Same sex super not on, again

Newly ordained high priestess Meg Lees zipped into the Senate on her Harley like a bat outta hell and zipped up the deal, ditching a convoy of dykes on bikes along the way. In doing a deal in the name of the sisterhood, Meg dumped the rest of the sisterhood in the process. But seriously, who would have thought Meg Lees would save her former party the Australian Democrats from an embarrassing split over same-sex amendments?

Webdiary columnist Polly Bush reports the denouement of the latest failed quest for equal superannuation rights for same sex couples. Her earlier reports are Same sex super: how we value loveCoalition heat melts Democrats on same sex super and Same sex super rundown.

 

It’s no real surprise the houses of parliament still begin proceedings with the Lord’s prayer, given the debates can spawn a chamber of unholy alliances battling it out for what sometimes seems the holy grail. Or the unholy one.

Last week was no exception in the Senate, as the parties drew swords to thrash out the Government’s superannuation reforms, slashing away equal rights for same sex couples in the process.

In one pew sat the holy ghost, the Democrats, dancing with a deal with the devil, but at the same time waving a piece of gospel from their bible – a tattered rainbow flag recently kissed by Judas Cherry Picker.

Also brandishing the multi-coloured sash and jesus sandals was Big Brother Bob Brown High, who delivered a sermon sanctifying his sisterhood and condemning the holy ghost to death by stoning.

In his black cape and glittery purple polish, Gothic Prince Bartlett cursed Big Brother Bob and demanded he release his sacrificial lamb to the alter.

Coonan the Contrarian crucified the Australian Lip-Service Party, who had recently split from her sanctimonious church. But new Missionary Nick Blood-of-Christ Sherry vowed to continue to don the technicolour dream coat.

On his mighty catholic crusade, a frocked up Cardinal Harradine sprayed holy water at the other life of Brian. But despite the mist surrounding the holy ghost, Disciple Greig helicoptered the incense straight back.

But it didn’t matter in the end. Newly ordained high priestess Meg Lees zipped into the Senate on her Harley like a bat outta hell and zipped up the deal, ditching a convoy of dykes on bikes along the way.

In doing a deal in the name of the sisterhood, Meg dumped the rest of the sisterhood in the process.

But seriously, who would have thought Meg Lees would save her former party the Australian Democrats from an embarrassing split over same-sex amendments?

If the question is worded, “Who would have thought Meg Lees would vote with the Coalition Government on an economics related package?” then it is not so surprising.

Last Monday night, Independent senators ushered through the Federal Government’s Superannuation package.

For those who earn under $27,500, the Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners Bill means the Government will match any voluntary contributions of up to $1,000 a year.

It’s no wonder the passage of this bill has received widespread support from the superannuation industry (which also upports same sex rights) – as many have said the Government’s package has produced the most significant reforms in 15 years.

But while many have praised the Co-Contribution bill, some experts doubt whether people on low incomes will be able to add extra into their super.

Industry Funds Services’ financial planner Lynne Wilkinson said that people on low incomes are flat out trying to cover the cost of living.

“The people who are going to use it will be the spouses of doctors and lawyers and the like who have part-time jobs, whose families can afford to because their partners are on higher incomes,” Wilkinson said (‘Battlers’ super doubt’, Sunday Mail, November 2, 2003).

For those who earn over $96,000, the Governments Surcharge Rate Reduction bill will reduce the surcharge tax from 15 per cent to 12.5 per cent over three years.

Ironically, one of the main superannuation issues for same sex couples is the tax rate.

Because of the gender specific terms in legislation, death benefits for same sex couples are taxed at either 20 or 30 per cent, as opposed to the tax-free status for heterosexual couples. (See overtherainbow.)

But the Government’s package passed the Senate last week without the amendments giving same sex and interdependency couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The support of senators Meg Lees, Brian Harradine and Shayne Murphy meant the Australian Democrats were able to stick with party policy by insisting on the amendments.

Senator Len Harris was absent from the proceedings, however his vote was registered as a “pair” (when the House pairs up opposite votes from absentee members so as to nullify the numbers). Rumour has it the organisation of the One Nation senator’s pair vote was orchestrated at the last minute by Liberal senators, desperate to ensure they could get the numbers.

The passage of the super reforms would have been a frustrating victory for Democrats superannuation spokesperson John Cherry, who negotiated much of the Government’s package with Revenue Senator Helen Coonan.

In the last few weeks, Senator Cherry said the party was planning on backing down on the party’s policy of insisting on same sex couple recognition to let the Superannuation Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners Bill pass.

While the Democrats held firm on party policy and insisted on the amendments, their commitment to the issue has been questionable due to these comments. Prior to the vote, if the Democrats had every intention of insisting on the amendments, why then was it not raised in negotiations with the Government, as alleged by Revenue Minister Senator Coonan last Monday night?

