How long have the major parties flip flopped on ending superannuation discrimination against same sex couples? Before a fascinating rundown from Polly Bush on the possibility that the Democrats will join the cant parties just as – because? – it finally got the Senate numbers to apply real pressure for reform, a blast from the past.
New Lib row on ‘family’ looms
by Margo Kingston
Sydney Morning Herald 29-12-1995
The Shadow minister for small business and women, Ms Judith Moylan, reignited Coalition tensions over the definition of “the family” yesterday when she publicly backed the removal of all superannuation discrimination against gay couples and single people.
Ms Moylan said marital status should be irrelevant when deciding returns on any investment, and “who you leave the equity of your policy to”. Until now, the Coalition has been intransigent in maintaining the traditional definition of “spouse” and “family” in all legislation.
Ms Moylan told the Herald: “My personal view is that the law should not interfere in this. The question of same-sex couples and single people shouldn’t enter into it. “My own personal viewpoint is that this ought to be rectified, and that superannuation should be treated like any other accumulated saving. I don’t see why something you’ve contributed to for a long period of time should be withheld on the basis of your marital relationship or otherwise.”
Ms Moylan endorsed the recommendations of a recent Senate Committee superannuation report, which urged an end to the payment of benefits only if the deceased contributor had a wife or child. It said all contributors should be allowed to nominate a beneficiary. At present, no death benefit is payable when a contributor who has no wife or child dies before retirement. This applies to government or private schemes.
The (Labor) Government has stalled for years on the issue while promising a review when the Democrats periodically propose reform through amendments to superannuation bills. Government sources said yesterday that no change was contemplated.
But the committee, led by Senator John Watson (Liberal, Tasmania), recommended a revision, not by extending the definition of family, but by offering the “nominated beneficiary” option to people without a wife or child. Senator Watson, who crossed the floor to vote against the sexual privacy bill, is a respected superannuation expert and is influential on Coalition superannuation policy.
Senator Watson said the rules should change “so that those in a bona fide domestic relationship and single people are treated in the same manner as married and de facto superannuants”.
The committee said homosexuals and single heterosexuals were “subsidising the benefits to other members of their superannuation funds purely on the basis of their marital status”. The committee said that despite Government commitments to non-discrimination, including its signature to an International Labor Organisation convention outlawing workplace discrimination on the ground of sexuality, it was the worst offender.
The Treasury department admitted that fund managers risked losing their official status if they paid out to same sex partners.
*
Same sex super rundown
by Polly Bush
Polly wrote a timely backgrounder in Same sex super: how we value love, just before Democrats Senator John Cherry unilaterally ripped up party policy by announcing the Dems would pass a super bill even if the government refused to accept same sex amendments. She reported the beginning of the fallout in Coalition heat melts Democrats on same sex super. Here’s her fascinating rundown of what’s gone down since. The Democrats crunchtime is now scheduled for October 27.
There are few guarantees in politics. There are particularly few guarantees for gay and lesbian couples when it comes to the major political parties changing the gender specific terms enshrined in federal superannuation laws.
While frustrating for Government, the Australian Democrats have had a long-held commitment to vote against any superannuation reforms unless the laws include amendments to recognise same sex couples. This is one of the party’s principles, and part of the party’s history.
But this commitment has been doubtful in recent weeks, with the Democrats Superannuation spokesperson Senator John Cherry announcing the party many back down on these amendments to pass the Government’s Superannuation Bill 2003 through the Senate.
Two weeks later, asked by Webdiary for a “straight” answer on whether he would back down, Senator Cherry said: “Wait and see”.
A backdown would pose a dilemma for at least two Democrats senators. West Australian Senator Brian Greig, who has himself been in a same-sex relationship for 18 years, is expected to not vote with the Party if it backs down on this legislation. It is also understood that former Democrats leader Senator Natasha Stott Despoja will defend the party’s long-held commitment to recognising same-sex couples by insisting on the amendments. Senator Stott Despoja was a guest presenter of the Gay and Lesbian Awards (GALAs) held in Adelaide last Friday night.
