Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1282 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

perpetuating a lie on ourselves and our community and depriving ourselves of the enrichment those people in their relationships can offer us.

This quote comes from Gordon Ashley, the Liberal member for Bayswater. In my view, it outlines perfectly the approach legislators should be taking on this issue.

It was with this in mind that the state and territory Attorneys-General called on the Commonwealth government to change laws relating to the division of property between de facto and same-sex couples. The attorneys wanted to see that, with regard to property matters, de facto and same-sex couples have the same rights as married couples, so they have asked the Commonwealth to take over legislative power. At present, married couples can seek orders from the Family Court for the division of property assets when marriage ends, whereas de facto couples have to rely on state and territory laws and take more expensive and uncertain actions in the Supreme Court.

Same-sex couples have few legal avenues for the equitable division of joint assets. While same-sex couples in the ACT have the same rights as other couples under the Domestic Relationships Act, custody applications and orders to divide assets must be sought from the Supreme Court. This division of jurisdiction is costly and time consuming in what is often a stressful and difficult personal situation. Superannuation assets present particular difficulties, given that Commonwealth superannuation laws do not recognise same-sex partners.

Although it is very frustrating to acknowledge this, the ACT has taken the property issue as far as it can. However, the move of all states and territories to cede power to the Commonwealth presents an opportunity to remove the discriminatory provisions that remain. The ACT does not have to refer power to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has the power to legislate for us without such a referral, but it cannot do so for de facto couples living in the states.

The Commonwealth is willing to accept a reference of power in respect of heterosexual couples, but refuses to accept a reference in relation to same-sex couples. Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, indicated that the Commonwealth was not inviting references on same-sex de facto couples, and whilst states and territories were free to refer such powers, the Commonwealth would not exercise them.

This is an outrageous statement from the Attorney-General, the first law officer of Australia, charged with the protection of the individual. To continue to ignore the rights of same-sex individuals and their relationships is an appalling position of which no government ought to be proud.

Denying someone the right to be recognised as a committed partner to a relationship simply on the basis of the gender of the partners is no different from apartheid. It is absolute discrimination-not on the basis of colour but on the basis of sex.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .