Equal rights at last
But marriage still not on the agenda
Full legal equality for same-sex de facto couples and their children has come in the Rudd Government’s first year.
Same-sex discrimination in Commonwealth superannuation, social security, veterans’ entitlements, and a range of other benefits and obligations in around 100 laws were swept away this week with bipartisan support.
The historic reforms leave marriage as the only institution or opportunity still unavailable to gay and lesbian Australians in federal law.
Most of the changes will start on 1 January 2009, except access to superannuation death benefits which can be backdated to 1 July this year if discrimination led to missed payments. Centrelink benefit changes will apply from 1 July next year.
The final passage of the equality reforms this week was welcomed by rights advocates from GetUp!, the Australian Coalition for Equality, the Victorian and NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobbies and those impacted by the previous discrimination like 80-year-old John Challis who receives a Commonwealth superannuation pension.
This is the best Christmas present my partner Arthur Cheeseman and I have ever received, Challis said. This landmark social reform, fully supported by the Opposition, establishes the Rudd Government’s credentials as a government of social reform and concern for justice and equality in Australian life. Full credit and thanks are due to [Attorney-General] Robert McClelland.
Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby spokesman Peter Johnson urged GLBT Australians to also thank the many politicians who spoke in favour of the reforms in Parliament.
Change does not happen without dedicated parliamentarians who stand up for equality and human rights. By thanking them, the GLBT community opens a dialogue on further law reform, whether that be civil unions, marriage or federal anti-discrimination protection, Johnson said.
Thirty parliamentarians from the major parties, the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon spoke in favour of the three reform bills. Family First was the only party to disagree.
Former Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch, who championed Challis’s case under the previous government, said he was drinking a glass of red to celebrate.
When I first started talking about gay rights it made a lot of people in the party room very uncomfortable, but slowly people started to talk about it too. Attitudes have changed, we’re not going back now, he said.
It took people like John Challis to come forward and let me use their names and situations to drive home that this was about civil rights.
Entsch said he and many others still in the parliament continued to have reservations about same-sex marriage and adoption.
Greens leader Bob Brown congratulated the Government for removing a great swathe of discriminatory laws against same-sex couples.
This is indeed historic legislation and the government is to be congratulated for it. It means that same-sex couples who love each other and are in a committed relationship will in the main not be denied the opportunities, including those for raising children in Australia, that all other couples who love and are committed to each other have, he said.
However, he wondered when the major parties would show leadership by removing inexcusable discrimination in Australian marriage laws, as a number of countries overseas had done, and polls showed the majority of Australians wanted.
Marriage is and always has been the hallowing and recognition by the public and by those who commit to each other of a special relationship by loving people, which is a stabilising factor in society. And if you leave people outside it then society is the lesser because of that, Senator Brown said.
It is one of those issues that will come back to this parliament until the representatives of the parliament catch up with the public aspiration of the people of Australia in 2008, which is only going to become stronger, to remove this discrimination in the years ahead.
Gay community advocates agreed with Senator Brown. Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Corey Irlam said the job of tackling discrimination would remain unfinished until there was a national law prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, and discrimination in marriage was removed.
However, Attorney-General Robert McClelland reaffirmed that same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.
Have your say: How do you feel about these reforms?
I’m with Trevor on this one.
Why should same-sex couples be singled out for ‘special’ treatement just because of their sexuality? If the need for addiitonal financial support is for medical, mental health or disabilities then they should be funded on that basis – the same as heterosexuals.
What is the basis for seeking equality if the moment you achieve it (or at least some semblance of it) you turn around and claim that you want to be treated differently because you are special?
Just because you are homosexual should not entitle you to special treatment.
To clarify last comment:
I don’t mean to say that there aren’t a range of different kinds of relationships. And the law looks at a whole lot of factors. But at the end of the day, you have to either have to come down on the side of saying “yes we’re a couple” or “no we’re not”.
To me, it’s highly disingenuous to try being on a different side of that line depending on whether it suits you or not. Is this only for legal purposes? Or do you want to do this socially as well – you’ve got a partner who you acknowledge sometimes when you want to, and don’t when you want to be single? How does the partner feel?
I don’t see how this has anything remotely to do with traditional masculinity or feminity, or indeed anything to do with marriage. Nor does it have anything to do with all the myriad examples of where homosexuals DO get treated differently and need help because of it.
