Same-Sex: Forum: Newcastle

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

back to menu

WRITTEN NOTES

NOTES FROM NEWSCASTLE COMMUNITY FORUM 6.30 - 8.30pm (24 October 2006)

No audio files are available for this forum.

27 people attended the community forum at Newcastle 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.

Superannuation

One man says that superannuation is quite discriminatory. He gives the example of income splitting, and that people in gay relationships are not able to split income.

Ineligibility for this tax minimisation scheme that the government has allowed for heterosexual couples limits what people in same-sex relationships can do with their finances.

Another woman says superannuation is a big issue for her and her partner as they are at that stage in their lives. She comments that having been a Commonwealth employee, she cannot bequeath her superannuation to her partner, whereas if she had been a state government employee, she could.

Another participant says that the superannuation funds only have an obligation to pass on superannuation to a dependant 'spouse'. She says that she put down her partner's name on her form but it was ignored by the superannuation fund.

One woman says that her fund did recognise her same-sex partner as an interdependent. Another participant remarks that the use of 'interdependency' is an example of an unequal relationship. He says it is another way in which gay and lesbian people are discriminated against.

Another person comments that superannuation funds should not be given the power to choose whether they recognise interdependency relationships. He is a member of a Catholic super fund, and doesn't think that they would be keen to recognise interdependency relationships.

Recognition in the hospital system

One woman reports that in the Queensland hospital system, she was told that she and her partner had to be together for 12 months for her partner to have the same rights as an opposite-sex de facto partner, and to be able to go into meetings about her condition. Given that they had only been together for a few months, her partner was unable to make any decisions on her behalf.

A woman who works in the Newcastle hospital system says that as it stands, whomever the patient nominates as their representative can make decisions. She says that there is sometimes conflict between patient's partners and patient's families, and that this happens with both heterosexual patients and with gay and lesbian patients. She emphasises that patients need to make clear who they want to make decisions.

One woman reports the difficulties experienced by gay and lesbian couples in the hospital system. 'It's like they don't even exist. It's very difficult to speak. I know that it is a problem, because I do work in the system.'

Another woman comments that she didn't have one scrap of trouble through months of cancer treatment for her partner. She says she was the one who was consulted by hospital staff throughout the whole process.

Social security

One woman notes that the only situation in which Centrelink recognises same-sex couples is in domestic violence situations where Centrelink makes emergency payments. These payments are made to people in heterosexual and same-sex relationships.

One participant questions whether the reform process will involve the removal of things that benefit same-sex couples, such as unemployment benefits and social security.

The ACON representative mentioned that people with HIV are often on the Disability Support Pension. If social security law is altered to recognise same-sex couples, it will have an impact on such people. ACON argues that there should be a phase-in period so people can make an adjustment to their financial arrangements.

Taxation

One man reports that he was not eligible for the dependent spouse tax rebate when his partner didn't work. He says the tax write off for having a dependant for a while would have been significant. He says although they live in the same house, have the same bank account, and pay the same bills, and are effectively 'dependants', they were not eligible for the rebate.

Another man comments that rules about investment properties limit the way he structures his tax affairs. He says the government allows couples in opposite-sex relationships to allocate money between spouses. However, in gay relationships everything has to be split 50/50 as though the members of the couple were unrelated.

Loans

One couple reports that their bank classified their home loan as a joint loan as if for a heterosexual de facto couple. They say that if it is 'joint' then the government cannot dispute it.

Another man comments that he and his partner have always borrowed as 'joint tenants' rather than 'tenants in common'. He says it gives them more protection as joint tenants, as the partner who survives gets the property.'

One person says that there is an onus on same-sex couples to do the research and work out the best way to structure their affairs. If people have poor advice then may be disadvantaged.

PBS safety net

One person talks about the joint safety net not recognising same-sex couples. He says if a same-sex couple require a huge amount of medication and the joint safety net doesn't cover them, they would be seriously financially disadvantaged. He says this discriminates against people who need this medication in order to live.

Health insurance

One participant reports that ten years ago he and his partner were refused family insurance cover by their health fund. They took their case to court and won.

Parenting

A number of participants comment that the law does not recognise non-biological parents. When many same-sex couples have children, the non-biological parent does not have the same rights. This has an impact on the child, they say, because the child grows up with the idea that they are not equal.

Another participant says that there is an assumption that when a couple separates, the non-biological parent does not have to pay child support. He says if two people bring a child into the world as a couple, both should be responsible for the child's upbringing.

Employment

Participants give a range of examples of discrimination in employment.

One woman who works in local government says that her workplace recognises same-sex partners. She says parenting leave is also available for non-birth parents.

One man comments that Workchoices legislation does not recognise same-sex relationships. He says while we still have discrimination in this major piece of legislation, the workplace entitlements which the previous woman spoke about might disappear.

One woman says that discrimination varies from workplace to workplace. She says that working in health, everything is okay, however she knows someone who works in a supermarket who knows that she would be discriminated against if people found out that she was gay. She says they are scared to come out at work as it may affect the amount of work that they get.

Some people also comment that the degree to which people are comfortable about their sexuality at work depends on what industry they are in. In the hospitality industry, for example, it is not much of an issue.

Another man says that as a businessman he needs to be very careful about his sexuality. He says he can be 'out' to a degree but it can be very difficult at times. He says he was physically assaulted by a competitor because of his sexuality. Another man comments that he is absolutely sure that any promotions would be denied to him if he was 'out' at work, as his organisation is very blokey.

Another participant says that when he came out at work the patrons and staff made him feel very uncomfortable. He says that he was subjected to sexual assault and harassment, but because he is gay it was not considered such. Rather, the assault and harassment was just 'laughed off'.

One woman says that most gay and lesbian people in Newcastle have to tread very carefully at their workplaces. She says that it took her ten years to come out in her workplace, and she still doesn't feel very comfortable talking openly about it. She says gay and lesbian people always have to be a 'on guard' and that is sad.

One woman remarks that she has always worked for a large church run welfare organisation, and that the policy at the top is different from the atmosphere at the grassroots level. Although she has had a lot of support from the people she works with, she thinks it would be different if it had to be tested at a policy level.

The law and attitudes

One participant comments that the media can be very discriminatory in the way they portray gay and lesbian people. He says very often homosexuality is aligned with paedophilia.

Another participant says that changing the law will change attitudes. He says people would know where the boundaries are, because there would be a law that states that discrimination is inappropriate. At the moment, he says that gay and lesbian people feel very vulnerable as there is no legal framework there to protect them.

Education

Participants comment that an education campaign is needed alongside change to the law. One woman says that many people assume that gay and lesbian people have a lot of rights which they don't actually have. She believes that the media needs to help increase general awareness in the wider community about the rights denied to gay and lesbian people.

Aged Care

Participants comment that aged care will become more of an issue in the future.

One person comments that gays and lesbians should put their superannuation money into an aged care facility specifically for gay and lesbian people.

Relationship recognition

Participants make a range of comments about relationship recognition.

Some participants comment that this goes to the heart of what rights for people in same-sex relationships is all about. They say there should be the same designation of relationships, where laws are enacted equally regardless of the gender of the relationship. Until this happens, they say, there will remain a piecemeal approach to law reform for people in same-sex relationships.

When asked about which model of recognition they preferred, one participant says that same-sex marriage is preferred, and that civil union would be one step below what heterosexuals are offered.

Other participants say they don't want to conform with an institution like marriage.