Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls said in a media statement that “the overarching objective of the reforms was to protect the best interests of children born using such treatment”.

“Families come in all shapes and sizes and always have. We want to ensure that regardless of family structure, a child born through a surrogacy arrangement, to a single mother or to a same-sex couple receives the same legal protections as others.

“These reforms provide a legal framework for what is already occurring in the community,” Hulls said.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission, which recommended the changes, found that parental capacity was based on good parenting skills rather than relationship status or sexual orientation.

The new laws will ensure Victoria’s laws are compatible with Federal discrimination laws by providing that women can gain access to assisted reproductive treatment regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.

The laws will also ensure stronger legal protection for children by giving legal recognition to the commissioning parents in a surrogacy arrangement, or the female partner of a child’s mother.

The Rainbow Families Council, which represents the interests of same-sex parents and their children, has welcomed the new laws.

“This is a step towards law reform that recognises our children and families legally and socially,” said spokesperson Felicity Marlowe.

Although the legislation will be the subject of a conscience vote in the state parliament, Marlowe told MCV she is confident it will be passed.

“I think it will get through on the recommendations that this is in the best interest for children and families in Victoria,” she said.

[Link: Original Article]

The women, whose names have been suppressed, sued prominent Canberra obstetrician Sydney Robert Armellin for more than $400,000 for implanting two embryos instead of the requested one.

The ACT Supreme Court today ruled in favour of Dr Armellin, and ordered the couple pay his legal costs.

The IVF procedure, which used sperm from a Danish donor, resulted in the birth of twin girls, now aged four.

The couple, whose combined income is more than $100,000, sought $398,000 from Dr Armellin to cover the costs of raising one of the girls, including fees for a private Steiner school in Melbourne.

The court was told the twins’ birth mother had lost her capacity to love and the couple’s relationship suffered as they became mired in everyday tasks associated with raising two children.

But Dr Armellin’s lawyer said loss of freedom was experienced commonly by parents across Australia.

The couple said it was Dr Armellin’s responsibility to ensure his patient’s wishes were carried out during the operation at Canberra’s John James Memorial Hospital on November 12, 2003.

Dr Armellin countered by saying the birth mother only told him she wanted one embryo minutes before she was sedated, after previously signing a form consenting for up to two embryos to be implanted.

The case, before Justice Annabelle Bennett, sparked nationwide condemnation of the women in the media.

The mothers issued a statement during the civil proceedings arguing the case had nothing to do with their feelings towards their daughters, but with Dr Armellin’s failure to comply with their wishes.

“This has never been a case about whether our children are loved,” they said in a handwritten statement.

“They are cherished.”

The couple’s solicitor Thena Kyprianou said her clients, who live in Melbourne, were shocked by the decision.

“They’re disappointed,” Ms Kyprianou told reporters.

“They said they are shocked and that they will consider their options further once they have an opportunity to read the judgment.”

Ms Kyprianou said the publicity surrounding the case had destroyed her clients’ privacy.

Dr Armellin’s barrister Kim Burke said her client was relieved but mindful the women have 28 days to decide whether to lodge an appeal.

[Link: Original Article]

The New South Wales Government wants a federal law amended so children of lesbian couples can seek child support if their parents separate.

State Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says co-mothers are not recognised in Family Court proceedings under the current laws.

Mr Hatzistergos says he will ask the Federal Government to change the Family Law Act to include lesbian parents at a meeting of attorneys-general this week.

“It’s important that the laws be amended to ensure that these children are treated in the same way that children of heterosexual relationships are, so that in the event that the parents split up, there is an entitlement for that child to be able to seek child support from co-mothers,” he said.

“It’s important to recognise that these relationships exist and these children exist, whatever one might think about them.

“And bearing in mind those facts, it’s logical to ensure that we have a civilised way of ensuring the economic security of these children.”

