More reforms mooted

More reforms mooted

The Federal Government has said it is more probable than not that anti-discrimination reforms covering sexuality and gender identity will commence before the next election.

Speaking to gay and lesbian radio station JOY 94.9 FM Melbourne’s Rainbow Report last Thursday, Attorney-General Robert McClelland gave the first clear indication the Government intends to fulfill all of its GLBT policies in its first term.

It is certainly our platform and it is our intention to do that. We would like to do that on a nationally consistent basis, so that’s our intention and we’ll be working towards that, McClelland said.

He gave no set timeframe and did not clarify if the reforms would include a new federal law, similar to the federal sex and race discrimination acts, or convincing state governments to improve their protections.

More probable than not [this term] is the best way of putting it. We do want to get it right.

The comments come as government agencies prepare to start three separate public consultations on human rights and equality that McClelland said would be useful gauges of gay and lesbian and broader community opinion.

The National Human Rights Consultation, launched in December, is due to report by the end of July. Separately, the Australian Human Rights Commission has been tasked by a Senate committee to consider a new federal equality act and report by 2011 -” after the next federal election.

It follows new efforts by state and territory attorneys-general to make their equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws more consistent, but that project is expected to take many years.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Corey Irlam cautiously welcomed McClelland’s comments, saying he was pleased the Government had not yet finished with same-sex reforms.

He gave himself enough out to not do it, so I wouldn’t say it’s a firm indication but its a good indication, he said.

It’s a positive step along a long journey, but come July when that [human rights consultation] report actually comes out, it’ll be up to the Government to actually deliver on that indication and their party policy to introduce it before the end of the term.

NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby convenor Emily Gray said it was important the reforms include federal legislation so the protections could be administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Sexuality discrimination is a big enough issue in Australia for it to be handled at a federal level, like sex and race discrimination, she said.

Current federal equal opportunity laws limit the Commission to only consider sexuality discrimination in employment, and state and territory protections are patchy.

In the Attorney-General’s first inter-view with the gay and lesbian press since the passage of the 58’08 reforms, McClelland also hit back at criticism the Government had not enacted a grandfather clause with its Centrelink changes, and again ruled out extending the July 1 deadline for those receiving social security.

The situation I think was ripe for creating a whole lot of anomalies, confusion and I think the way that it has been implemented is in accordance with policy, he said.

The direction of the changes was announced in April of last year, so we would like to think that people were on notice about adjusting to the changes.

You May Also Like

7 responses to “More reforms mooted”

  1. We urgently need the federal Government to indroduce anti-discrimination laws now. All (thats right all) states and territories has had anti-drinination laws for years now – what is the federal Gov’s excuse? All statutes, laws, Acts etc must include same gender couples and complete protection from all social, cutural, economic and legal discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 needs to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in that Act – as well as “marital or relationship status” that includes de facto partner under the meaning of the Acts Interperetation Act 1901.

  2. ***** Amendment to previous comments*********

    When John Howard changed the conditions for partimentary benefits to lengthen the period of employment, he protected the the members of parliament to have the changes apply to new members. To me this is a type of grandfather clause. So now, through no fault of our own, being told “you will never be granted equality with Centrelink, your partner can do what every he wants with his income and assets, he is now given the ultimatum if you want your partner to maintain his pension you will need to dispose of your investment property, place the monies into superannuation and pay capital gains tax. We receive no financial benefit from the investment property as the “income” is placed against the outstanding mortgage however under Centrelink assets & income testing, the property is still included in the assessment.
    Mr McCelland, please include the grandfather clause provisions. into the revised legislation. The number of couples that would benefit would be small in the scale of thing with little additional expense to the government. The main benefits we are looking for is the health card and transport benefits. Is this too much to ask for?

  3. When John Howard changed the conditions for partimentary benefits to lengthen the period of employment, he protected the the members of parliament to have the changes apply to new members. To me this is a type of grandfather clause. So now, through no fault of our own, being told “you will never be granted equality with Centrelink, your partner can do what every he wants with his income and assets, he is now given the ultimatum if you want your partner to maintain his pension you will need to dispose of your investment property, place the monies into superannuation and pay capital gains tax. We receive current financial benefit from the investment property as the “income” is placed against the outstanding mortgage.Mr McCelland, please include the grandfather clause provisions. into the revised legislation. The number of couples that would benefit would be small in the scale of thing with little additional expense to the government. The main benefits we are looking for is the health card and transport benefits. Is this too much to ask for?

  4. More Federal gay and lesbian law reform…I had forgotten what that feels like after eleven years of the Lying Rodent Howard…

  5. I note that the NSW GLRL was saying that they welcomed reforms in second term. Are we all on the same page?

  6. “April of last year”.
    No. No. No. With the reforms being blocked by the Liberals, I was on tenderhooks thinking that Brendan Nelson was going to either stop the reforms, or relegate us to third class interdependant status. Either way, Brendan Nelson DID succeed in delaying the reforms, at times what seemed indefinately. Even when Malcolm Turnbull took over, we were still on tenderhooks as he become the keynote speaker at an Australian Christian Lobby conference.
    It wasn’t until November 27th that the reforms finally officially passed. There were some really dark days that it looked impossible that anything would ever happen.
    Although it is not Labor’s fault… due to the Liberal attacks & delays, the 15 month “notice” & “phase in” period should have been reset from November 27th, and the Centrelink changes commenced from Feb 2010, and the Libs blamed fairly & squarely for this due to thier homophobic attacks & delays (especially by Brendan Nelson).
    The other angle to look at, is that why can’t we demand to delay any disadvantagous Centrelink changes until we get full access to Civil Marriage (ie being able to get married in a registry office). Centrelink obligations/disagvantages should not kick in still we get full equal rights.