I was lissioning to a debate in the federal parliment last night on a bill to amend the comonwealth superanuation scheme to alow the partner of a same sex couple to claim things like death benifits if there partner dies.
This bill is a precurser to a much larger piece of legislation which will remove descrimination in nearly 100 pieces of federal law relation to finatial, tax, super, and social security leglislation which directly discriminate against same sex couples
2 things i found most interesting about the debate
The first thing is that brendon nelson should really never be alowed to speak in public and if he does chris pine (the member for sturt) should really write his speaches. He made almost as big an ass of himself this time as he did in the apology speach.
The second thing was that ever member of parliment i lissioned to started there speach with "discrimination of any form is abhorent in contempary australian sociaty and should be abolished"
This is a sentiment i agree with whole heartedly but unfortuantly there was a BUT that came next.
The but was that nither side of politics will amend the marrage act to get rid of a glaring piece of discrimination nor will they amend adoption laws so that the legal guardians of a child are the people who raise them no matter what sex they are.
In fact this was GLARINGLY ovious when lissioning to a speach by an oposition member who said "we should in no way change the law so that same sex couples have the same statice as a step parent of a child". He went on to imply that the only parents of a child are those who provide the genetic material rather than those who raise the child. I found this highly insulting not just to the gay comunity but to anyone who adopts a child including grandparents who raise there grandchildren because the parents are unfit (something that i have personal experiance with because my cousin is being raised that way because his mother was in a very vilont relationship)
I am wondering why no one has ever taken the federal goverment to the antidiscrimination tribunal over this
I also found the debate interesting because it was the international convention on the rights of the child which is the reasons they are even having this debate. ie the finantial stress that the couple is being put under compared to what oposite sex couples face is going against the interests of the child and there for the law is in brech of our international obligations under this convention.
I was surpised at this because i thought the argument would end up coming from the convention on political and civil rights rather than from the ICORH both of which we are signitries to.
This bill is a precurser to a much larger piece of legislation which will remove descrimination in nearly 100 pieces of federal law relation to finatial, tax, super, and social security leglislation which directly discriminate against same sex couples
2 things i found most interesting about the debate
The first thing is that brendon nelson should really never be alowed to speak in public and if he does chris pine (the member for sturt) should really write his speaches. He made almost as big an ass of himself this time as he did in the apology speach.
The second thing was that ever member of parliment i lissioned to started there speach with "discrimination of any form is abhorent in contempary australian sociaty and should be abolished"
This is a sentiment i agree with whole heartedly but unfortuantly there was a BUT that came next.
The but was that nither side of politics will amend the marrage act to get rid of a glaring piece of discrimination nor will they amend adoption laws so that the legal guardians of a child are the people who raise them no matter what sex they are.
In fact this was GLARINGLY ovious when lissioning to a speach by an oposition member who said "we should in no way change the law so that same sex couples have the same statice as a step parent of a child". He went on to imply that the only parents of a child are those who provide the genetic material rather than those who raise the child. I found this highly insulting not just to the gay comunity but to anyone who adopts a child including grandparents who raise there grandchildren because the parents are unfit (something that i have personal experiance with because my cousin is being raised that way because his mother was in a very vilont relationship)
I am wondering why no one has ever taken the federal goverment to the antidiscrimination tribunal over this
I also found the debate interesting because it was the international convention on the rights of the child which is the reasons they are even having this debate. ie the finantial stress that the couple is being put under compared to what oposite sex couples face is going against the interests of the child and there for the law is in brech of our international obligations under this convention.
I was surpised at this because i thought the argument would end up coming from the convention on political and civil rights rather than from the ICORH both of which we are signitries to.