Here is a rundown of the events so far:
September 2003
Labor, the Democrats and the Greens join forces in the Senate to attach amendments giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples to a Federal Government superannuation package . Greens leader Bob Brown describes the vote as historic:
“All states and territories have moved to modify their laws to remove discrimination but the Howard government has been dragging its feet. The Senate is now moving the Government into the modern world.”
It is historic, as this is the first time the Australian Labor Party has supported such amendments. The amendments recognise both same-sex and interdependency relationships.
In the past, the minor parties, particularly the Australian Democrats, have led the way in pushing these amendments, refusing to vote for any federal legislation through the Senate without same sex couple recognition.
October 3, 2003
The Age political correspondent Annabel Crabb reports a potential back down on the amendments for the current legislation, with Democrats superannuation spokesperson John Cherry saying his party is prepared to leave same-sex rights to another day:
“We think this particular package stands alone. I think it was worth doing for the moral victory of getting Labor on the record (but) there are plenty of other bills coming up that these amendments can be attached to.”
Australia’s first gay and lesbian community radio station, Melbourne’s JOY-FM, leads its news bulletins with Crabb’s report. Greens leader Bob Brown later expresses his disbelief in the story:
“I can’t believe the Democrats will back off on this they have been such champions of this cause. I hope that this report will be found to be untrue.”
October 4, 2003
Webdiary reports a potential split emerging within the Australian Democrats should the Party back down on the amendments. Senator Greig says:
I will not vote for this Bill if the same-sex amendments fail.
However other senators indicate they are willing to back down. Victorian Senator Lyn Allyson tells the Herald Online:
I will be (reluctantly) not insisting on the amendment.
October 5, 2003
Former Western Australian division president of the Democrats Tracy Chaloner responds to Webdiary’s reports of a split emerging within the Party:
Now they (Meg Lees’ gang of four – Cherry, Allyson, Aden Ridgeway and Andrew Murray) are derailing an 11-year campaign that finally got up with the support of the ALP and Greens – superannuation equity for same sex couples – doing a backflip of epic proportions and abandoning this important amendment to the superannuation legislation now before Parliament. The Democrats had a long and proud tradition of fighting for the rights of same sex couples. It is an extremely important principle, one of equity and anti-discrimination.
October 7, 2003
A joint press release is issued by Democrats Senators John Cherry and Brian Greig. Senator Cherry argues the benefits of the current bill for low income earners:
“Workers earning less than average earnings will now be eligible for a dollar to dollar top-up for voluntary superannuation savings to a means tested maximum of $1,000.”
Senator Greig appeals to the Federal Government to support the same sex recognition amendment:
“The Government talks about the importance of choice in superannuation, but refuses to deliver choice on what happens to death benefits. It is inconsistent and hypocritical.”
The same day in the Upper House, Democrats leader Senator Andrew Bartlett attempts to “clear up any confusion” about the Democrats position. On the superannuation amendment recognising same-sex couples, Senator Bartlett says:
It is an issue which the government will need to continue to confront, particularly if the ALP’s position remains consistent in removing discrimination against same sex couples. Whether or not that approach will continue consistently on bills that the ALP support as opposed to bills the ALP oppose, we shall have to wait and see. But that is part of the unknowns that we will be seeing in the near future in this chamber and that, amongst other things, will determine what the Democrats’ approach will be to the future outcome of this legislation should the government not agree to the amendments that the chamber makes. But that, as is not uncommon, is an issue to be considered down the track rather than predetermining what we will do.
The amendments are moved and passed in the Senate, and the Bill is sent back to the Lower House.
October 8, 2003
The House of Representatives debates the superannuation amendments to recognise both same sex and interdependency relationships. Ross Cameron, the Liberal Member for Parramatta, says the amendments are irrelevant as the Bill “only applies to an individual”.
Labor Member for Grayndler Anthony Albanese, who in the past has introduced private members bills arguing for the recognition of same sex couples in superannuation law, pleads to the Australian Democrats to not back down on the amendments when the Bill reaches the Senate again:
I call upon the Australian Democrats – if they have a sliver of integrity left – to ensure that when this amendment goes back to the Senate they actually vote to remove this discrimination.
