By Jen Crothers
SYDNEY — Independent parliamentarian Clover Moore has announced that she intends to introduce a private member's bill for a Significant Personal Relationships Act. There has been debate over this move, with the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) claiming that Moore is ignoring the wishes of the community.
There are two main models in the debate: registered partnerships and de facto relationships. Registered partnerships have to be registered before the relationship is recognised. De facto relationships are based on presumption: if you fulfil the criteria, you are presumed to be in a relationship.
Registered partnerships would require a new act of parliament. Existing de facto legislation could be amended to include a new definition of couple that would include gays and lesbians.
Moore's bill combines choice and presumption in an attempt to minimise the problems that each model provides on its own. The GLRL wants to amend the de facto act because that is the simplest and therefore the most "politically feasible" option.
The main problem with registered partnerships is that registering necessitates outing yourself to a homophobic state.
With de facto legislation, you may be deemed to be in a de facto relationship when you don't wish to be. Secondly, your personal circumstances may fall outside the definition, so your relationship may not be recognised by the state even if you desire it to be.
Moore's bill shifts the focus away from sexual relationships and financial dependence and onto emotional interdependence and commitment. This means it will benefit the community as a whole, not just Moore's large lesbian and gay constituency.
The GLRL claims that Moore's bill has no chance of success. The state Labor government made an a election promise that it would introduce legislation to recognise same sex relationships. After two years in government, there is no indication that it will honour this commitment.
While either of the options may benefit some gay men and lesbians, all legislation that gives couples rights over non-couples is problematic.
All individuals have a right to be supported and protected by society. Presently, social security benefits are less for a married or de facto couple than they are for two individuals, and many married people are not eligible for social security if their partner is working.
The claim by the GLRL that the defeat of Moore's bill will set back the campaign seems to be a scare tactic. If the political climate is right now for some change, why does that exclude the push for a more far-reaching policy?
But the problem with both positions is that they ignore the lesson of the recent victory against homophobic laws in Tasmania. The only way that real formal legislative change comes about is when it is backed up by people mobilised on the streets, not just public opinion or petition campaigns.