Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (4:38 PM) —I move:

Statement pursuant to the order ofthe Senate of 26 June 2000—

The effect of the amendment will be to allow an increase in the number of people eligible to be partners of members and entitled to compensation under the bill. Compensation payments would be met from the appropriation provided for in clause 423 of the bill.

This increase in the number of beneficiaries under the bill will have the effect of increasing expenditure from the standing appropriation, and the amendment is therefore presented as a request.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under an appropriation clause in a bill. This request is therefore in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

This is very straightforward request on an issue senators would be familiar with. This request seeks simply to ensure that the definition of `partner' applies to people regardless of the gender of their partner. The Australian Democrats have long challenged the Minister for Defence to explain why same sex partners in the Australian defence forces are denied the entitlements granted to opposite sex couples in the Defence Force. There is no longer any reasonable basis for a difference between entitlements for de facto couples who are of opposite sex and entitlements for those who are in same sex relationships.

In our view it is not sufficient that the Australian defence forces recognise the same sex partner of a member of the services as their next of kin. Defence personnel can nominate a same sex person as their next of kin only for notification of casualty or death. Otherwise there is no recognition, nor are there the entitlements that apply to opposite sex couples, such as widow allowance, subsidised housing, travel to family home, separation allowance and superannuation. A gay partner of a member of the military personnel can get the bad news about the casualty or death of their partner but none of the benefits afforded to opposite sex couples. The Democrat request seeks to redress this.

Frankly, the only reason same sex partners of ADF personnel are denied the entitlements granted to opposite sex de facto couples is institutional discrimination. It is worth reinforcing that gay and lesbian personnel have legally served in the Australian armed forces since 1992—but of course in reality they have served in every theatre of war, including World War II. Unlike in the Australian Federal Police or Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, there are no entitlements for or even recognition of their partners. Members of the military serving overseas should not have to worry about whether or not their loved ones will be cared for if something happens to them. I believe that no other Australian community group remains as unprotected from this form of unfair discrimination.

I questioned the defence minister directly about this in question time and he said the discrimination in the ADF was a matter of departmental policy yet to evolve. The reality is that the legislation drives it. The ADF, not surprisingly, argues the reverse. This is an area that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has clearly found is discriminatory—that it is a breach of human rights obligations to treat someone differently on the basis of their sexuality. It a clear area of discrimination. Most states have removed, or plan to remove, discrimination of this type. It is clearly the federal area of law that has now fallen behind. This request simply removes the requirement that a partner must be of the opposite sex, and would give all couples the same rights—equal rights—and remove unnecessary discrimination.

I acknowledge that the view the Democrats are putting forward here is not one that is shared by all veterans groups. I asked this question of some of the witnesses who appeared before this inquiry and before a previous inquiry into related issues, and I have raised this issue from time to time. The Democrats do, as I have stated in my other contributions to this and other legislation, treat the issue of veterans legislation and veterans affairs seriously, and we seek to represent veterans groups. Obviously with such a wide range of organisations there is a divergence of views. Senators would be aware of veterans who have campaigned specifically to have this area redressed—veterans who, purely because of their sexuality, have already missed out on entitlements that heterosexual veterans have received. A range of views was expressed at the Senate committee hearings when I did raise the question. I think it is fair to say that some groups have not addressed it or have chosen to not consider it. Some ex-service organisations are opposed to this. Some recognise that—particularly now that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military and are an equal and important part of our armed forces—it is completely appropriate to ensure that this sort of discrimination does not exist.

For the benefit of the important area of recruitment and retention of personnel in the Defence Force, this area should be addressed. It is an area of ongoing importance to ensure that we continue to recruit into the Defence Force capable people from across the community. We would all know of the various advertising campaigns that continue to encourage people to join the armed forces. Of course, equally important is the need to retain people in the armed forces once they have joined. Clearly, having an area of discrimination such as this is an impediment to the number of people who are likely to see the defence forces as an attractive area, and also an impediment to retaining people in the forces. If they are aware of this area of discrimination, they are less likely to join and less likely to stay once they have joined. It is in the interests of all of us to remove barriers in the important area of recruitment and retention. It is important to ensure that all people who serve in the Defence Force have equal access to entitlements and are treated equally. For those reasons as well it is equally important, and an appropriate time, to address this area of discrimination and what is, quite frankly, an anomaly.

The other argument that is used from time to time is that if we are going to make changes like this we should make them across the board to all legislation, not to one-off bits and pieces. The opportunity has been there for about nine years now through a private senator's bill to give effect to across the board changes to legislation. That has not happened either. It is an area that is raised with me from time to time in my capacity as Democrat spokesperson for veterans' affairs and for defence. It is clearly appropriate for us to attempt to address pieces of legislation such as this to prevent this discrimination from continuing. We have a new, enhanced scheme being put in place here. Let us make it as good as possible from the start and not have another new scheme put in place with the same old discrimination entrenched in it.