Senator MARGETTS(11.33 a.m.) —The Student and Youth Assistance (Sex Discrimination Amendment) Bill 1997 will create a permanent exemption for Austudy and Abstudy schemes from the marital status provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Student assistance schemes have been through a series of administrative and legislative Sex Discrimination Act exemptions since 1984. Most of them have been inadequate, including the last, considered by this chamber in 1995, when the ALP government attempted to exclude married couples under 22 years of age from the independent rate of Austudy. Obviously that would have been a ridiculous situation. The Greens will remain in favour, as we did in 1995, of Austudy being exempt from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act in order for married couples to receive the independent rate of Austudy.

While governments insist that young adults should remain dependent on their parents for education long after the age at which they can vote, drink, marry or—God forbid—fight in a war, there is little other choice. However, we do not believe that granting a permanent exemption for all marital status provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act is either necessary or an adequate way to deal with the complex marital issues associated with student assistance. In particular, the issue of de facto relationships remains one which governments fail to address and is simply glossed over with the introduction of this bill.

In the government's belated and cursory report on this issue—a report which we received less than 24 hours ago, and may not have received at all without the pressure put on by the minor parties and I assume Labor on this issue—the government claims there would be `significant cost implications' if the de facto relationships were recognised in line with the Sex Discrimination Act. But where are the figures? Where is the evidence that this would be the case? If people are going to go to the considerable effort of concocting a marriage type relationship, what does this tell you about the willingness of their parents to support them? None of these issues is addressed in the government's report, and they never will be addressed if this bill is passed.

When is a de facto relationship not a de facto relationship? This is a question that successive governments seem to have considerable difficulty answering, at least in any consistent manner. According to the Sex Discrimination Act, you are in a de facto relationship as soon as you live with someone as the husband or wife of that person on a bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to that person. If you are in receipt of unemployment or pension benefits, you are in a de facto relationship as soon as you are in a marriage like relationship with someone of the opposite sex. If you receive Abstudy, you are deemed to be in a de facto relationship when you have lived with someone of the opposite sex for six months.

Under the provisions of the common youth allowance, you will be in a de facto relationship if you have been living with someone of the opposite sex for two years continuously in a marriage like relationship. If you are in receipt of Austudy, you will never be in a de facto relationship, because the Commonwealth government considers that you and your partner are too difficult to deal with.

A report was specifically requested by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner as a prerequisite for granting the administrative exemption for 1997. The government has hastily thrown together 10 pages of excuses for doing nothing.

The terms of the exemption granted by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner suggest that this exemption was granted by the commission with the bona fide intention of achieving an equitable and non-discriminatory solution to the problem of Austudy or Abstudy discrimination. The government agreed to this intention, but I would contend that it has failed miserably.

This bill is being enacted not out of any clear policy position but, rather, as an easy out to cover the government's inaction on this issue. It is not as though this is a new issue or that government members have not stated their position on the matter, as can be seen from the following extract of Hansard of 9 February 1995. On page 826, Senator Tierney, then an opposition senator, berated the Labor government for not coming up with a method to address the discrimination against de facto couples in relation to Austudy. He said:

This government was lazy and arrogant in not tackling this problem of definition. It could have decided on a fair and workable definition for genuine student de facto relationships. This would have removed the need to discriminate against any group.

And later:

There is all this hurt and uncertainty for young married students because the Labor government could not find, with the help of its vast bureaucracy, a simple definition for de facto relationships.

One year on, it appears that the Liberal government has been just as neglectful. It has had nearly a year to address this issue—and here we are, in the second-last sitting week, having sighted the promised report less than 24 hours ago, and the best the government can come up with is a blanket exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act marital status provisions.

The relevant formal documents tabled with this bill state that it is government policy that `exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act should be limited' and that, `where possible, all federal legislation should be consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act's objectives'. This is an important policy statement from the government. Unfortunately, the bill does not reflect this position and, for the most part, the bill merely reflects the status quo. It takes absolutely no steps to reduce discriminatory assumptions within the specified legislation.