You’ve completely misread what I’m saying a number of times and jumped to conclusions about what I think on all sorts of issues that you’re throwing in. Yes, gays are still discriminated against. Yes, gays have particular needs and differences. I agree with all of that.
But, you still, despite spilling a lot of ink here, haven’t said anything that convinces me the appropriate solution is to throw extra money at people with a nod and a wink that says “yes, we know you’re not really single”.
If people have extra needs because of HIV, link the assistance to HIV. If people are persecuted, do things that bring an end to homophobia. If people have mental health needs, put money into mental health. If the disability pension is too low for a couple to live on, raise the disability pension.
shayne,
The new laws amend the Acts Interpretation Act.
As to the rest of what you’ve written… I’m sorry, you’ve completely lost me. Two people are either a couple or they’re not.
shane chester – while I don’t agree with everything that you have written, I appreciate your intelligent, well structured contribution. Good stuff.
There was no ‘battle to be fought’ Trevor, until this popularist, conservative, simplistic and misguided drive for law reform agenda which ignored the cost to many, despite warnings to that effect. The aim of legal status transformation should have been to ensure liberation for everyone. It might have properly involved a fundamental renegotiation of the terms in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of ‘relationships’, as I said above. Mere equalisation of the law perpetuates an institutionalised discrimination against and a marked separatism toward same sex welfare recipients.
You forget that an awful lot of glbqti’s DON’T WANT to be married. They have argued for a queer politic that celebrates DIFFERENCE and sees the ‘gay marriage’ in all it’s intellectually vacuous versions imported uncritically from the United States, as assimilation and accord with a heterosexual hegemony. But now they have no choice, like it or not, now they have to fight to be ‘unmarried’ – a hopeless task. Then there are disadvantaged couples that need to share accommodation for all sorts of reasons and support, who will also be up the creek.
The ‘gay marriage’ camp hijacked the campaign for our human rights when surely our existence as human beings should have been enough to entitle us to human rights. The argument that homosexuals are ‘just the same’ as heterosexuals is profoundly dishonest because there are differences between straights and queers. While some lesbians and gay men mindlessly ape heterosexual values, queer relationships, aesthetics, and lifestyles are unique, we transgress the boundaries of traditional masculinity and femininity. The right to be different is also a fundamental human right. I believe we should have transcended heterosexual mores, we don’t need a marriage certificate to validate ourselves or our partnerships.
In an intrinsically homophobic culture where an Olympic record breaker can’t get one dollar of sponsorship because he’s out, and our media doesn’t carry one out role model because that would end their career, and gay men still get their head kicked in just for holding their partner’s hand in public…I think this “why should gays get any special treatment’ attitude is really pretty piss poor.
I couldnt agree with you more Trevor, with your above comment!!
shayne…
you’re really not listening to me, are you?
Take the hint that I’ve given several times, and fight the right battle.
Trevor, it always amazes me that those that are secure and comfortable begrudge the measly allowance that those forced to live on welfare receive; that those sitting at the banquet table are fussed about the few scraps the starving might receive; that so many gay men could even ask, ‘why should gays get any advantage?’.
Will Centrelink detect the fakes who live separately but are financially supported by well-off partners, eg; real-life case of disability claimant living in jointly owned house and driving fully paid-for up2date vehicle bought by lomg-term partner plus tens of thousands extra cash per year, who pops in now and then?? Or, will Centrelink be crushing down on the desparate hiv partners just co-habiting to try and survive?
sorry try this link instead for DSS guidelines to staff on determining a marriage like relationship.
http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-2/ssguide-2.2/ssguide-2.2.5/ssguide-2.2.5.10.html
shayne I cannot express my gratitude to you for pointing out that affirmative action is a notion that has so long been used and so readily employed in so many areas of life and social policy, but when it comes to gays we are accused of wanting ‘special treatment’. Give me a break, oh hi have some shock treatment, lobotomy, persecution, blackmail, bribery, a life in hiding and discrimination…..wait until you are 70 and then feel happy that now it’s time to be ‘married like’ – the most sexist, patriarchial archaic notion there is. Any social policy researcher worth their salt knows that is an old heterosexist way of looking at relationships and social safety nets.
All pensioners are suffering, anyone who pretends otherwise lives under a rock.