The State Government last month expanded the rights of NSW children with lesbian parents, clearing the way for children from lesbian couples to inherit money from and receive workers’ compensation on behalf of their non-birth parent.

The reforms allowed both mothers to appear on their child’s birth certificate.

[Link: Original Article]

Ms Bligh says only about 20 babies are now put up for adoption each year in Queensland.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh says same-sex couples will not be allowed to adopt children under proposed new laws.

State Cabinet yesterday approved several changes, including allowing de facto couples in long-term relationships to adopt.

The Government has also released a discussion paper on whether to give children and ‘birth parents’ involved in pre-1991 adoptions more access to information about each other.

Ms Bligh says only about 20 babies are now put up for adoption each year in Queensland.

“In an environment when you have such a small number of babies and such a large number of couples seeking to adopt, the onus is on the state to make a judgement about the best possible placement for a child and the prospect of that being anything other than couples as I have described, we think is very low,” she said.

[Link: Original Article]

Premier John Brumby has told the MPs they will have a free vote on assisted reproductive technology (ART) and surrogacy.

The Government is drafting legislation to better enable gay couples and single women to have children and expects it to be tabled this year.

Last week’s decision to allow a conscience vote will appease concerns raised by Catholic MPs uncertain about the broadening of treatment, including IVF.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu is also set to allow his MPs a free vote, though this depends on the Bill’s detail.

Mr Brumby has previously supported a conscience vote on abortion reforms being backed by the Government, making the last half of the year a potentially divisive environment in the State Parliament.

The Premier told MPs the ART issue was complex and the sort of subject on which MPs could determine their position on the basis of their own conscience.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced plans to reform ART legislation just before Christmas.

Mr Hulls said that the changes would bring Victoria into line with other states and “better reflect the reality of modern families”.

“The reality is that many Victorian children are already born to same-sex couples and to single women and yet those children don’t enjoy the same legal protections as others,” Mr Hulls said in December.

The changes are set to be based on the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

Under those proposed changes:

GAYS would not be forced to travel interstate for treatment to become pregnant.

A PANEL would be set up to screen people seeking the treatment in a clinic if convicted of a sexual offence.

SURROGACY arrangements would be changed to make it easier for surrogate mothers to receive treatment.

THE ban on commercial surrogacy would continue.

THE mother’s female partner would be recognised as a parent of the child who was conceived using treatment.

[Link: Original Article]

At the moment, same-sex couples are not considered a family but as two individuals for the safety nets. Likewise, children of same-sex couples are treated as the family member of only one of the parents, creating an additional financial burden by not having everyone included in each safety net.

But new legislation to come into effect from 1 January 2009 will redefine couples and families in the national health and health Insurance acts so that “people in same sex relationships will have access to the same financial entitlements as couples who are either married or in de-facto relationships,” says Medicare Australia.

Medicare has also announced that restrictions on reversal of elective sterilisation have been removed from 1 July to allow fertility restoration.

[Link: Original Article]

In addition to this, now comes the recognition of same-sex couples and their children in the Federal Government’s newly released National Employment Standards. This will guarantee equal entitlement for same-sex couples to carer’s leave, bereavement leave and parental leave as well as rights in relation to flexible working arrangement for parents with children.

“It is encouraging to see the Rudd Labor Government incorporating the HREOC recommendations into the new National Employment Standards,” said Emily Gray, Lobby Co-Convenor. “This will provide the vast majority of families in our community with greater financial and workplace security, ensuring that lesbians and gay men can take leave to care for their partners, children and other family members.”

If passed by parliament, same-sex partners will be treated as members of each other’s immediate family.

“We welcome the sincerity shown by the Rudd Government in getting on with the job of removing discrimination against same-sex couples and call on them to continue this process in any future legislation,” said Peter Johnson, GLRL Co-Convenor, “It’s time for the Coalition to stop delaying same-sex reforms and work with the government to remove discrimination against lesbians and gay men across Australia.”