The Labor Member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, also appeals to the Australian Democrats to not back down, quoting Tracy Chaloner’s response to Webdiary:
Tracy Chaloner, the leading member of the Australian Democrats in Western Australia, says that it is a result of ‘the gang and the faceless cabal’ who are the real power behind the Democrats, who have to do with nothing more than political opportunism and who have abrogated the policy of the Democrats as it was originally formed.
The Member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, expresses his disappointment in the Government’s refusal to support the amendments:
This is a simple matter of basic human rights and decency. It is very distressing that the Government regards this as some sort of direct threat to the sanctity and security of the institution of marriage.
The print media covers the potential split within the Australian Democrats, with Annabel Crabb reporting that former Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja will be joining Senator Brian Greig on insisting on the amendments:
Senator Stott Despoja has told her colleagues she opposes the deal because it contains tax breaks for the wealthy, and she also believes the party should not let the legislation go through without proposed amendments that would finally give gay couples equal treatment under Commonwealth superannuation legislation. Even with the defections of senators Stott Despoja and Greig, the deal will pass the Senate on the votes of the other five Democrats.”
Website moneymanagement runs the headline ‘Democrats to support Govt despite same-sex veto’, reporting:
A senior Australian Democrats adviser has indicated that while the Party is disappointed by the Government’s veto of the same-sex amendments, this will not alter the Democrats support of the co-contributions legislation when it returns to the Senate.
October 10, 2003
Victoria and Tasmania’s gay newspaper MCV runs the front-page headline ‘SUPER SELLOUT’. The article reports:
The Democrats must choose between passing the unamended Bill and holding on to principle, or finalising the superannuation deal. “I think it would be very hard difficult for me to explain to a gay and lesbian community why I did not insist on these amendments on this occasion,” Senator Greig said about his voting intentions.
October 13, 2003
Debate resumes in the House of Representatives. Anthony Albanese refers to Senator Brian Greig’s comments to the Sydney Star Observer, issue no. 683:
Greig said he hoped the credibility of Democrats would not be damaged. Bad luck, Brian, because you are incredibly damaged by this sell-out. He said: “I encourage the community to look at this issue in its complexity … It’s not as black and white as our critics are making out.” It has been black-and-white in the past for Senator Greig and the Australian Democrats who have refused to be a part of broad campaign and have chosen a sectarian road on this issue in attacking people who support reform.
Albanese also attacks Prime Minister John Howard, but his use of language is rejected by the Deputy Speaker:
ALBANESE: The government, led by a bigot in the Prime Minister when it comes to issues of sexual preference, is refusing to allow this much needed reform.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams) Order! The honourable member has used the word bigot to describe the Prime Minister. I understand that the word bigot is unparliamentary.
ALBANESE: I note that no-one on the government side objected, but I withdraw the term bigot and use prejudiced in terms of sexual relations.
Keen to be clear on what language is ‘parliamentary’, Labor Member for Sydney Tanya Plibersek seeks clarification:
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start I want to seek your advice. The honourable member for Grayndler was pulled up for using the term bigot. I just wondered whether or not homophobe is parliamentary language?
In her address, Plibersek said the Government’s stance is designed to try to shore up votes:
“Remembering what the Prime Minister did when he raised the issue of lesbians having access to IVF (a summary of that debate is at Sperm for singles – round three) it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that this government sees protecting the rights of same-sex couples as not just politically unpopular but also, perhaps, sees attacking the rights of these people as a vote winner. I must say it really shocks me that the Democrats are prepared to be part of this hatchet job.”
The Member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, believes the discrimination in superannuation law is more suited to the 1950s. Mr Danby says:
By not amending this legislation we are discriminating against people who are simply trying to pass on their retirement incomes to a person with whom they are living in a loving and long-term relationship. This is not the kind of Australia that I believe is fitting for the 21st century.
With the Government having the numbers, the amendments are rejected and the bill heads back to the Senate.