We should have brought everyone for the ride on the big wave of change, instead we left a mass of people floundering in deep water. Now we look back and say ‘you want what!’. Shameful.
https://starobserver.com.au/news/2008/11/27/equal-rights-at-last/2902#comments
look at that link to see how to be ‘marriage like’ or not and note it is up to ONE centrelink officer to judge.
Note the bit on sexual relationship.
The Senior newspaper is printing two items on this and want photos of older gays who give a stuff – any takers?
this is an unfair trade off,what have we really gained, a half hearted and begruding recognition of our relationships but not a legal entiltlement to the equivilant recognition of marriage,the federal government under the guise of equality is able to condem even more of the disadvantage in society to the povety trap,I work 46 hours a week to support myself and my lover of 21 years,I have have had Hiv for most of my adult life,my lover who is hiv negative has a severe form of motor neuron disease and is on the disabilirty pension ,the net result of your so called equality is that our lives will become even more difficult finacially as will those of other people with health problems,your bloody ideological driven crap has just made life for the most vulnerable a whole lot harder
shayne,
No, I wouldn’t say any such thing. But you have to consider carefully what the disadvantage is, and how you are addressing it.
I have no problem with a subsidy available to HIV sufferers, if it’s given to them because the cost of HIV treatment puts them in a worse financial situation.
I would, however, have a serious problem with a benefit given to homosexual HIV patients that is not given to heterosexual HIV patients. Unless you can show that being homosexual, in and of itself, somehow puts people at a financial disadvantage compared to a heterosexual person in the same situation, then I don’t see how sexuality is a good basis for positive discrimination in this context.
Positive discrimination is a tool for achieving real equality when formal equality doesn’t do the job. You have yet to say anything that persuades me that the extra benefits a homosexual person gets in some situations by being regarded as single, when they’re not in fact, are somehow compensating them for an additional need they have over and above a heterosexual person. How is the homosexual cost of living any higher than the heterosexual cost?
If homosexual couples are worried about how to cope with their loss of benefits, they really should get together with heterosexual couples in similar situations who already face living on the lower rate and find out how they cope. If the answer is that the heterosexual couples struggle and live below the poverty line, that is a reason to raise the rate for everyone – not a reason to perpetuate unequal treatment.
Gary Hayworth, marriage was good enough for both my non-religious parents, and good enough for a number of my closest non religious friends who’s values I share. Thousands of non-religious gay couples have married in countries overseas. Clearly marriage is something which is important to a lot of GLBT people.
If you don’t want to get married why not do what many heterosexuals who don’t believe in marriage do now and simply stay defacto and have a commitment ceremony?
Trevor and Danny. So you’d say that Affimative Action is misandry (prejudiced against men) or racist etc? Or that the advantages that Kooris get like Abstudy, the Aboriginal Legal Service etc etc are discriminatory? Or that the Special Assistance subsidy only available to HIV+ tenants is the same? Discrimination is the quality of finely distinguishing. Despite the fervour for “gay marriage” I do believe our relationships are different from a number of points of view. There was a good case for the relationships of same sex couples on welfare to be considered seperately to those of heterosexuals – it was even mooted in a Senate speech by the Greens at one stage. But it’s all academic now, I guess. However I do worry that many will not survive the loss of their benefits. Their only option is to try and get “unmarried,” to separate or disguise their relationships, abrogate any joint ventures or interests and be very careful who they tell their business to, including acon and BGF.
Sadly, I think in regards to equality, if we didn’t have it the same as straight couples in regards to Centrelink payments, then it would seem the gov. were playing favourites with gay & lesbian couples and would come up against roadblocks, some which could topple the reforms in their entirety.
Many of our vocal opponents already view gays as being cashed-up selfish yuppies – sometimes the stereotype IS true, too – and it would be impossible I think for the government to push all the other great changes through if they wouldn’t “give us equality” on the C’link front too…
Its a step forward. Well Done.
Shayne,
Positive discrimination is justified at times, yes. However, you first need to identify what the source of the discrimination is.
If the issue is couples where both people are on welfare or relying on the disability pension, make that the issue. Not the gender of each member of the couple.
Hi Trevor,
My point is that justified discrimination is needed in some situations to bring about equality for all. I do not subscribe to this notion that we can or should assimilate with the hetero paradigm (I don’t even get the need that so many gays have to be married like Kevs and Kylenes from Camden, but each to their own,) and that there must be one rule for all. Equality needs to be delivered with justice if it is to be a reality for some in our society; (or as Aristotle put it, “There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals”.)
