Search results

Same-sex couples are not eligible for a range of rebates and tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. This means same-sex couples may end up paying more tax than opposite-sex couples because tax legislation does not recognise their relationship.

Social security is an income support system that acts as a safety-net for people who, for some reason, are unable to financially support themselves. Entitlements to social security are largely governed by the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (Social Security Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (Family Assistance Act). The payments are usually administered by Centrelink.

This chapter focuses on discrimination regarding the entitlements available to veterans of the Australian Defence Forces who have a same-sex partner or children.

This chapter focuses on discrimination against same-sex couples and their families in the context of access to the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Safety Nets.

The issue of divorce never arises for same-sex couples, since they cannot legally marry. However, a same-sex couple, like an opposite-sex de facto couple, may need the assistance of a court to resolve property and child-related issues if their relationship breaks down.

Superannuation is one of the main ways of saving for retirement. It is designed to provide financial security for individuals and their families in retirement; or when a person dies unexpectedly.

When people enter an aged care facility they usually have to pay certain daily fees and other payments to fund their care and residence. The Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (the Aged Care Act) sets out how those fees and payments should be calculated in both public and private aged care facilities.

Many same-sex couples who appeared at the Inquiry’s community forums talked about the problems they face in getting visas. They highlighted the limited options available to a same-sex couple wanting to migrate to Australia as a couple. They talked about the additional expense and disruption to their lives in proving their entitlement to a visa. And they talked about the indignity of being treated differently to genuine opposite-sex couples.

As part of the Inquiry’s audit of federal, state and territory laws, the Inquiry has identified a range of laws which potentially discriminate against same-sex couples and families, but do not fall within the previous topic-specific chapters.

Organisations and individuals raised a range of issues with the Inquiry that did not fall strictly within its Terms of Reference. Where these issues relate to one of the main chapters of this report, they are discussed within that chapter.

The following chapter summarises the findings and recommendations made in each of Chapters 4 – 16 in this report. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendix 1 which sets out the list of legislation to be amended in order to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children.

The following 58 legal instruments must be amended to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.

The following is a selection of extracts from these stories.[1] The stories demonstrate the compound effect of discrimination against same-sex families in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.

The Inquiry received submissions from 680 different individuals and organisations. Some provided submissions in response to both the first and second round discussion papers.

The Inquiry held seven formal public hearings around Australia between 26 July 2006 and 20 October 2006. Overall, 32 organisations and 44 individuals appeared at the public hearings.

Review the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report, which was collated after 18 community forums were held around Australia in 2006.

The Inquiry Team: Vanessa Lesnie, Kate Temby, Susan Newell, Samantha Edmonds, Kate Fitzgerald, Emily Gray, Frances Simmons, Alessandra Krilis, Jemma Hollonds, Avril Cox

This Inquiry was an extension of the original National Inquiry into the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness, the report of which was tabled in Parliament in October 1993. The Inquiry was reconvened in Victoria because of particular concerns relating to that State which required further exploration.

Do you work in women’s services? Do you work in women’s housing? Women’s health? Violence against women? Women’s support services? Discrimination issues?

This is an important report. It deals with our treatment of children in the most recent wave of boat people seeking refuge and a better life on our shores. It does so in the knowledge that there is a tension created by the community expectation that the Government will defend Australia's security while simultaneously upholding individual rights - the notion of the 'fairgo' for all. The report also challenges the argument that family unity within immigration detention centres is the only way that children's 'best interests' can be protected.