a vulnerable older couple. Anyone who objects to straightforward amendments as opportunities arise should be accountable for the inevitable ongoing harm to members of the LGBT community. Perhaps we should keep a register of all affected individuals so the Government knows who to say sorry to down the track.”

Steve's reference to an apology is an important one.

What it points to is that discrimination isn't an issue to be shifted up and down political agendas. It's about real people with real needs who deserve to be treated with respect. I make the same point in this article.

Steve’s reference to “opportunities” is also important.

Despite the concerns of groups like COMSAC and GRAI, the Government has been amending relevant legislation without bothering to deal with entitlements for same-sex couples.

The laws it’s tackled so far govern social security, veterans’ pensions, aged care and taxation – all key areas of discrimination identified by HREOC.

But not once has the Government moved to implement HREOC’s recommendations, even when the legislation concerned deals directly with spousal entitlements.

If this is what the Government calls a “high priority”, I’d hate to see a low one.

Expect the minor parties in the Senate to make much of this when they come to consider the Government’s discrimination-indifferent amendments in March.

A definite timetable for reform will be one of the major items of discussion in meetings with Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, this week in Canberra.

Representatives of the Tas G&L Rights Group, the Aus Coalition for Equality and COMSAC will meet him on Tuesday and I understand the NSW GLRL meets him Thursday.

If, as the Government says, the reason for delay is purely administrative and bureaucratic, a timetable shouldn't be that hard to provide.

However, if the Government can't provide a timetable the next question will be whether 2008/09 budget submissions take in the cost of reform, especially when it comes to superannuation. The answer to this may indicate if reform will occur this year or not.

Other relationship-law-reform matters to be raised with RM include reform of parenting laws, and the status of state-recognised relationships in federal law.

As well as its commitment to de facto reform, the new Government supports “nationally-consistent, state-based registries”.

Recognised couples in Tasmania (and soon Victoria) are keen to know if their legal status at a state level will provide them with access to federal entitlements.

This is not just a matter of the FedGov respecting the choice of state-registered couples to formalise their unions.

It is also about practical benefits. The criteria for registered relationships is different to de facto relationships. If the Feds only recognise the latter, some of the former may be left out in the cold.

Return next week to discover what further commitments, if any, the Federal Government is prepared to give about entitling same-sex couples (as well as its response to other questions about gender ID and anti-bias laws, international advocacy and community consultation).

In the meantime, the NSW G&L Rights Lobby has given supporters of reform an opportunity to have their voices heard.

Use it!