Disadvantaged people need some positive discrimination if they are to become equal within society. A positive discrimination is needed that favours unequally some people to make all more equal. For example, the special considerations that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders rightly receive. Affirmative action for women etc., in the workplace, is another. They’re examples of positive discrimination.
An example of the opposite, and parallel to this notion that all welfare couples must be treated the same, is the GST, which is a tax in which the rich pay the same rate as the poor. I’m sure you can see the social injustice in the principle that all people regardless of wealth should pay equal amounts of tax.
And no, I don’t think HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (but sophist argument might be). Though I’m sure we could find some figures that show the majority of those HIV+ on welfare are gay. And remember a third of them live below the poverty line. And now we want to take away the few crumbs of social security (about half their income) that they receive.
I think it’s terribly sad that we have become a culture that fosters a polarisation marked by extreme misfortune and poverty on the one hand, and great advantage on the other. A hundred bucks is brunch money for some of us, for others, it’s a week’s food. I would have hoped that at this historic time of equity reform, we could have related to each other in a manner that affords dignity, inclusiveness, respect and due process for the common good of all.
about time a masive step forward im puzzled why it took so long arent we in a democracy,my partner and i celebrated when we heard the news,we dont care about the marrage crap,a civil union would be just fine.If religious froot loops want to have marrage sacred to them LET THEM HAVE IT,,im sure the gay and lesbian community can come up with something more fun and positive and something that is ours excellent be happy every one
Shane, you said:
“The answer is that acts of positive discrimination are allowed for under anti-discrimination laws, based on the premise that justified discrimination is needed in some situations for disadvantaged people to have the opportunity to become equal within society.”
Except the only way that the ‘discrimination’ you’re talking about is discrimination on the basis of sexuality, is if you think that HIV/AIDS is a ‘gay disease’. Please don’t tell me you think that.
Otherwise, the disadvantaged people you describe should be treated in the same way as straight people in the same situation. And if they need to be treated better… they ALL need to be treated better, not just the gay ones.
A HUGE step forward for Lesbians and Gays. I too had worried Rudd would not deliver on the commitment to implement the Humar Rights Report. But he did! What a great day for our community!!
It is somewhat disingenuous to be hailing this legislation as giving us equal rights. While I do commend Mr. Rudd for his government’s action over the inaction of previous governments, the fact is, this is not ‘equal rights’.
The only way that will happen is if the LGBTIQ population are treated the same way as the rest, the mainstream, if you will. The best way to achieve that is throught legislation and social changes. Until same-sex marriage is given to us, or marriage as an institution is abolished, we will not be equal.
At least we know that Mr. Rudd’s religious views are apparently more important to Australia than the rights of gay and lesbians around the country.
Thank you Mr Rudd.
“why should two gays in a relationship get special treatment”?
‘The answer is that acts of positive discrimination are allowed for under anti-discrimination laws, based on the premise that justified discrimination is needed in some situations for disadvantaged people to have the opportunity to become equal within society.’
The price of equality will be to disadvantage partners in a relationship and their Centrelink payments. It might have been otherwise.
“Centrelink can keep your records confidential when you disclose.”
Centrelink will take about $100 a week from those who are already struggling to put bread on the table, or afford their medications and so on, when they disclose their status. Maree O’Halloran from the National Welfare Rights network says, “We’re asking Centrelink to pay special consideration to the very vulnerable people.”
Michael Raper, President on the National Welfare Rights Network said, -œWe are representing a record number of clients in appeals against decisions to cancel or reduce their payments because of an alleged marriage-like relationship…The increased number of cases involving older people and carers who share rent and provide companionship and support, is extremely alarming.
“there are plenty of special needs straight couples with HIV too- ..”
Yes, and they qualify for a special rental subsidy from the DoH only available to the HIV+.
“When slavery was abolished in the U.S., many blacks said they preferred to remain slaves as it was what they were used to.”
I can’t think of anything more enslaving than the extreme poverty that many of our elderly, HIV+, and etc., will face next year.
Rich gays, poor gays, working gays, welfare gays, clubbing gays, stay at home gays, druggie gays, sober gays, single gays, relationship gays… we are all as diverse a community as straights. Once other equality measures are passed, then why should two gays in a relationship get special treatment & get more welfare money than what a poor straight couple have to cope on?
