Same-Sex: Forum: Canberra

Same-Sex: Same Entitlements

National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits

back to menu

WRITTEN NOTES

NOTES FROM CANBERRA PUBLIC FORUM 6.30 - 8.30pm (19 OCTOBER 2006)

No audio files are available for this forum.

26 people attended the community forum at Canberra and discussed a range of issues.

The following is an overview of the comments made during the community forum.

These comments reflect the views of the participants in the forum, they do not necessarily represent the final conclusions of the Inquiry.

Speakers

Ralph and Douglas

Douglas has an 18 year old daughter. Her mother died a few years ago. Ralph and Douglas look after her together.

Douglas spent 2 years trying to prove that his daughter could fit into the definition of interdependency to get the superannuation benefits from her own mother. This happened despite clear proof of that relationship. Douglas and Ralph point out that if they had so much trouble proving the status of the relationship between a mother and daughter when they have a birth certificate with her mother's name on it, they can't imagine how hard it is going to be when one of them dies and they try to access the superannuation benefits.

Ralph and Douglas state that under the interdependency definition for superannuation benefits, the burden of proof is on them to prove their relationship.

Ralph and Douglas have had some wins and some losses. Ralph could get a higher social security benefit when he was unemployed for 7 months because he wasn't considered a member of a couple. And Douglas could claim the full family tax benefit for his daughter. However when Ralph got sick they couldn't meet the Medicare safety net because they couldn't combine their costs.

Ralph and Douglas like the definition of defacto in the second Discussion Paper as it permits the possibility of a statutory declaration. This will make it easier for couples.

Ralph and Douglas conclude by describing some of their experiences with filling out forms as a couple and salary packaging.

Aged care

One couple spoke about the impact of not being recognised as a couple if one of them has to go into aged care. The non-recognition of their relationship means that the joint ownership of the family home is not recognised and they face higher costs to enter aged care.

Awareness

A number of people discussed how most same-sex couples would not be aware of the discrimination that they face until it is too late. One person stated that they have been with their partner for 30 years and they are both highly educated. However she has only just recently figured out that she is not necessarily entitled to her partner's superannuation - even though she is the nominated partner.

One person commented that there would be more protest if more people understood the problems. Another person said that she wished she knew more about the discriminatory laws.

Immigration

One person commented that proving interdependency for immigration is the same process for both straight and gay couples. But the nature of the evidence and the interviews are very different. She described how she and her partner accumulated 15 A4 binders of proof over 2 years. Whereas all an opposite-sex couple needed to do was provide a marriage certificate and a couple of bills.

She stated that the immigration interview was much more intrusive and detailed. Her conclusion was that there can be differential treatment even when the wording of the law is the same.

Inheritance

One person described how she and her partner have constructed their wills to try and protect each other on death.

A person describes how his partner's daughter could evict him from their house if his partner died. The fact that they have some joint assets would not necessarily be enough to win a competition against his daughter.

Another person states that they are having to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their superannuation and house is divided equitably upon the death of one or the other of them. He states that there is substantial time, personal and financial cost to get this sorted out. He continues that most people do not have time or resources to go through all of this. Heterosexuals do no have to go to these lengths.

Law Reform

One person speaks about her involvement 10 years ago in writing the response to the Committee on Sexuality and Gender Identity Bill. This Bill canvassed the issues being discussed today. Still nothing has happened.

Another person states that the treatment of same-sex couples is inconsistent in federal legislation. In some areas same-sex couples have been recognised e.g. terrorism and first home owners. But this is happening in areas where the recognition is favourable to the government not the couples.

Relationship recognition

A number of people raised concerns that the Inquiry is not looking at marriage, despite the fact that almost all these legislative issues come down to whether couples are recognised. One person said that the Catholic bishops supported the notion of same-sex couples as defacto couples, but not as married couples. They argued that de facto does not give same results as marriage.

Another person felt that it is going to be very difficult for this inquiry to deliver because it is constrained to address piecemeal parts of legislation rather than address the overwhelming issue recognition.

Social security

One person spoke about the benefits of not being recognised as a couple. The couple are able to claim the single payment and other benefits that they would not be entitled to, if they were a recognised couple. They are also able to access higher benefits than would otherwise be allowed for recognised couples.

However another person stated that they are worried about identifying the loopholes in social security and losing those benefits before other changes are made.

Superannuation

A number of people spoke about their experiences under Commonwealth superannuation schemes, which do not recognise same-sex relationships.

One person stated that he had been in the Commonwealth public service for 36 years. The CSS scheme does not allow him to pass on their benefits to his partner.

Another person describes how he has been with his partner for 21 years. He and his partner would have no trouble in proving their interdependency if they were heterosexual. But even though everything is jointly owned they would have trouble proving their legitimacy as a same-sex couple.

One person stated that he thought that he and his partner had done a good job of identifying the problems. But they see that they are not even close. Even if the money did come to him through ComSuper he would be taxed differently because he is not recognised as a spouse.

Workplace leave

One person stated that most Commonwealth agencies have balanced workplace leave entitlements even though the law does not require it.

Another person describes how one Commonwealth department is doing what it can to recognise same-sex relationships. For example, you can take a partner as an accompanying spouse and get the relevant allowances. That Department also has the same criteria for proving same-sex partners as heterosexual de facto partners.

One person said that her collective agreement does include same-sex spouses for most entitlements.

Youth Issues

One young person described how his ex-partner could not prove his independence for Austudy. His partner would have been better off if he went back home, but he did not want to be a kept man and he could not get benefits from the government.

Another person commented that there was an increase in drug abuse in the young gay community when the ACT civil union legislation was overridden and they realised that their relationship will never be recognised.