Equality celebrations begin
Although the Rudd Government’s equality reforms have yet to receive the final Senate nod, Rainbow Labor and Attorney-General Robert McClelland celebrated the success so far at the first 58’08 party of the new era.
When we were setting this up, we all thought the reforms would have been passed by now, McClelland told the gathering of equality supporters at a gallery in Darlinghurst on Friday.
The delays by the Opposition were inexcusable, he said, especially since it sat on the recommendations of a Senate committee that identified discrimina-tion more than 10 years ago.
Throughout this time, little was done at a federal level to respond to those developments. Quite frankly, this was shameful, McClelland told the crowd,
Rainbow Labor co-convenor Michael Vaughan said there was reason enough to celebrate early.
We’ve won the biggest gain in gay and lesbian law reform history, Vaughan said. We need to celebrate the strength that we have as a community because we’ll need that strength for campaigns we want to run in the future.
First we need to celebrate, then remind the community what these reforms actually mean. After that we can take a breather and look to the next campaign.
Federal relationship recognition and marriage were frequently raised for future reforms in a short film made by Rainbow Labor members and shown for the first time at the gathering on Friday.
Among those attending were federal minister Tanya Plibersek, MLCs Penny Sharpe, Helen Westwood and Peter Primrose, and former NSW Attorney-General Jeff Shaw.
Liberal spokesman George Brandis previously told the Sydney Star Observer the Opposition would support the remainder of the Government’s current equality reforms, even if it doesn’t win support for its own parenting amendments.
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I am struggling to see how these reforms are so much cause for celebration. Whilst I welcome changes that put us on more of an equal footing, these seem to be purely in the economic sphere. My life as a young Australian lesbian is about so much more than money. So, excuse me for being insulted when my relationship is compared to that of a heterosexual de facto couple. As far as I understand things, heterosexual de facto Australians can:
1. Be recognised spiritually, socially & emotionally as a committed couple.
2. Introduce themselves to their neighbours as a couple without fear of reprisal.
3. Hold hands or otherwise act like a couple in public without any repercussions on themselves or their children.
4. Be open about their sexuality at work without being harrassed, bullied, or otherwise victimised.
5. They can both attend Parent-Teacher nights or their kids’ school events with less fear of their children being bullied as a result.
6. They may have children together by IVF or adoption & be recognised as parents.
7. They may attend most churches of their choosing & identify & be welcomed as a couple.
8. They stand more chance of being welcomed as a couple into most organisations & communities, including their children’s school community.
My partner & I cannot do any of these things. We most certainly will not take the risk until her children (from her previous heterosexual marriage) have finished school. What’s more, she stands to lose between $80-$100 a fortnight in Family Allowance Benefits if we register as a homosexual couple. This is despite the fact that I’m a fulltime student on Austudy, she works part-time & she doesn’t receive a cent of Child Support from her children’s father. Correct me if I’m wrong, but only the well-off gay & lesbian couples will benefit financially from these social security reforms.
Shouldn’t an effective reform strategy, one that’s based on a sincere desire to legislate for equality, start with addressing the social factors first before seeking to equalise the hip-pocket (revenue-raising) issues? I appreciate that some social issues are covered under these reforms, but really I see this as a soft approach. The big issues that affect GLBT INDIVIDUALS on a daily basis…well, show me any enthusiasm to tackle them…
Dr Jo please help us understand your concerns.
I have tried to read your submissions and previous posts but I cannot understand what your remaining concerns are.
Perhaps you could sum it up in 3 key points or sentences? I have found it difficult to understand what you have written in the past because it is too long and I cannot see the point you are making – please forgive me for this.
I have read the Senate Inquiry’s report (General Law Reform) and on page 28 it only says that you in fact welcome the changes to the Aged Care Act 1997. It doesn’t describe any other concerns you have.
Are you saying that even after this legislation is passed, same-sex couples will still be required to sell the family home if one is to enter a nursing home? John Challis above says that this has been rectified (and this was my understanding too).
thanks
PS Mr Challis, please note that “Jo” is short for “Josephine”.
If Jo goes to Hansard and reads the Same Sex Relationhips General Reform Bill he will find that the problems he is worried about have been covered by this “omnibus bill” which has the effect of removing discrimination against same sex couples from all Federal laws including aged care arrangements, social security benefits etc. From now on all registered same sex couples will be treated exactly the same way as heterosexual de facto couples. This is an enormous change for which we should sincerely thank A-G Robert McClelland who has skillfully steered the reforms through parliament to this weeks final a@@roval ( we hope) by the Senate.YES WE CAN!
John Challis,
Elizabeth Bay holidaying in Japan.
What is the AG doing about the aged care issue, happily celebrating while old gays risk losing their family home if one needs residential care? Sitting by while Centrelink persecute and investigate old gays and then seek to prosecute for overpayment?
Why has the AG ignored fixing this up and telling us how he intends to do this?
email him, via http://www.aph.gov.au web site.