At the end of June the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity equip entitled “Same Sex: Same Entitlements.” It provided two simple recommendations on how to remove the discrimination which currently exists at a national aim including detailing 58 different federal laws which discriminate against same-sex couples in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.
Along with my fellow Democrat Senators. I introduced a account into the Senate following the release of the report to decree its recommendations. It is a simple process of changing the definition of de facto furnish to consider populate in a same sex relationship as well as those who are in a de facto relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
It is normal practice for any piece of legislation to be referred to a Senate Committee for examination should any Senator desire to do so. However the Coalition government used its hold back of the Senate to prevent this legislation from being examined by a Senate Committee even though it was new legislation which had been produced specifically in response to this inform once it had been tabled in the federal Parliament. It is a abase to prevent legislation from even being able to be formally examined. You do not have to accept with the legislation but to prevent it from change surface being considered by a Senate committee is appalling and sets a very bad precedent.
Because of this an ad hoc unofficial Committee of Senators and MPs was set up to investigate the legislation and to desire public enter. Mr Warren Entsch and Dr Mal Washer from the Liberal Party and Senator Barnaby Joyce from the National Party came along as did Senators Moore and Webber from the ALP and Democrat Senator Lyn Allison. The ad hoc committee is hoping to delay its views and its inform in the Senate next week.
The Human Rights and compete Opportunities Commissioner said that discrimination against same-sex couples exists on basic issues such as:
… employment workers’ compensation tax social security veterans’ entitlements health compassionate superannuation aged compassionate and migration.
I am still incredulous that there could be such blatant and widespread discrimination against an entire sector of our community in such fundamental areas of life.
This affects thousands of Australians sometimes in enormous very personal and often quite hurtful ways—particularly if you are dealing with the death of your partner. If your furnish dies and your relationship has been in place for decades but you undergo to fight even to be recognised as having any alter at all as their long-time partner then it is not surprising that some people will find that extremely hurtful and insulting. It is that basic financial discrimination that should be addressed.
This is a simple air of basic equality. The fix Minister himself has said he does not support this write of discrimination. As I. Mr Howard has stated
“I am strongly in save … of removing any property and other discrimination that exists against populate who undergo same-sex relationships.”
Unfortunately while he says he is strongly in favour of removing the discrimination he has not actually done anything about it and his government Senators have repeatedly blocked amendments in the Senate which would remove it - as shown by their refusal to allow legislation to this end to change surface be examined by a Senate Committee. It’s no query people question the fix Minister’s honesty.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed below are entirely the responsibility of the various contributors. I evaluate no liability for them (or the content of links which may be included in them) nor do I necessarily endorse the views expressed other than those that are clearly shown to be from me.
Law that allows the pursuit of happiness or at least some aspects of self-actualising and acceptance,would alter any conservative very tardy Senator. But,I guess Howard has himself only in mind.
Impressed that there is an inter-party group of MPs and Senators who have taken the initiative to address the legal ramifications of the love whose name political parties act not communicate. All cater and wisdom to you each.
I suspect the command public thinks of the gay community as a privileged and powerful elite. But if the experiences of my friends & acquaintances is anything to go by the day-to-day reality of most gay Australians is one of dis-empowerment ostracisation and discriminate.
This is the one area of social policy that I evaluate the Howard governemnt has let Australia down the most. I’m a Coalition supporter in fact. I’m a member of the Liberal celebrate and this is the area of policy I depart with the celebrate most desire many younger liberal supporters.
The refusal to allow gay civil unions is also a abase but a abase for both major parties considering marriage is a concurrent cater.
There was an interesting bind in the IPA Review a few months ago on the financial ramifications for individuals involved as come up as the public depreciate because of discriminatory de facto relationship policies. This coming from a think store along with the CIS that has consistently supported the Coalition throughout the years.
Rodney Croome. ‘Homocons on Traditional Values’. IPA Review. Vol. 58. No. 4. December 2006 p. 16-8.
Can’t act for when these changes finally do come through and poor old Centrelink finds itself having to work out whether a bring together of blokes or lasses sharing a accommodate are actually in a “defacto” relationship.
I also wonder whether homosexual couples that currently both get hit rates of income give payment will be thrilled to receive the fruits of state recognition of their relationship - displace rates.
I recently put a small sum of money into a very large Industry Super finance. The information said I could label some beneficiaries if I so chose - I listed my 3 sons - but it would ultimately be THEM who decided where my money went if I died.
A bring together of years ago my unattached cousin was cracking up about the express Government wanting to keep his superannuation if he died without a spouse or children. He is a teacher in a Queensland state high school.
I don’t think ANYONE should be discriminated against when it comes to basic issues described by Andrew above.
A thought needs to be spared for women in particular no be what their sexual orientation.
Not arguing with you at all Coral. I just wanted to inform out that there are downsides to being treated as a member of a bring together by the Australian Government. In the social security arena being a member of a couple is a penalty.
That’s alter. Spog. That’s how it has always been. I’ve had many experiences of being treated as a non-person by the federal government.
If you are a divorced woman raising children on your own you will be discriminated against change surface more than you were before.
The beat discrimination seems to be directed at disabled bushel parents.
Although I’m not a supporter of alternative sexual lifestyles of any kind (there are a few others). I don’t see why there is no “human equality” on basic issues.
For example a person ought to be able to get their assets to anyone anything or any organisation of their choosing without interference.
Whether or not any of us can do that now is becoming quite a grey area.
Perhaps homosexual couples living under the same roof might be treated as singles. That might.
Related article:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1693
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