[Link: Original Article]

But the move could face resistance in the Senate, where conservatives have flagged their unease over gay parenting.

Unveiling its final draft of a legal safety net, the Rudd Government also conceded the need to protect a lost tribe of workers.

Labor yesterday asked the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to create a generic award to cover workers falling outside the award system. It aims to guarantee all lower-paid workers 10 basic conditions, including the minimum wage.

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came under fire in Parliament for refusing to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the safety net. Instead, he attacked the Coalition’s WorkChoices regime.

Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop seized on his refusal to give a guarantee, contrasting it with his pledge earlier this year that no working family would be worse off under laws to abolish workplace agreements.

Labor’s proposed safety net includes 10 statutory conditions and 10 award conditions. Since its first draft was released in February, the Government has acceded to employer demands that workers must hold a job for at least 12 months before they can request flexible conditions such as working from home.

It also made changes to parental leave, which would give gay parents the same rights as the rest of the community. Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce suggested the move showed the Government was not genuine in its commitment to marriage.

“If you say you believe in marriage between a man and a woman, you have got to be fair dinkum about it, you can’t draw a line in the sand somewhere around Western Australia,” he said. “The best outcome for a child is a happy family made up of a man and a woman.”

If the Coalition opposes the change, Labor would need the votes of the Greens, Family First’s Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon in the Senate. Australian Christian Lobby chairman Jim Wallace said the move was an “inevitable consequence” of the broader push to enshrine equality for same-sex couples.

Industrial lawyers said the Government’s work standards left many questions unanswered. FCB partner Ben Gee described them as a “lovely statement of aspirational workplace rights” but “there aren’t any penalties or sanctions”.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson said the standards would add “costs and inflexibility to business management” but were not extreme.

ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence said they did not go far enough and unions would push for improvements.

[Link: Original Article]

Despite Anglican and fathers’ rights groups campaigning strongly against the changes, only a quarter of Coalition members voted against the bill in the lower house, with a further quarter failing to turn up.

The bill passed the upper house without individual votes being recorded.

Minister for Women Verity Firth acknowledged the reforms did not address all the parenting needs of same-sex couples, but were designed to address the most common circumstances.

“The Minister for Community Services [Kevin Greene] is considering adoption by all prospective partners in the context of a broader response to a review of the Adoption Act 2000,” she said.

“Currently, gays and lesbians, as individuals, can adopt children, subject to the same process of screening for suitability as heterosexual men and women.

“Surrogacy is a developing area of law … being considered as part of the development of a national surrogacy framework. At this stage it would be premature for any changes to be made in NSW.”

It is also now illegal to discriminate on the basis of domestic status, which had Christian Democrat leader Fred Nile claiming critical debate of same-sex relationships could result in a $40,000 fine.

“I have been before the Anti-Discrimination Board in relation to what I regard as trivial matters,” Nile told Parliament.

“Vexatious individuals could say, ‘I’ve got another weapon to use against the people I disagree with’. It costs the person who made the complaint nothing.”

Liberal MLC Charlie Lynn used the parliamentary privilege to attack previous equal age of consent reforms as “exposing vulnerable young boys to sexual predators” and accused the Government of not having a public mandate on these issues.

Nationals leader Andrew Stoner warned the Government was embarking on plans to undermine bans on same-sex marriage, adoption and IVF [sic], but voted for the bill anyway.

Sydney MP Clover Moore joined Greens Leader Lee Rhiannon in calling on the government to proceed with “urgent adoption reform”.

[Link: Original Article]

MCV has prepared this special feature to guide you through your rights in state and federal law.

Our guide has been prepared by Australia’s most respected gay human rights advocates and academics. It also includes links to further information.

MARRIAGE

Same-sex marriage is presently recognised in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, and, in the USA, in the states of Massachusetts and California.

However, the Australian Marriage Act was amended in 2004 to prohibit any recognition of same-sex marriage in this country.

