I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Relationships Bill and, like
many other members of the chamber, I have received many emails and pieces of
correspondence from constituents and the various organisations which previous
speakers have referred to. I have read all of the correspondence, and I have
also met with many people and listened to their positions. I have also studied
the elements contained in the bill.
The plain facts are that the bill establishes a relationships
register for adult partners who are not married but are in committed
relationships. Essentially it means that it will be much easier to access
entitlements, and it will also mean that people who are registered in these
relationships will not time after time have to prove that they are in committed
relationships. It will also mean that they will not have to prove this in a
court.
To me the bill means many things. Primarily it will mean
recognition.
It is an acknowledgement of those relationships other than
traditional marriages. The bill means that, hopefully, society has stopped, has
taken a look and is rectifying a situation that has led to discrimination, so
that when your partner is seeking medical attention you will be seen as the
appropriate person to be consulted by the medical practitioner. In a time of
crisis you will not have to stand there and argue the existence of your
relationship, but instead you will be able to concentrate on what is at hand and
deal with the medical emergency. It will also mean that people will have access
to superannuation entitlements in the same way that many others in relationships
have been able to enjoy that benefit over some time.
It will also mean that a person can be seen as the primary
person for people such as funeral directors to deal with. For example, in
circumstances where people may be in a same-sex relationship and the parents of
the deceased want to intervene, they cannot do so at this point.
They cannot intervene and marginalise the partner in the
relationship, put them to one side and organise all of the arrangements without
due consultation. Funeral directors will be obliged to sit down and consult with
the same-sex partner in the same way as they would with any other partner. It is
about the recognition of relationships. It is not marginalisation; it is quite
the opposite. It is a recognition about the inclusion of relationships other
than traditional marriage.
In all of this I sincerely hope the bill will make life in a
practical sense much easier in respect of entitlements and status. I know from
speaking to constituents, friends and family members who are in loving and committed relationships that the register and
the consequential recognition have been a long time coming. I hope people in
these relationships will be able to engage in our collective community without
being sidelined and having to justify themselves and their relationships, or the
quality of their relationships. I thank them for their contributions in
agitating at many levels to bring this type of reform to this house.
I found it quite interesting talking to people in the wider
community in the lead-up to this bill, and I found that the majority of people I
spoke to who were heterosexual, whether they were married or not married, did
not believe that people in same-sex relationships are denied the basic rights
that we are talking about here tonight. In fact most people thought that there
was legal protection; that there was legislation that had been passed through
parliaments many years ago.
They were quite shocked and appalled that the benefits and
status that they take for granted had been denied to a whole sector of our
society.
In conclusion I wish to thank the many people who have worked
tirelessly to make sure that this bill is before us today. I thank them for the
journeys they have endured in making sure that people of our next generation do
not have to justify their existence, do not have to justify their sexuality and
do not have to justify their relationships over and above anyone else in the
community. I commend the bill. I wish it a speedy passage, and I urge the
opposition to recognise that the episodes of middle-class United States of
America sitcoms, Leave it to Beaver-type episodes, need to remain on TV sets of
the 1950s.