The government's position on the de facto issue is quite difficult to fathom. On the one hand, it claimed during the second reading debate that it was too administratively complex to equate de facto couples with married couples due to issues of proof; and, as has been mentioned, we had Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, claiming that it was improper for the government to be encouraging young people to `shack up'. But, on the other hand, it intends to enact a common youth allowance which will recognise de facto relationships. So, obviously, it is not all that difficult.

The government also seems to have forgotten that, from 1976 to 1982, during the term of a Liberal government, a de facto relationship provision existed under the Student Assistance Act. Gosh, it must not have been difficult then. The government certainly does not have a problem with it in terms of Abstudy either, where students are granted independence after establishing the existence of a de facto relationship, in this case, for six months.

We would like figures and research on the claimed cost implications and administrative difficulties of recognising de facto relationships, not the anecdotal guesswork that has accompanied this debate and which dominates the government's so-called report. For example, it might be appropriate to trial granting de facto relationships the same independent status as marriages. Surely, in an era where up to 25 per cent of long-term relationships are out of wedlock, this is an issue that deserves serious attention—not just `we reckon it'll cost too much'.

The government report cites the second key area of the necessity for discrimination—the first being de facto relationships—as the need for a spouse means test. Yet nowhere in the report is it mentioned that forcing a person, especially a woman, to be completely financially dependent on their partner can be detrimental to that person's self-esteem, freedom of choice and access to education. It is well documented that mature age women students, in returning to education, often face resistance from their partners. Surely these are major issues that one would hope a report of this nature would canvass. Nothing whatsoever. All it talks about is the need to make cost savings in the context of targeting payments.

The report highlights a `more minor' area of discrimination in which single students over the age of 21 who have been long-term unemployed are eligible for a higher rate of Austudy, but similar students with a spouse are not. In this case, the government has not explained its rationale for this arrangement at all, let alone canvassed any social justice or equity arguments. This report, to say the least, is inadequate. The government's lack of action in this area is reprehensible, and it needs to go and do it again; try it over again, and go back to the drawing board.

The government will also claim that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner will no longer grant administrative exemptions and, therefore, this legislation must be passed by the end of this year in order to prevent an administrative mess occurring with regard to Austudy claims. This may or may not be the case; we do not know. Certainly, the commis sioner would be justified in being tired of this government's inaction on this issue.

However, if the government is serious about addressing this issue, and if it has got itself into a mess via its incompetence or misfortune, or whatever other excuse it may come up with, it would seem that surely at the very least the government should only legislate for an exemption with a sunset clause that expires before the introduction of the common youth allowance due to be implemented in July 1998 but which, in the interests of fairness, should probably be introduced at the start of 1999. This would enable the exemption to be viewed in relation to what could be a substantially amended common youth allowance with various possible implications for sex discrimination issues; also, it would enable the government to consult with the community in a meaningful manner to address this issue once and for all.

Both Liberal and Labor governments have placed this issue in the too-hard basket for far too long. We will not support a bill that enables the government to avoid this issue indefinitely.

The ALP have proposed an amendment to place a three-year sunset clause on the bill. Apparently, this has been moved to allow a more rigorous review on the issue. I would suggest that allowing three years to conduct a review will achieve nothing but inaction for about two years and nine months, and then perhaps another report like we have today. Surely, we should be insisting that this issue deserves to be addressed with certainty and equity, as quickly as possible. It is not as if people have not had enough time to think about it.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner does not want to deal with the issue any more. Why should we allow up to three years for this issue to drag on? The Greens will be moving amendments in relation to recognition of same sex couples and the de facto relationships in the committee stage.

There are effectively two Greens (WA) associated amendments, one of which would say that, while marital status can be considered so that married people are granted the independent rate, `married' must include both de jure and de facto marriage. This would mean that the independent status would be extended to de facto couples and would recognise that de facto marriage is increasingly common, particularly among young people such as students.

In tax law, social security, the treatment of matters concerning children, family law and nearly every form of law in Australia, other than the Marriage Act, de facto relationships are seen as virtually indistinguishable from de jure marriage. I see no reason to try to create economic incentives to try to push young, usually childless, couples into marriage. The other amendment, in line with work I have done previously, would eliminate the discrimination between same sex and opposite sex de facto couples.