Some constitutional experts believe the states can enact same-sex marriage laws but this has not yet happened.

If you plan to marry overseas make sure you understand local law. For example, visitors can easily marry in Canada, but it is much harder to obtain a divorce than in Australia.

You should also be aware that your marriage will not be legally recognised when you return to Australia.

Despite opposition from both major parties, support for same-sex marriage is relatively high in Australia (57% according to recent polls).

If you would like to contribute to the campaign for same-sex marriage visit Australian Marriage Equality

CIVIL UNIONS

There is no national civil union scheme in Australia although such schemes do exist at a state level.

There are civil union registries in Tasmania and the ACT. Victoria will have a registry by the end of this year.

These registries provide couples with a way to immediately access all available relationship entitlements in state law, and soon federal law; and to prove their relationship entitlements if challenged in situations like medical emergency.

Registries also provide personal relationships with the official, symbolic recognition of government, and through it, society.

Australia’s registries recognise same and opposite-sex couples, as well as companionate partners in Tasmania and Victoria.

Couples should contact their local Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to find out how to have their civil union registered.

Couples can also enter a municipal civil union in Sydney and Melbourne, or a British civil union at a British Consulate. These unions can provide evidence of the existence of a relationship in some circumstances, but they confer no legal rights in Australian law and are largely symbolic.

ACT – City of Sydney – Tasmania – Relationships Tasmania – City of Melbourne – City of Yarra

DE FACTO COUPLES

Australian federal law gives married and opposite-sex de facto couples the same legal rights and responsibilities.

The Federal Government is currently extending the definition of de facto partner to include same-sex partners across all federal laws, beginning with superannuation in mid-2008 and ending with social security in mid-2009.

Other areas where relationship entitlements will be extended include taxation, immigration and workplace entitlements.

All Australian states and territories give opposite-sex de facto couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. They also give same-sex de facto couples the same entitlements in areas like wills and intestacy, property division and state taxes and pensions.

Parenting rights are not yet extended to same-sex partners in Victoria, NSW, Queensland and South Australia.

Definitions of what constitutes a de facto relationship differ between the states. With the exception of Tasmania there is usually a requirement that de facto partners live together for a certain period before qualifying for relationship entitlements.

Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission

YOU AND YOUR CHILD

Laws dealing with family and children are split between state and federal governments.

Some states, including WA, Tasmania and the ACT, allow co-parents in same-sex relationships to adopt their partner’s children. WA and the ACT allow same-sex partners to adopt children relinquished by other people.

Most states allow women in same-sex relationships to access IVF and other fertility services. The exception is Victoria where reform is expected soon. Some states including WA, the ACT and the NT allow co-mothers to be deemed legal parents of children born through fertility treatment. Reform is expected soon in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.

The Family Court allows child custody disputes to be resolved if the parents are in a same-sex relationship. Disputes over child support and property division are still resolved in state Supreme Courts, but reform is also imminent.

Only the ACT recognises surrogacy arrangements between surrogate mothers and same-sex couples. Surrogacy is available in other countries such as the US, but these arrangements are not automatically recognised in Australia.

None of the other countries with which Australia has adoption protocols allows same-sex partners to adopt their children.

Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby

Myths and facts about civil unions

Myth: The registries we have in Australia are second-rate civil union schemes.
Fact: Australia’s state registries grant a wider range of rights to a wider range of couples, and with greater ceremonial recognition than most overseas civil union schemes including in the UK and Europe.

Myth: Registering a relationship is like registering a dog.
Fact: A relationship is registered in the same way as a birth, death or marriage: on a register, in a registry, by a Registrar.

Myth: A state relationship certificate has less legal standing than a marriage certificate.
Fact: A certificate guarantees immediate and incontestable access to all relationship rights, just like a marriage certificate.

Myth: A registry is a poor substitute for marriage.
Fact: Registries were never intended as a substitute for marriage for same-sex couples, but to sit alongside marriage as a way to recognise a wider range of partners who can’t or don’t wish to marry.

Myth: Existing registries don’t allow couples to have ceremonies.
Fact: Registries are designed to allow couples to have their relationships recognised in the manner of their choosing, either with a formal ceremony or without.

[Link: Original Article]

Last week saw a major victory for our families in NSW, with the passage of the underwhelming titled Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008 (law reform can be satisfying but I never said it was sexy).

These reforms ensure that same-sex couples are recognised as de facto relationships across all areas of NSW law (the ‘missing pieces’ left over from the 1999 reforms, with the continued and vexing exception of adoption) and strengthen anti-discrimination protection on the basis of same-sex relationship status.

Most importantly, it finally provides parenting recognition from birth to co-mothers of children conceived through donor insemination, making them legal parents in all areas of NSW law. Both mothers can be recorded as parents in the birth register, can have their children listed as siblings, and can both appear on their child’s birth certificate.

These changes will apply to children who have already been born as well as those born after the passage of the law. There is a simple process for mothers to apply to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry to add the second mother to the birth certificate.

This is a huge achievement for community activism and grass roots law reform because we devised our own solutions and then slogged away until the government realised they were the right ones. These reforms reflected the proposals devised by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in And then the Brides Changed Nappies in 2002 and 2003. I am so proud of the Lobby’s commitment and professionalism over the years; this simply would not have happened without them.

These changes bring NSW into line with similar laws now in place in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT (with Victoria set to follow later this year), and will help to bring pressure to achieve the same kind of recognition in federal law in the near future.

This system is far more accessible, equitable and broad-reaching than second-parent adoption, in place in many US states, because it does not require a court process. Rather, recognition applies automatically from birth and simply requires that the co-parent consented to assisted conception, regardless of whether conception took place through a clinic or informally at home.

Some press reports have misrepresented the changes as removing rights from fathers, including gay fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth. These changes add a mother to lesbian-led families that previously only had one legal parent.

Sperm and egg donors are not legal parents under current law anywhere in Australia, even if they have a relationship with the child and even if they have been listed on the birth certificate. If mothers have listed a donor as the father in the past this did NOT make him a legal father, but it should be noted that he will only be removed from the birth certificate with his permission or following a court hearing.

Of course there is still more to be done. We need to work together to make adoption open to all and to ensure that parental rights are also included in the new federal reforms. If genuine multiple-parent caregiving is happening in lesbian and gay families we should pursue modes of recognition that can accommodate the needs of such families.

In my view it is also time to create a careful and transparent scheme for the transfer of parental status to commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements, including gay fathers who have children through this process. But these goals shouldn’t detract from celebrating the magnitude of what we achieved last week.

Jenni Millbank is a Professor of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney. She is the lead author of And then the Brides Changed Nappies report, published in 2002.

[Link: Original Article]

After an emotionally charged debate last night, the House of Representatives passed laws to give gays and lesbians the right to inherit their partner’s public sector superannuation or death benefits.

But the Coalition will use its Senate majority to send the bill to an inquiry that will consider giving the same rights to other interdependent couples.

It also flagged that it would not support making such changes until it sees all of the same-sex reform bills proposed by Labor.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson last night gave in-principle support to the reforms to end discrimination against gay couples, but warned that undermining marriage may be a consequence of passing such laws.

Dr Nelson said any delay was the responsibility of the Government — not his party. “It is more important that this be done properly, than it be done immediately,” he said.

Labor MP Shane Neumann insisted the changes would not undermine the special place of marriage but merely gave gay partners the same entitlements to payments.

“The God that I worship at my church I don’t think is offended in the least bit by the fact of this legislation,” he said.

Liberal MP Stuart Robert warned that by replacing references to a “marital relationship” with a “couple relationship” in the super laws, it may “slowly chip away at the institution of marriage”.

He also opposed moves in the bill to give inheritance rights to the children of a non-biological gay parent, arguing it would support the practice of gay IVF.

And he asserted that “health insurance funds should not be legally bound to recognise homosexual couples and children as families — some funds may have an ethical objection to this and they should retain the right to uphold their views as to what constitutes marriage and family life.”

Labor MP Arch Bevis accused Dr Nelson of opting to “pander to that more extreme right-wing conservative group behind him on the Opposition benches” by refusing to pass the laws quickly.

Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett urged the Parliament not to deprive same-sex couples of their entitlements “for one minute more than is necessary”. He told of his two gay brothers, Nick and Simon, who had found it difficult to come out in a small country town.

“I hope that one day my darling brother Nick will be the beneficiary of the changes before the House,” he said.

Shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull hit back at critics who accuse the Coalition of delaying the end of discrimination, arguing the Government was free to backdate the laws to whenever it chose.

“That would ensure that those people who are concerned that they might die or their partner might die before this becomes the law of the land, that concern can be set aside and the Parliament can focus on getting the legislation right,” he said.

“So let’s stop the suggestion that the Liberal Party is homophobic.”

[Link: Original Article]

This Bill, with amendments, has now passed the Upper House and is on its way to the Lower House.

Fred Nile’s most significant amendment was to allow fathers to be shown on the birth certificate for children of lesbian couples, if the fathers wanted to. Here is what he (and Hatzistergos) said:

[Fred Nile]Insert after clause 5 (2):

(3) If the particulars supplied to the Registrar under section 14 of the Act specify that:

(a) a parent who is the father of the child wishes to be identified in the Register as the father, or

(b) a parent who is the birth mother of the child wishes to be identified in the Register as the mother,

or both, the particulars entered in the Register under section 17 of the Act must identify the parent as the father or mother, as the case requires. This subclause does not limit the particulars which may be included in the Register.

The amendment seeks to address the criticism that the bill’s wording seems to devalue the role of the father in that it gives the appearance that the father would not be shown on the birth certificate in this circumstance. What appeared to be an omission and a downgrading of the role of the father has caused a deal of concern about the legislation as a whole; indeed, most of the criticism has focused on that aspect. I have been endeavouring, as have other members, to find a way of resolving that situation. The Attorney General has indicated that it was never the Government’s intention to make any statement in the legislation about the role of the father or the importance of fatherhood. If that is the case—and I believe it to be the case—I seek the Government’s support for the amendment and the support of Opposition members by way of a conscience vote.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.22 p.m.]: The Government will support the amendment. As I clearly indicated in my second reading speech, it is not the Government’s intention to modify the way birth certificates are issued in the sense of removing the names of mothers and fathers. Indeed, the current practice in relation to the naming of mothers and fathers has been an administrative practice that is not regulated by specific provisions. However, in order to allay any concerns we are happy to support the amendment.

Click here for Hansard of the debate.

[Link: Original Article]

The law clears the way for children from lesbian couples to inherit money from their non-birth parent and receive workers’ compensation on behalf of their non-birth parent.

It also allows both mothers to appear on their child’s birth certificate.

NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says the Bill is a big step.

“It means that the non-birth parent will have obligations to that child in the same way that every other parent has,” he said.

“It also means that child will have the same relationship with the non-birth parent as they do with their birth parent.”

Mr Hatzistergos says shadow attorney-general Greg Smith defied his own party in voting against the Bill.

“The Opposition is hopelessly divided on this issue but it’s important to recognise that the vote was carried 64 to 11,” he said.

“With Mr Smith being one of the few leading spokespersons within the Opposition voting against the legislation, he not only defied his leader but also the leader of the National party.”

Emily Gray, from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, says many Liberal MPs, who voted against the reforms, were confused about the meaning of reforms.

“A lot of that was stemming from the fact that they believed that fathers would be removed from birth certificates following these reforms and that’s just simply not true at all,” she said.

Ms Gray says the changes have been long-awaited.

“With 71 per cent of the Australian population now supporting equal rights for same-sex couples, it’s about time that this equality came through,” she said. “We’re really happy that it has.”

[Link: Original Article]

Last week the federal government indicated that it would not be including the Family Law Act 1975 in its first raft of reforms to provide equality for same-sex couples. A few weeks ago the Rudd government announced its plans to introduce equal rights for lesbian and gay couples in many areas. We will have the same super benefits, tax breaks and access to healthcare as straight couples. The Rudd Labor government has decided not to include the Family Law Act 1975 at this time. If they continue to exclude it, this will be a broken promise.

The omission of the Family Law Act 1975 from the package of announced reforms will have a number of discriminatory impacts for our community. A lesbian co-mother will not be recognised as a “parent” in child-related court proceedings in the Family Court. This creates uncertainty for a child in the event of a relationship break-up. This also means that a birth mother cannot pursue child support through the Child Support Scheme from the co-mother in the event of a break-up. Already, lesbian parents have to go to enormous financial and personal costs to secure child support for their children and resolve conflicts on the breakdown of a relationship.

Leaving out this reform will also contribute to discrepancies between federal and state law, leaving couples uncertain about their rights and the rights of their children. We are talking about a significant number of people. An estimated 20 percent of lesbians have children and this figure is likely to be increasing. The 2006 Census recorded at least 4,386 children living in same-sex families in Australia. This change is necessary to ensure the majority of same-sex families are treated equitably. It is in the best interests of these thousands of children to have the economic and emotional security which comes with the legal recognition of their families

[Link: Original Article]

Current laws deny de facto heterosexual couples without children access to the Family Court.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Government wanted to create a more consistent family law system.

De facto couples with children already have access to the Family Court but those who do not are confined to state Supreme Courts to settle property disputes.

“The Government’s platform is to ensure family law applies in a consistent and uniform way to de facto relationships across Australia,” Mr McClelland said.

The decision to grant de facto couples without children access to the Family Court for property disputes will cut their legal bills. Specialist Family Court mediators are available for tens of thousands of dollars less than in the Supreme Court system.

It is understood the Government will also extend access to the Family Court to same-sex couples on the basis that they will now be regarded as de facto couples on equal footing to heterosexuals.

This follows a push by former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson, who has written to Mr McClelland to urge him also to consider giving gay and lesbian couples access to the Family Court.

The appeal to Mr McClelland comes as the Government introduces reforms giving equal financial and workplace entitlements to same-sex de facto partners.

“As a long-time supporter of equal legal treatment for same-sex couples and their families, I want to see the Government’s proposed reform remove as much discrimination as possible,” Professor Nicholson said in a statement.

“Like their heterosexual counterparts, same-sex partners should be able to settle property and maintenance disputes in the Family Court rather than be forced through the more cumbersome and expensive state Supreme Court system, as is currently the case.

“It’s also important for the Government to give state and territory civil union registries full and equal status in federal law so that same-sex couples can access federal entitlements through these schemes.”

The move will be fought by the Christian lobby, which does not want gay and lesbian couples to have access to the Family Court if they do not have children.

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said in a statement yesterday she would pursue the Government on the issue of same-sex access to courts during next week’s Senate estimates hearings.

“The Government needs to ensure that they include the recognition of registered same-sex relationships in their same-sex law reform package that we are due to see next week,” Senator Nettle said.

“Labor cannot have a bob each way on discrimination; either they support equal rights or they are for discrimination.”

[Link: Original Article]

Professor Alastair Nicholson, a former chief justice of the court, has called on the Rudd government to allow same-sex couples access to the Family Court to settle property disputes.

He also has asked the government to recognise state civil union registries in federal law.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle intends pursuing the government on the issue during next week’s senate estimates hearings.

The measures should be included in reforms the government was drafting that would remove same-sex discrimination from federal laws, she said.