Centrelink can keep your records confidential when you disclose. Not disclosing is where you will run into problems if “dobbed in”, which many straights have to live with the same fear, it’s all part of being on welfare.
Then we have HIV… there are plenty of special needs straight couples with HIV too- why should they get less money than gay couples?
The changes are phased in… it’s a whole new world – a level playing field we’ve never had before. The fact it has happened virtualy overnight is going to take time to get our heads around.. remember that when slavery was abolished in the U.S., many blacks said they preferred to remain slaves as it was what they were used to.
I think it’s obvious that those in our community who are reliant on welfare assistance are fairly stigmatised. The negative impact on them as most same-sex couples benefit from the recent reforms is an issue I raised years ago when ‘gay marriage’ first began to arouse excitement. Naturally, there was little interest in those who will lose out. The response was “why should glbqti couples have any special advantage?” The answer is that acts of positive discrimination are allowed for under anti-discrimination laws, based on the premise that justified discrimination is needed in some situations for disadvantaged people to have the opportunity to become equal within society. We should have been lobbying for the implementation of new terms in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). such as -˜couple relationship,’ de facto relationships and registered relationships etc., in order to spare those on welfare the loss of their income. In other words, a caveat that recognises different levels of relationships. No one was interested, in the rush to the bridal registry. No one is interested now.
Acon responded that “they had little to do with Centrelink” but suggested there be “a period of adjustment,” presumably to give welfare couples time to break up.
Senator Ludwig, Minister for Human Services, suggested that such couples caught up in the welfare nightmare “might require some independent advocacy support.” And good luck with that.
I also assume that the huge 550% increase in new clients accessing BGF’s vocational guidance service since they and acon took over the Luncheon Club reflects their relationship with Centrelink.
1 in three PLWHA are still living in poverty, and the loss of their welfare benefit will be a disaster for them.
Centrelink is not looking at all the factors that indicate that no relationship exists, it makes judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and prejudicial attitudes. The reasons that many of the disadvantaged share accommodation include considerations such as physical security, isolation etc., and the high costs of renting alone. They are more important considerations than -œgay marriage. Centrelink will look at where they live and who they live with, their financial arrangements, who they socialise with, any sexual relationships they have, how their friends and family see their etc. Centrelink can also find out this information by contacting neighbours, the DoH, estate agents, energy suppliers, council, or any person they think that can provide them with details of a relationship including BGF and acon. They will rely heavily on you being ‘dobbed in’ by callers to their new hotline.
So, here’s some free advice for glbqti couples where one or both are on benefits. Do not register your relationship. You cannot afford the luxury of same-sex partner recognition that the rest of the community does, obviously a person will automatically be considered to be the de facto partner of another person if they are in a -˜registered relationship.’
While I am not affected by these changes personally, I like to think that ‘community’ means that we look after each other, particularly our most vulnerable, not whether you wear Zanerobe and hang out at Stonewall. After all, there but for the grace of some higher power, perhaps, might go any one of us.
Marriage is not the only area of discrimination remaining at the commonwealth level of government.
The exemptions and omssions from the federal anti-discrimination act also need to be remedied.
Many thanks to the Rudd Labor Government for fulfilling their election promise to us in full
And many thanks for addressing this so early within your new term of government, as if you had addressed it later on, it may have been swamped by the current financial crisis (and been put on the back burner).
I had previously lost faith in politicians but the Rudd Labor Government this year has renewed my hope in politicians
You in the Rudd Labor Government are truly heroes for ploughing through and getting these bills through – even though the going got tough at times
Thanks for your late nights and all the energy you spent on this – thank you for the time you sacrificed away from your loved ones and family for us
Thank you sincerely and whole heartedly
I supported neither party before the election (although I leaned to the left), but now I am fully and truly behind Labor as they have fulfilled their election promise 100% and in full
This is amazing
I can’t believe the day has come
I was a bit skeptical whether they would keep it but they have truly shone through
You are truly the best
You can truly sleep straight at night knowing that you have made this country a more equal one
You have truly made a difference to our society and the cohesive fabric of our community
No doubt these reforms will help the budget. Sexuality discrimination and family law act recognition of same-sex parented families need to be next (regardless of cost) to show the government is serious about equality before the law.