Will the 'pink vote' finally count?

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.