With over 1450 submissions sent to the inquiries (and thank you if you sent one of them) the committee heard a wide range of views from 23 specialists over the three days of hearings.

Senator George Brandis, the Shadow Attorney-General, attended all three days. His presence, as a non-voting member of the committee, showed the Opposition’s commitment to the principles of the Bills.

“There seems to be a reasonably wide consensus amongst most witnesses, though not all, that the principles behind the legislation should be supported,” Senator Brandis told me after the hearings.

“The two issues that have attracted the most attention [during the hearings] were, one, whether there should be separate recognition of marital relationship; and two, the appropriateness of including interdependent relationships. In my view, neither of those issues attack the principals of the Bill.”

Largely, I agree. Most witnesses supported providing equal treatment to interdependent relationships. However, there was division over how and when these rights should be provided. Not a single personal or organisational submission told a story about an interdependent couple. Nonetheless, it would seem that the Opposition wants to include these people, without any independent inquiry into their specific interdependent needs.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) appeared before the Committee on the final day, and, surprisingly, supported the position of providing same-sex couples with “de facto status”.

ACL Chief of Staff Lyle Shelton outlined their position to me after the inquiries.

“As it has always done throughout this debate, [the] ACL supports extending superannuation benefits to same-sex couples and children they may be responsible for, but wishes to see marriage retained in the legislation. We have suggested amending the Bill to delete ‘couple relationship’ and insert ‘marital and de facto’.

“Same-sex couples would be included in the de facto category with heterosexuals,” he concluded.

This is a position that the Australian Coalition for Equality supports ‘in principle’, but we feel that registered relationships should also be included separately, not just as de facto. It’s also preferable that individual terms be defined in the relevant legislation, with an umbrella term across all three terms (marriage, registered and de facto) to provide equal treatment of these three different types of relationships. In this way, we respect the unique choices people may make, but ensure that there is not a two-tier approach to relationship equality.

A majority of witnesses did not support putting de facto relationships and interdependent relationships in the same category. Various reasons were provided, however it seemed from the line of questioning that this all inclusive, ‘non-marital’ category for all other forms of relationships other than marriage may be a consideration of the Opposition.

Another key issue discussed was the best way to recognise children of same-sex parents. Witnesses from the federal Attorney-General’s department identified that the introduction of the term ‘product of the relationship’ would ensure that the courts could not misinterpret the government’s intent by using any aspect of current, discriminatory heterosexual common law meaning. The NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby’s submission, I think, addressed this in a practical way.

It was also pointed out to the assembled senators that the federal government continues to discriminate against same-sex couples in regards to actually recognising them as being a parent (under s60H of the Family Law Act), but has removed this discrimination in dealing with property division and maintenance. Along with a number of witnesses discussing this contradiction, the issue was raised at the Standing Committee of Attorneys General a few weeks ago, resulting in a request that the Commonwealth government rectify this inconsistency.

New South Australian Greens Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, along with queer Western Australian Senator Louise Pratt, asked poignant questions at the hearings; interrogating the witnesses to ensure that a balanced view was heard by the committee.

At 27 years old, and having worked previously for Amnesty International, the new Greens LGBTI spokesperson is a feisty ally. In only five weeks as an Australian Senator, Hanson-Young and her staff had clearly done their homework.

“After three days of public hearings, it is obvious that unless we amend and strengthen some parts of this proposed legislation, we may only be helping to give equal access to some same-sex couples, but not all,” Senator Hanson-Young said. “The definitions of ‘de facto’ and ‘children’ under these proposed changes must be strengthened to ensure that no couple or child of a same-sex couple is left out in the cold because they somehow don’t fit the description.”

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment