SCAM ALERT: We will never contact you requesting money. Learn more.

Complaints

Same-Sex: Hearing: Hobart

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

WRITTEN AND AUDIO NOTES


Hobart Hearings, 25 September 2006

1. Grame Innes, Human Rights Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Opening Speech

2. Roger Lovell (Personal Story)

Roger and his partner Peter have been in a relationship for 30 years.

They have faced a number of difficulties with superannuation in relation to death benefits and payments. This is because their relationship is not recognised. They eventually had some success in getting their superannuation fund to recognise them as a de facto couple. However if Peter died first Roger would still have to prove that a relationship had existed.

Peter and Roger are formalising their relationship under Tasmanian law and through the British consulate to help prove the existence of their relationship.

Roger notes that they are not recognised as a couple for medical insurance and therefore pay 'individual' rather than 'couple' rates. Also, they cannot minimise tax on the sale of a house in the same way heterosexual couples can.

Roger comments that the one benefit in not being recognised as a couple is that they can both claim a single pension.

3. David Samson and Kevin O'Loghlin (Personal Story)

David states that same sex couples have to build up an irrefutable case that they are a couple, unlike heterosexual couples. David describes the extraordinary lengths he and his partner Kevin have gone to, so that they can prove their relationship. For example, they have kept boarding passes to prove that they sit together when flying.

David has had a positive experience with his superannuation fund however Kevin's policy does not recognise same sex couples.

David talks about the rights he would have under British law and expresses frustration that the British government and Tasmanian government recognise their relationship but their own national government does not. He notes that there is even a division within the Federal Government: immigration legislation recognises same sex couples but other federal laws do not.

David says that gay and lesbian couples have a right to expect that the government will take a lead in this matter.

4. Johnathon Hodgkin (Personal Story)

Jonathon speaks about Tasmanian relationship registration for same-sex couples. He notes that this system provides same-sex couples with rights under state laws. He also points out that there was very little fuss when the laws were introduced.

Jonathon argues that relationship registration is very simple and effective and it would make sense to introduce a registration scheme at a national level.

5. Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby

Martine Delaney, Jen Van Acherton and Rodney Croome - Spokespersons

The TGLRL discuss a number of issues that are developed in more detail in their written submission including:

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • Superannuation
  • Defence and Veterans Affairs
  • Medical and Aged Care
  • Taxation
  • Social Security
  • Marriage
  • Anomalies relating to State-based recognition of same-sex relationships
  • Tasmanian Law
  • Law Reform

6. Gay and Lesbian Community Centre

Richard Hale, Vice President

The Gay and Lesbian Community Centre discusses the impact on gay and lesbian couples of not having their relationships recognised in federal law. They argue that non-recognition implies that same-sex relationships are somehow less important than other relationships.

The Centre also comments that there is a lot of confusion amongst same-sex couples as to how state and federal laws impact on them. Often people do not realise that there could be a problem until a crisis occurs.

The Centre describes the current discrimination in accessing financial benefits as a 'homophobia tax'. They point out the irony that same-sex couples are expected to contribute to society in the same way as everyone else, yet they are not entitled to the same benefits.