Will the 'pink vote' finally count?

Homophobia is a disease afflicting all sorts of people, not always those you expect. I was recently told of an unmarried man describing homosexuality as an abomination, even though his work requires him to regularly wear a dress and a funny hat and engage in theatrics.

One group of people you would not expect to be homophobic are those who hold to a liberal philosophy. The word liberal means to be tolerant, to be free from prejudice and bigotry. Australia is often described as a liberal democracy, but our federal government still denies some Australian citizens’ basic financial equity because of their sexual preference.

It is said that dozens of Liberals and many members of the Cabinet support an end to homophobic laws governing financial and work-related entitlements. Yet nothing has changed. When asked why, the Liberal fingers point at John Howard.

If the Liberals are not stirred by liberalism, what about votes?  Are there more votes in keeping homophobic laws than in giving gays equal superannuation? It surely doesn’t matter. One would think the Coalition being financially fairer to gays would hardly make any gay-hating bigots and homophobes switch to Labor.

It hasn’t in the past, so will the pink vote really count in any seat at this election? Will the May 2007 report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, entitled Same-Sex: Same Entitlements, finally focus gay strategic voting?

If that was to happen anywhere, you would expect it to happen in Sydney.

This is what HREOC said: At least 20,000 couples in Australia experience systematic discrimination on a daily basis. Same-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples take for granted.

HREOC also said: The principles of non-discrimination, equality before the law and the best interests of the child are amongst the most fundamental of all human rights principles. Yet there are a raft of [58] federal laws which breach these principles.

Of those 58 federal acts HREOC identified 15 affecting superannuation entitlements. HREOC said the discriminatory laws were easy to amend, and provided precise guidance on how to do that.  The Democrats have been trying to amend federal law for decades to get rid of anti-gay discrimination, but the benefit of the HREOC report was that it provided new authoritative and detailed guidance on the best approach.

The Democrats, Labor and the Greens have now all moved some amendments to address HREOC’s findings, with the Democrats moving amendments to no less than 12 of the 58 Acts mentioned by HREOC, including the income tax assessment acts, and the various superannuation acts.

The Coalition voted against all these amendments from the three non-government parties. The Liberal and National parties both allow conscience votes, but not one person would cross the floor, despite some whispering their support as they assembled to vote. The Coalition produced no amendments of their own.

The Coalition cannot hide behind cost either. For instance the Senate Estimates in May exposed the true cost of funding federal public sector superannuation for same sex and interdependent couples.

With respect to the public sector, the federal Government had consistently refused to allow for the extension of death benefits to interdependent relationships and same sex couples, citing cost as one excuse, but Estimates established that the estimated annual budget cash cost was only around $10 million.

The $2 billion public sector cost commonly bandied about is not the annual cost but is for the total unfunded superannuation liability stretching decades hence. This long-term cost splits between same sex couples and interdependent relationships at about $1 billion each.

So the cost to pay attention to is actually just $10 million a year. $10 million a year to achieve equity for same sex couples and interdependent relationships in federal superannuation is a trifle in a budget Australia's size.

National voter surveys have indicated widespread community support for homosexuals having equal finance and work related entitlements to heterosexuals. The question is how to translate that support into legislative change.

The gay lobby groups are asking candidates and parties for the 2007 federal election whether they support HREOC’s recommendations; and if they do, will they commit to them being implemented.

No commentator sees gay rights as a vote-changing issue for the broader community in this federal election. That may be true, but there are votes in gay rights. Gays and supporters of gay rights have to do what they can.  One question is whether they can organise and direct the gay vote.

So - will the pink vote finally count? Will gays vote against candidates who don’t commit to hold firm or to cross the floor on this issue? Will anyone lose their seat or gain a seat on their anti-gay or pro-gay stance?

Based on past experience, I doubt it. We’ll soon see.

Finally – the list of calumny. For those interested in HREOC’s summary of discrimination against gays under superannuation laws I quote from page 380 of the HREOC Same-sex: same entitlements report:

• A federal government employee’s surviving same-sex partner cannot access direct death benefits (lump sum or reversionary pension) available to a surviving opposite-sex partner (unless the employee joined the public service after 1 July 2005).
• The surviving child of a lesbian co-mother or gay co-father who was a federal government employee will not usually qualify for direct death benefits (lump sum or reversionary pension) available to the child of a birth mother or birth father.
• It is harder for a surviving same-sex partner to qualify for death benefits in private superannuation schemes (as a person in an 'interdependency relationship') than for a surviving opposite-sex partner (as a 'spouse').
• A surviving same-sex partner cannot usually qualify for a reversionary pension in a private superannuation scheme, which is available to an opposite-sex partner.
• It is harder for a surviving same-sex partner to access death benefits from a retirement savings account (as a person in an ‘interdependency relationship’) than for a surviving opposite-sex partner.
• It is harder for a surviving same-sex partner to access death benefits tax concessions than for a surviving opposite-sex partner.
• A same-sex partner cannot access the death benefits anti-detriment payment available to an opposite-sex partner.
• A same-sex partner cannot engage in superannuation contributions splitting and the associated tax advantages available to an opposite-sex partner.
• A same-sex partner cannot access the superannuation spouse tax offset available to an opposite-sex partner.
• A surviving same-sex partner of a federal judge cannot access the reversionary pension available to a surviving opposite-sex partner.
• A surviving same-sex partner of a Governor-General cannot access the allowance available to a surviving opposite-sex partner.