Same-Sex: Answers to questions taken on notice

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

Women's Health Victoria,

September 2006

Answers to questions taken on notice

1. In the 2005 Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby same-sex relationship survey "Not Yet Equal", what was the length of the relationship for the 20% of respondents that did not qualify as interdependent?

The exact percentage of survey respondents who were not interdependent on any measure was 19.6%. The mean length of the relationship of those who had no interdependency was two years. This is not insignificant given that almost half had only been together for one year or less. The published report on the research did not consider the breakdown of male-male relationships/female-female relationships, the possible relationship between experiences of harassment and interdependency, and whether or not those who made up 19.6% wished to be recognised as interdependent.

2. How could the 20% be recognised?

The authors of the report in question are best positioned to provide an answer to this question (http://www.glhv.org.au/files/vgrl_report.pdf). This said, we understand it to be the case that sharing assets, living together, sharing finances, nominating a partner as next of kin, and/or naming them as the primary beneficiary in the will are among the measures that would all enable members of a same-sex relationship to illustrate that there is a degree of interdependency. These measures are relatively easy to secure when the couple lives free from discrimination and where interdependency is desired.

Freedom from discrimination is the key obstacle if the 'interdependency model' for recognising relationships is to be successfully implemented. It is recognised that legislative change alone will not enable people in same-sex couples who are subjected to heterosexism to freely nominate their partners as beneficiaries of their superannuation or to list them as next of kin on forms provided by conservative workplaces. However, legislation that communicates that people in same-sex relationships are valued and respected may contribute in the longer term to attitudinal change. Legislative change and attitudinal change may work together to combat discrimination. In saying this Women's Health Victoria also wishes to communicate our concern is not that interdependency is difficult to prove, but that in some instances it may either be difficult to assert due to social attitudes or be regarded as undesirable by those seeking to maintain independence within a relationship. Indeed, some same-sex couples never desire to be interdependent, regardless of their experiences of discrimination. In these instances civil unions and relationship registration are preferable models for relationship recognition.

3. How has legislation in Victoria has impacted on women's lives? Give a specific example.

In some ways the actual impact of legislation in Victoria on the lives of women in same-sex relationships is difficult to determine as it is ultimately up to the courts to make decisions. The following is a personal story provided by a member of Women's Health Victoria in response to this question:

"Personally I have had mixed reactions to legislative changes. In some ways I regard them as a threat to my independence, in the same way as I regard opposite-sex marriage as threatening to women's independence. I do not wish to replicate hetero-relations and am opposed to social institutions based on dominance and submission. I see the family and marriage as institutions with this unbalanced power base. I value my financial independence. However, I do believe that legislative change which presents people in same-sex relationships with increased options and access to the financial and work-related entitlements offered to their heterosexual peers can be advantageous. Especially for those who model their relationships on hetero-relations or who wish to have their relationships attributed with the same prestige and recognition as heterosexual marriages.

I have lived with my partner for five and a half years. We have been together for seven and a half. We have separate finances and value our independence. Our relationship is currently monogamous and I have a supportive family who generally respects our relationship. This last factor has considerable bearing, as in the absence of a positive family I would regard legislative change less pessimistically. Since the inclusion of 'domestic partnerships' in some legislation in 2001 little has changed in my daily life. However, now:

• In the event of my partners death I would be entitled to her assets. She does not want me to have them, but has not prepared a will indicating this.

• In the event of my death my partner would be entitled to my assets. I want her to have them.

• If we were to break-up we are not sure what would happen with our finances. We have always assumed that we would simply walk away with our own savings etc. Under the current legal system this is not guaranteed. Especially, if the break-up was messy. This is a concern as it is reassuring to be able to accurately gauge your financial standing at any given point in time. For me, this gives me the freedom to leave the relationship if it is no longer appropriate.

My position on legislation is also influenced by the fact that I am relatively young (27), do not have significant assets, and am not currently considering raising a family. In the future if I begin to consider buying property, with or separate to my partner, and consider the possibility of raising children it is likely that I will come to regard 'domestic partnerships' and 'interdependency' in a new light."