Following the vote, ABC PM’s Matt Brown queried Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett on how far they lobbied the Government on the issue of same sex amendments:

MATT BROWN: I’ve just been told it wasn’t put on the table by people on your own team, that it wasn’t substantially explored?

ANDREW BARTLETT: Well, look, it was put on the table. The reason why we couldn’t substantially explore it because it’s very hard to negotiate with the Government to agree to something we haven’t even been able to get the Labor Party to agree with in the Senate in the past. That’s why it was difficult for it to progress.

Another loitering question is – did the Democrats thoroughly lobby the Independents (particularly Lees and Murphy) on insisting on the same sex amendments? And if not, how serious are they in seeing the amendments eventually become law?

Overall, last Monday night’s debate just added to a cynical couple of weeks in politics for same sex couples. In the end, the bulk of the debate over same sex couple recognition was hijacked by party politics and was sadly not about human rights.

The Coalition held onto supporting the discriminatory definitions in superannuation legislation. The Labor Party’s sudden support of the same-sex amendments – while welcome – seemed to be more about a means in which to reject the Government’s legislation as well as throwing a wedge into the Australian Democrats.

The Independents, particularly Meg Lees and Shayne Murphy, were particularly disappointing as they both support same sex rights yet voted with the Government.

As disappointing as many players were on this issue, the real sticking point is the Howard Government’s refusal to change the gender specific terms enshrined in legislation.

However, the debate last Monday night provided a skerrick of hope in relation to future same sex couple recognition, with Revenue Minister Senator Helen Coonan indicating the Government may examine the issue:

“There will be opportunities to canvass the issues again in a more informed way. Interdependency is a very complex issue. Frankly, I would have ministerial colleagues (READ JOHN HOWARD) and many other issues to consider before I would be in a position at an appropriate point to participate in that debate and take issue with most of what has been said. The choice bill is very close to being introduced. It is always a bit difficult to give absolute commitments, but it is listed for the week commencing 24 November.”

While vague, this statement from Coonan is encouraging as well as surprising.

Indeed, last Monday night’s debate provided a few surprises, with some senators still of the view the Democrats were about to back down on the amendments prior to the vote.

“I recognise that the Democrats are going to vote down Labors same sex couple amendment, in all probability. We have not had the vote yet but I recognise that that is likely to happen,” Labor Senator Nick Sherry said in the Upper House when the debate began.

Greens leader Bob Brown and Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett traded insults over who was “selling out”. Senator Brown said:

“The fact is that the Democrats are giving away the leverage where they should have stood, eyeballed the government and said, ‘if you want to see this package through, do the decent thing and end discrimination on superannuation amongst Australians’.”

Senator Bartlett replied, “Senator Brown is not interested in extra gains for low income earners, because he would rather score political points using the gay and lesbian community as his sacrificial lamb.”

Senator Cherry queried the overall commitment to same sex couples from the Greens:

“[This] is the first time in seven years in this place that we have seen Senator Brown move an amendment in recognition of same sex couples in this area of superannuation. The Greens are so concerned about this issue that Michael Organ did not even vote in the other place to insist on this amendment.”

The Democrats superannuation spokesperson continued to play it both ways, talking up the benefits of the Government’s reforms as well as supporting the amendments:

“We need to get a message out not only that this package is worth supporting and worth going through but also that the amendments to remove discrimination against those in same-sex and interdependent relationships are worth doing and worth going through, which is why the Democrats will be insisting on our amendments,” Senator Cherry said.

But Senator Cherry’s commitment to persuading the Government to support recognition of same sex couples came under fire when Revenue Minister Senator Helen Coonan admitted the Democrats superannuation spokesperson had not raised the issue in their dealings.

“I have to say to the Senate that there was no mention at all in the negotiations of the Democrats insistence that there should be some amendments that relate to same sex couples and other relationships,” Senator Coonan said.

Coonan was cynical of the Labor Party’s motivation to support same-sex couple amendments, arguing, “They knew that their stance on same sex couples would embarrass the Democrats”.

Former Democrats leader and now independent Senator Meg Lees began her address congratulating Senator Cherry and his “very good arrangement with the government”.

She attacked the Labor Party for their sudden support of same sex couples:

“I think it is rather opportunistic of [the Labor Party] to start moving these amendments in the hope they can embarrass others, cause some disruption and, if not delay, fail in this very important measure for low-income Australians. I would say that Labor are at a bit of mischief making.”

Lees also made a last minute appeal to the Democrats to back down on the amendments.

“As Senator Cherry said this morning, the Democrats want this to go through. I say to Senator Cherry: if you are going to insist on these amendments it is simply not going to go anywhere.”

At the expense of lesbians, Lees said the main reason she was voting in support of the Bill was that women would benefit – as they make up a large proportion of low income earners.

“Women simply do not share the same access as men in terms of pay, employment, super benefits,” Senator Lees said.

