Senator LUDWIG (8:23 PM) —I chose not to speak on the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Bill 2002 in the second reading debate because, after consideration of it by a committee and after reading the committee report, I thought that was not required. The Labor opposition supports the bill, the government supports the bill and the minor parties are a mixed bag in relation to the bill. Therefore, I thought speaking to the bill would just demonstrate that, yes, we do support the bill, so I chose not to do so. When I had a look at the amendments to the bill which were requested by this house, I thought they were sensible ones. There did not seem to be a reason why they would be denied. The report by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee was almost unanimous. There was a dissenting report by One Nation and additional comments by Senator Andrew Murray but, by and large, the report reflected the views of Labor and the government.

This bill is about the members of parliament life gold pass. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 June 2002 and was referred to a committee. Considerable debate was generated about the gold pass; it did not generate considerable debate about the issue that now has been insisted upon by Senator Abetz—that is, the definition of `spouse'. If the intention of this bill, introduced by the government, was about winding back the clock in relation the definition of `spouse'—in other words, taking a view that I think is out of step with current thinking—then that is very sad indeed.

Senator Abetz —You don't understand it, Joe.

Senator LUDWIG —I will take that interjection, Senator Abetz. You really do amaze me. I will digress for a second, because the view that you adopted during the committee stage, quite frankly, amazed me. The arguments that you put forward to justify why you would not include de facto spouses in the definition simply amaze me. In scratching around—almost in the dark, it appears—you came across section 53 of the Constitution. Section 53 is interesting, but I do not think it helps you one little bit, Senator Abetz. Section 53 says:

Senator Abetz, perhaps the difficulty with your argument in the first place is that you did not read further than the beginning of section 53, but I am sure that in summation you can try to correct that. Section 53 goes on to say:

That was exactly what was done, as I understand it. The request for an amendment was in fact made by this house to the House of Representatives. The message from the House says:

requesting—

There is your request. There is no technical form that you had to bother about, Senator Abetz. You could have simply picked up the amendment as is and booted it through—and one wonders why you did not do this—when the bill was in the committee stage. It seems to me that you are trying to wind back the clock, as suggested by Senator Faulkner and a number of other senators on this side. I do not think that is true, is it? I do not think that is really the intention of this government.

I cannot imagine that the people on the committee who recommended the amendment—Senator Mason and Senator Brandis—really believed that they supported you in winding back the clock in relation to the definition of spouse. If they did, I would be only too happy for them to come down and declare that to be the case, but I would be shocked and amazed to think that they would support that. It would be partisan of me to say that Senator Faulkner and Senator Forshaw would be of my view that there is no problem with amending the definition of spouse. Paragraph 3.13 of the committee report stated:

There is no need for me to read any further in relation to that provision. I cannot for the life of me follow why the Howard government would want to continue to insist on the narrow definition of spouse that the committee brought to light.

The good work that committees do stretches across a number of areas. They deal with issues such as views about the legislation—they deal with matters of substance— but they also deal with technical issues alongside the thrust of the legislation they are currently reviewing, and as part of that process they throw up issues, perhaps minor issues, on which they suggest minor improvements to the legislation. Committees might also suggest issues that have perhaps been overlooked during the drafting stage of legislation. That is what I thought could have happened, Senator Abetz. That is what I thought would have been the proper answer. I did not think Senator Abetz had a narrow, old or retrospective view of the issue or a view out of touch with society as a whole. I thought the truth was more that it was simply an oversight of drafting by the government and that the committee's good work would pick it up and amend it—not a big deal—to include the broader definition of what a spouse is in modern times.

We did not find that. During the committee stage we had the debate, which I listened to. Then the House of Representatives supported this narrow view. At that point in time was it, as Senator Faulkner said, a case of wag the dog? I do not know. Stubbornness comes to mind, and perhaps nonrecognition of what a modern day act would include. It would include a broad definition of what a spouse is, not the narrow view which is expressed in the bill. For those we can perhaps call constitutional Lilliputians, the argument dealing with section 53 of the Constitution is that this is really an appropriation that increases the annual return of revenue, which you would then have to deal with somehow. But it is a theoretical construct. We do not know, because no-one has claimed or no-one might claim. You cannot say, `We add ten grand here,' or `We take away five grand there.' The class is too broad to determine. It is an indeterminate class, because there might be some people going through divorce who might also have—

Senator Abetz —The class of beneficiaries has increased.

Senator LUDWIG —I do not want to go there. Other people might have different relationships and arrangements from mine. I am happily married and my wife ensures that we will remain that way. Others are in de facto relationships and are happily married. One of my best friends is in a de facto relationship—and has been so, I suspect, for the last 20-odd years—and his de facto ensures that he also maintains that relationship. There is no reason to wind back the clock— to narrow the definition. The reason really escapes me. I do not think you have stated it, Senator Abetz, and perhaps you can provide a better answer in this debate than you have to date. The class is so broad that the constitutional argument you raised before is extraordinarily weak; it is so weak that I do not think you should rely on it. If we throw that to the side and say, `We accept that that is just not something you can really rely on'—

Senator Abetz —High Court next stop.

Senator LUDWIG —That is why I am here, Senator Abetz. That is why I have decided to come down and contribute to this debate. I cannot for the life of me understand why, in a modern world, we would try to go back to an old, narrow definition. We know that for the sake of consistency it would be far better, as the committee said, to ensure that the legislation was consistent with other legislation. This legislation is now, by the government's hand, not consistent. You have a new definition of what we would regard as a spouse—a very narrow definition. The question that struck me was whether that would become a bit like a bushfire and start to grow and go through the whole area. The Sex Discrimination Act was passed back in 1984. Section 6 of that act prevents discrimination on the grounds of marital status as interpreted under section 4.

I do not wish to go so far as thinking that you are trying to change the 1984 act, but one wonders whether or not that is your intent. I would appreciate some clarity in respect of your view of the issues surrounding the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Senator Bolkus went back 12 years or so to 1990, when this definition was structured. I will go back a bit further and ask the fundamental question of whether or not you still agree with the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. The act prevents discrimination on the grounds of marital status as defined in section 4, which says:

That is what it means. I do not know why you cannot rely on that definition to begin with. It beggars belief that you do not.

It beggars belief that we have to have this argument again—it has been raised since 1984 and it was clarified in 1990, yet we are now having the same debate. You are trying to progress an argument that is really made out of thin air. Firstly, you have relied on the constitutional issues—you remember Gulliver's travels, no doubt; that is what it reminds me of.

Senator Abetz —Lillipudlian!

Senator LUDWIG —Yes, that is the issue. Of course, we are not really after small minds in relation to the constitutional issues. What we want is broad minds. What we want is for people to be able to look ahead and say, `This is what society is, this is what we should have, these are the current laws and this is the definition that fits within the framework that we accept.' We should not try and put people into a second-class category. We should not then try to wind back the clock into other areas. Why do you not come clean, Senator Abetz, and not wag the dog? Ensure that the legislation is sound and is capable of meeting the expectations that are held for it; ensure that the committee's work was well done. That is what it was all about—the main argument was had and put. Why do you not give up on this small, narrow issue that you are trying to hold on to? It does not make sense. (Time expired)