October 15, 2003
The Sydney Morning Herald runs Gay rights threaten super windfall on its front page. Mark Riley, Annette Sampson and Aban Contractor report:
“The Federal Government’s $1.3 billion superannuation package, offering benefits for both high and low wage earners, was in peril last night amid a political bunfight over rights for same-sex couples. A landmark deal between the Government and the Democrats to secure tax breaks for high-income earners and government-matched contributions for the low-paid is at risk of unravelling. The Government has warned that the package will be doomed if the Democrats, Labor and the Greens back amendments in the Senate today to give gay and lesbian couples the same superannuation rights as heterosexuals. The Democrats have called a special party room meeting for this morning to thrash out its final position. The party had trumpeted the agreement with the Government as a major breakthrough for the low paid, but now faces having to shelve its long-held support of equal rights for same-sex couples to see the changes become law.”
SMH Online runs a poll on the issue, asking, “Should same sex couples get the same rights?” Of the 4063 respondents, 68% answer yes.
The story of the split gathers momentum, with the ABC online reporting:
“The Democrats’ leader Andrew Bartlett says it is difficult for Democrat senators to decide whether to force the issue on equal superannuation for gay couples or to help low income earners. ‘What we’re seeing is the Labor Party holding up significant gains for low income earners and using gay and lesbian people as the missile to shoot down that package,’ he said.”
Meanwhile, debate on the Bill resumes in the Senate. The ALP’s Senator Nick Sherry attacks Ross Cameron’s take in the House of Reps:
“His claim that the governments so-called choice of fund legislation overcomes the fundamental discrimination in law against same sex couples is grossly misleading. It is not the superannuation funds that are at the heart of the problem; it is the law that the superannuation funds are required to meet that is at the heart of the problem.”
The shots come firing back, with Liberal Senator John Watson accusing the ALP of hypocrisy:
“It is interesting that, in order to try and get some additional support for its opposition, the Labor Party has joined with some minority senators in using the same-sex couples debate to try and destroy this legislation.”(Margo: Rich as, John, given your support for reform in 1995.)
Democrats Senator John Cherry plays to both sides, talking up the Bill’s benefits to low income earners, as well as promoting the amendments to support both same sex and interdependent relationships:
“I cannot see why we cannot ensure this package moves through because it is such a good and important package. I cannot see why we cannot also deal with the issue of discrimination because it is a fundamentally important issue.”
Senator Ron Boswell provides a different argument, complaining of the problems in recognising ‘interdependent relationships’ and refusing to support same sex relationships recognition (although he had a little difficulty expressing this). In his address, he drew on a personal example:
“Unfortunately in my case, the same thing happened when my son passed away. The money was taxed when he passed it on to his nephew. I thought that was a bit rough at the time. I hope this legislation gets the support of the Democrats and that we do not get hung up on an issue that we would find, particularly in the Nationals, very difficult to support.”
Senator Sherry: Property rights are difficult for the Nationals!
Senator Boswell: No, it is not property rights. It is the other thing that I am referring to and you know it quite well – same sex couples. We would find it very difficult to support it. I plead with the Democrats.
Senator Brian Greig has the final word on the Bill before it is adjourned, attacking both the Labor and Coalition parties. Of the Labor Party’s recent support of the amendments, Senator Greig said:
“To see the amendment from Labor their first ever on this issue come out of the blue as it did, was, as Senator Watson correctly said, to see Labor using the issue of same-sex couples as a torpedo or a weapon to sink a bill that they are ultimately going to vote against. I regret that.”
In terms of the Government’s refusal to support the amendments, Senator Greig points the finger at the Prime Minister:
“The blame for that rests with the Government and its ridiculous position on this issue. We know where it comes from. I do not think it comes from Senator Coonan. I think her heart is in the right place. It comes directly from the Prime Minister and cabinet.”
October 16, 2003
The Sydney Star Observer’s David Mills covers the week’s debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, quoting the Sydney Labor MPs Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek. It also reports the response from Somali Cerise, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby co-convenor:
“This clearly demonstrates that the Howard Government is out of touch with the community, and definitely out of touch with the gay and lesbian community,” she said. The Lobby would be “extremely disappointed” if other Democrats senators voted for the bill without the amendment, Cerise said. “The Democrats are a party with a long history of taking a principled stand on gay and lesbian issues,” she said. “We expect unwavering commitment.”
Debate on the Superannuation Bill 2003 is expected to return to the Upper House when the Senate resumes on October 27.