Senator GREIG (9:11 PM) —I want to make a few comments in closing. Firstly, I welcome Senator Evans's contributions and comments, and I thank him for them. I understand the difficult position he is in, but I note that some of the comments he made here tonight were some of the strongest in terms of promised ALP reform in this area. There will be many in the community who find that encouraging. Having said that, there will be many in the community who have heard those promises before. There were opportunities during the 13 years of Labor governments to address some of this, and that was not done. I am cognisant also of the fact that, at the time when I think Senator Robert Ray was Minister for Defence in 1992, by regulation, not legislation, the ban on gay and lesbian people serving in the military was lifted. There was a cabinet commitment to the community to also introduce an integration scheme, and an education and equity program to help facilitate that scheme, but it was never delivered. My concern and my fear is that the failure of that follow-through is in part the reason we struggle with this discrimination in the ADF today.

Senator Evans also made the point that only a Labor government would reform this area comprehensively and that the election of a Labor government is perhaps what the lesbian and gay community should aspire to. I think it is dangerous to assume that a future Labor government, were that to happen, would have a user-friendly Senate. There is no guarantee of that. We may find, given the finely balanced numbers in this place, that a Labor government would have a conservative Senate, in which case the window of opportunity would be lost. That is why I believe that, even from a position of not being in power, you should seize opportunities from the crossbenches when they arise. I consider this to be one of them. In saying that, Senator Evans seems to be of the belief—he can correct me if I am misinterpreting him—that, if you like, social reform of this scale is top down; it comes from the parliament. I have never believed that and I have never seen any evidence to support it. Social movements are always grassroots movements, and they are bottom up. They come from the community. It is through debate, education, advocacy, protest, rally and discussion such as we are having now that our community is educated to the point where political parties no longer fear reform that was once controversial. That is, in part, what I am on about.

Senator Evans, I do not know if you meant it unkindly, but I take exception to being labelled a `one-issue senator' or a `one-agenda senator', as I think you said earlier. I accept that I go on about these issues more than anyone else in this place. But I am the only one who does. If it were not for me, I doubt that anyone else would as quickly or as comprehensively step in. The fact is—and I encourage you to pore over the Hansard from the last 48 hours—that I speak on many more topics, but it is only this one that attracts media. I do not do that for media; it so happens that the media finds this sexy. That is a catch-22 situation for me, but I do not apologise for it, because when I came into this place I knew that I would never relinquish or turn on the very community who assisted me to be here.

If Senator Evans and his party are serious about trying to win the support of what might loosely be called the `human rights community'—or, more generally, gay and lesbian people—and they are serious about these issues, then they need to address and explain this nexus. For instance, they insist, as was shown in the co-contributions bill, on same sex couple amendments to a bill that they oppose, but they will not insist on same sex couple amendments to a bill that they support. You can understand why many in the community might be cynical about that. Finally, I would say to Senator Evans that there was nothing malicious in the delay or the very late distribution of the amendments to him. I was not responsible for that. I regret that it happened.

I learnt recently that Mr Danby in the other place has for some weeks now been circulating a petition in his electorate of Melbourne Ports. He has been getting people in his electorate—an electorate with a high percentage of gay and lesbian people—to sign up to his petition and his campaign for Commonwealth reform in the defence forces to bring about equity. I do not have a copy of the petition, so I do not know the precise wording. I think perhaps that it relates more directly to Edward Young and the UN. Nonetheless, it is a strong indication from a Labor member out there on the ground in the electorate advocating in this area. So Senator Bartlett and I did not think it was remotely unreasonable to introduce these amendments or that Labor would be surprised by them.

I was offended yesterday when you described the amendments as a stunt, because they are not. We are serious about them. We mean them to be taken seriously, and I really believe—and perhaps Labor now does too—that the community is largely behind this. Community and social attitudes have changed hugely, particularly in the last four or five years. These issues are no longer seen as fringe but as quite mainstream. My experience is that the only real surprise and shock to most people, on learning about the existence of the discrimination, is that the discrimination is there. Most people, because they have seen reform at a state level, think that everything is hunky-dory—and it ain't. The Commonwealth has fallen far behind the states and comparable international jurisdictions.

I will just make a few points to the minister. Firstly, we had an urgency motion in the Senate yesterday about the necessity for affordable housing. Speaker after speaker from the coalition side got up and argued that you were doing everything you could to make sure that people had access to affordable housing. Here is one policy where you are actively preventing, deterring and hindering people from affordable housing, and it is a nonsense to argue that there is any merit in that policy. The minister posed the question rhetorically, but I will pick it up—and he is right—that whole-of-government, comprehensive reform in this area would be a valuable thing. But, clearly, the government is not going to do that. We know that from a range of speakers we have heard on a variety of topics over recent days, whether it is from Minister Coonan on superannuation or, more recently, from Senator Abetz, ironically, on parliamentary travel. I understand Minister Abetz has put out a press release today saying that there is no discrimination in parliamentary travel. I assure him there is.

Finally, both the minister and Senator Evans have tonight said that a whole-of-government, comprehensive approach is needed. Senator Evans spoke of an audit of some sort. I will ask rhetorically, for the fourth or fifth time in this place, why then can we not bring on for full debate the Democrats' Sexuality and Gender Identity Discrimination Bill 2003, which I reintroduced, having revamped it, only the other day. We could have a serious and full debate on that and bring it to a vote. I know that it would not survive the House of Representatives, but that is not the point. The point is to advance the debate and for parties in this place to wear their hearts on their sleeves and show where their votes lie in what will be an election year. All things being equal, I hope that that bill, rather than coming on for debate and a vote, which is unlikely, will instead go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. That will provide Senator Evans and his colleagues with the opportunity to engage in a broader discussion and to put in their submissions as to whether the bill that we are proposing is adequate and, if not, to advance their views.

What I am very anxious to see in facilitating this debate, at least on this level, is for each of the parties, whether it be the coalition, Democrats, Greens, ALP or Independent, to have a clear, unambiguous policy in this area going to the next election—not a policy which says we will have an audit—that is pretty glib—but a policy which says, `These are quite specifically the areas that we understand are problematic and will seek to reform,' and that Defence is just one of them.

But tonight we are dealing with a quarantined issue. It is a simple issue. It is inexpensive, it can be done, it should be done and—as I have articulated in reading the letter into Hansard from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—it ought to be done, not just because it is right but because the discrimination on this very specific issue has already been found against by HREOC and we should adhere to that.