Rodney Croome
THE Hobart Community Legal Service and the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group are convening forums on the rights of same-sex couples in state and federal law.
The forums will be attended by legal experts in key areas such as same-sex parenting, formal recognition of relationships, and social security and other entitlements. These experts will give an overview of their areas and be available to answer any questions.
There will be a forum in Hobart this Wednesday April 22nd from 6 to 7.30pm in the meeting room, McDougall Bdg, Ellerslie Rd, Battery Point.
There will be a forum in Launceston a week later on Wednesday April 29th between the same times in Room 11, Adult Education Building, 8 High Street.
*
This is a good opportunity to address some of the issues raised by Julian Punch in a recent article about last year’s federal reform which gave equity to same-sex de facto partners in areas like social security, tax and superannuation. Julian’s particular concern is that some same-sex couples will lose income if one is on an unemployment, disability or old-age pension.
Firstly, Julian is wrong to claim that last year’s reform was a revenue grab by the Government. Estimates of how much reform will cost the Federal Government vary between 70 and 100 million dollars a year for several years – mostly superannuation payouts to newly-recognised partners. But no calculations show a net gain to the Government.
Secondly, Julian is also wrong to claim that same-sex partners would be happy with last year’s reform if it had been accompanied by some kind of formal recognition like same-sex marriage. The Human Rights Commission did Australia’s largest ever gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) consultation on this issue in 2006-07. The overwhelming response in every state was for financial and workplace equity even if marriage wasn’t part of the deal (and in full knowledge that with rights come responsibilities).
What that consultation did throw up was a demand that elderly and disadvantaged same-sex partners have extra time to adjust to the new social security regime. This kind of consideration has been automatically included in past social security reforms affecting heterosexual couples. It is called “a grandfather clause”. Unfortunately, the Government rejected this option. It fears mis-informed tabloid headlines to the effect of “gays want to have their cake and eat it too”.
Which brings me to my final point.
Julian is wrong to claim that the drawbacks of last year’s reform, including the absence of a grandfather clause, is the fault of GLBT advocates. I attended at least three meetings at which grandfathering was raised by community reps only to be dismissed by the Government. But to divert criticism that it is being heartless towards older and disadvantaged same-sex partners, I understand the Government is now blaming those very people – the advocates – who tried to soften its heart. “No-one asked us for this” it is disingenuously claiming. I’m surprised someone with as much political experience as Julian has swallowed this big, fat and very cynical lie.
Rodney Croome.
Julian Punch’s article
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/a-cynical-grab-for-revenue/
The Australian on the cost of same-sex reform federally
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23547137-5014046,00.html
The Sydney Morning Herald on grandfather clauses
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay-couples-to-face-new-era-of-financial-discrimination/2008/12/05/1228257316542.html
More on this issue by Rodney Croome
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2912_0_1_0_C