Senator Shayne Murphy, who sided with the Government in rejecting the amendments, only made a brief address to the House. He appealed to the Federal Government to re-examine the same sex debate in future legislation, but backed the Government on this occasion:

“The issue of same sex couples is a very difficult issue and has not been resolved. These bills, whilst they are relevant to the issue to some degree, have a very significant impact on the broad community in terms of superannuants,” Senator Murphy said.

Fellow Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine also argued the benefits of the Bill to low income earners, before launching into an at-best ridiculous justification in rejecting the same sex amendments:

“Superannuation treats everyone in our society equally and has made the judgement that there should be positive discrimination in favour of married couples or persons living in a marriage like relationship. This decision is not against other groups but in favour of a particular type of relationship, which has been deemed to be important to the Australian community because of its ability to provide a safe and stable environment for children,” Senator Harradine said.

Democrats Senator Brian Greig was quick to reply to Harradine’s remarks, arguing:

“Senator Harradine is of course wrong on all counts. The fact is that superannuation was introduced in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with the institution, preservation or protection of marriage, but rather as a means for people to save for their retirement.”

Greig, who has been in a same-sex relationship for 18 years, directly asked Harradine, “How is it that denying my partner superannuation death benefits improves the marriage between Senator and Mrs Harradine?”

Later in the debate, Senator Greig referred to Harradine’s comments again:

“As far as I am concerned that is just heterosexist supremacy. That is just like saying the government of South Africa was not really discriminating against blacks; it was just upholding the rights and privileges of whites. It is not acceptable.”

Greig provided arguably the best point of the day on why the Bill assisting low-income earners was discriminatory. While Revenue Minister Helen Coonan continually pushed the line that this Bill couldn’t possibly discriminate against same sex couples as it only applied to individuals, Greig countered the argument by pointing out that same sex couples were also low-income earners.

“This is where I think you are wrong Minister: the discrimination kicks in when, at some point in the future, those people in same sex relationships who have taken advantage of this legislation, should it proceed, then try and bequeath their fund to their surviving partner.”

Greig also attacked Prime Minister John Howard’s 1996 election comments that he would be governing for “all of us”.

“If we are serious about governing for all then you cannot exclude some people in the community,” Senator Greig said.

It’s a great statement, because it also ties back into the Democrats policy of always (yes John Cherry) blocking Superannuation bills unless they remove the discriminatory definitions in the law.

If John Howard is really wanting to govern for “all of us”, by changing the gender specific terms in superannuation legislation he’ll be able to get a lot more super packages through the Senate, which, in the end, can finally benefit all of us.

***

Finally, one last thought. Prior to last week’s vote, speculation that some Democrats senators were about to back down on the amendments evolved around the so-called ‘gang of four’ (John Cherry, Lyn Allyson, Andrew Murray and Aden Ridgeway).

However before the showdown, Senator Aden Ridgeway told Queensland Pride he would be insisting on the amendments and gave admirable reasons why – the memory of a gay friend who had recently passed away, as well as supporting solidarity amongst minority groups.

Perhaps Ridgeway’s stance convinced the other wavering Democrats senators they needed to continue their support of same sex amendments. Here is Queensland Pride’s report:

Queensland Pride newspaper Issue #186

Story by Iain Clacher

DEMOCRAT Senator Aden Ridgeway will join rebel colleagues Brian Greig and Natasha Stott Despoja and vote against the Superannuation Co-contributions bill unless the Howard Government accepts an amendment to recognise same sex couples.

However the unamended legislation looks set to pass the Senate early next week with the support of independent Meg Lees, One Nation’s Len Harris, and at least two of the four remaining Democrats: Lyn Allison and the co-architect of the bill, John Cherry (Qld).

Yet to declare their intentions are Andrew Murray and party leader Andrew Bartlett (Qld).

“I’ll be voting according to my conscience on a matter of principle,” Ridgeway told Queensland Pride.

“The principle is that same sex couples need to be recognised. While I respect the measures John Cherry has been able to achieve for low income earners in his negotiations with the government on this bill, at the same time I feel I need to make a stand.

“A friend of mine who was gay passed away recently and I would be offending his memory if I didn’t support this,” he said.

Ridgeway also noted gay Senator Brian Greig had been ‘very supportive’ of his own stand on indigenous human rights issues.

LGBT rights advocate Rodney Croome welcomed Ridgeway’s decision.

“It sends out a very positive message about LGBT and aboriginal solidarity,” he said.

“That we have strong and vocal supporters in the aboriginal community reminds us in turn that we should be strong advocates of aboriginal rights.”

Croome said it was ‘unacceptable’ that despite the stance of Ridgeway, Greig and Despoja there was still a ‘great possibility’ the legislation would pass without the same sex amendments.

“[Ridgeway’s decision] will further embarrass those of his colleagues who aren’t supporting same sex couple rights.”

Leave a Reply