House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Sexual Discrimination SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION Ms CICCARELLO House of Assembly Norwood Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (15:40): Today I rise to talk about the federal Labor government's historic reforms to end discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In July last year I spoke on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, entitled 'Same Sex: Same Entitlements', which identified 58 federal laws in Australia which discriminated against same sex couples and their children in the areas of financial and work related entitlements. I called on the then federal government to do something about this appalling injustice and to stop obfuscating the issue with references to marriage and adoption and the thin end of the wedge. I wrote to the then federal attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, urging him to implement the recommendation of the HREOC report. Some weeks later, I received a standard response from his office with the assurance that: The Australian government is giving serious consideration to the recommendations of the report. Any changes to government programs involve an assessment of the policy and fiscal implications. A responsible government cannot make broad changes without considering all the issues and the ramifications. I interpreted that to mean, 'We haven't done anything about it for 12 years and we certainly don't intend to start now.' After 12 years of government and dozens of reports all calling for the same thing. Twelve years of legislation introduced by other parties as a matter of necessity and ignored by the then government and 12 years of complete apathy and disinterest, they then had the nerve to write back to me and say that they were seriously considering the issue. I, of course, was heartened when the Australian Labor Party made its commitment before the election to remove discrimination against people in same sex relationships. I am now delighted that only six months into its term it has already introduced the first draft of the legislation to end this inequality once and for all. It is interesting that Labor took only six months to do what the coalition pondered for 12 long years. Therefore, I was appalled to read just last week that the coalition-controlled Senate is even contemplating referring this legislation off to a committee. We do not need any more committees or any more stalling on this important legislation. This legislation must be progressed through the federal parliament as quickly as possible. Areas where discrimination will be removed include tax, superannuation, social security, health, aged care, veteran entitlements, workers compensation, employment entitlements, and other areas of commonwealth administration. I am sure that all members applaud the federal government in its commitment to social justice and inclusion. I have read some reports, however, that some people in the same sex community feel aggrieved because they believe that they will be worse off under these new arrangements. This is unfortunate but inevitable in this type of comprehensive reform. There will always be winners and losers. For instance, in assessing the income of the household as a unit, the means test will now have regard to the total earnings of the couple as opposed to the earnings of an individual for the purpose of assessing whether that individual is entitled to some form of social security benefit. I would urge them to remember that the positive aspects of making same sex relationships equal to their heterosexual de facto counterparts—in other words, the bigger picture—far outweigh any potential individual disadvantage. The reforms currently being progressed by the federal government will make a real, practical difference to the lives of many Australians who have for far too long experienced discrimination purely because they love someone of the same sex. One last thing I mention is the issue of marriage. I understand and am sympathetic to many in the same sex community who would have liked to see the definition of marriage broadened to include same sex relationships. Again, when I spoke on the Rann government's domestic partners legislation in 2006, I acknowledged that it did not include access for same sex couples to adoption and IVF. I stated then that political realities often dictated that it was better to have the vast majority of reforms progressed rather than have legislation delayed or scrapped, and such is the case here. Let us celebrate the passing of these historic reforms and not let it be marred by disappointment that marriage has not been included at this time. I am quite sure that this issue will live to fight another day.