“The government needs to ensure that they include the recognition of registered same-sex relationships in their same-sex law reform package that we are due to see next week,” Senator Nettle said in a statement.

“Labor cannot have a bob each way on discrimination – either they support equal rights or they are for discrimination.”

[Link: Original Article]

THEY met playing soccer while studying at Melbourne University 16 years ago. Jewish Canadian visitor Sarah Nichols thought English-born Jacqueline Tomlins was “funny and smart and she didn’t think I was this North American freakazoid”. Tomlins admired Nichols’ “zest and enthusiasm and passion for life”.

Long-haired lawyer Nichols, now 40, still speaks with her Toronto lilt, and short-haired, bespectacled writer Tomlins, 44, retains the precise vowels of north London’s Hertfordshire.

Having been born here, their children — son Corin, 5½, and daughters Scout and Cully, soon to turn 3 and 1 respectively — naturally are developing an Aussie intonation.

Harmony is the shared dialectic as this family of five sit on the porch of their Kew home. Corin runs through the leaves of the front yard, punting the footy. His two mums help out at school; other mums and dads and neighbours readily accept them, they say.

There’s no obvious discrimination in their day-to-day lives but many same-sex couples find there are plenty of anachronistic anomalies that can kick hard in both Victorian and federal law. However, change is afoot.

British Parliament this week made it legal for a child to have two mothers and no father after MPs voted to take away the need for fathers when parents undergo fertility treatment.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended same-sex partners be both recognised as parents. In December last year, the state’s Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, promised to adopt the change, as well as allowing lesbians to access IVF. Tomlins and Nichols are cautiously optimistic that the changes will pass through the Victorian Parliament.

Nichols — who conceived the three children using IVF technology and donor sperm — works at a city law fi rm; Tomlins stays home and writes and cares for the children.

Ask Corin and Scout, “Who is mummy?”, and they point to Tomlins. The children call Nichols “ema”, which is Hebrew for mother. The kids have met their sperm donor, a family man with kids of his own. They call him Donor Dave.

“When people refer to me as ‘Mummy’ in front of the children, the children look blankly around for Jac,” Nichols says. But “Jac” or “Mummy” has no legal standing as Corin, Scout and Cully’s mother.

Despite being the children’s primary caregiver, Tomlins has no legislated parental rights.

The law’s disregard for her role, apart from the welfare implications for the children should Nichols die, has had a particular emotional impact.

“Sarah and I decided to have kids a long time ago; it was a very long journey having them,” Tomlins recalls. “I was there from deciding to conceiving. I was there when they were born and gave them their first bath and their first hug while Sarah was taken to recovery.

“For me, to still have that hanging over me — that I’m not legally recognised as their mum, when I am — that’s really hard. Having my name on their birth certificate would be an enormous relief for me, knowing that the society I live in recognises my relationship with my kids.”

Before their first child was conceived, Tomlins tried unsuccessfully through 10 gruelling rounds of IVF and donor sperm to become pregnant herself, travelling interstate to circumvent Victorian laws barring lesbians from using IVF.

Nichols was able to access IVF in Victoria only because she had endometriosis.

The couple want same-sex marriage in Australia, too.

They married in a ceremony in Nichols’ hometown in Toronto in 2003, given Canada allows same-sex marriage; so too does the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa and Spain, while the UK, New Zealand, France, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Sweden and nine other countries have nationwide civil unions or registered partnership schemes.

The Rudd Government — despite a commitment earlier this month to amend 100 federal laws that discriminate against same-sex couples in areas such as superannuation, tax, wills and social security — has confirmed there will be no national marriage or civil union scheme for same-sex couples.

Nichols and Tomlins are not enamoured with the Brumby Government’s compromise: allowing same-sex couples to enter their relationship on a state registry, with no formal ceremony allowed.

“I’m not going to sign — I have a marriage certificate,” Nichols says. “I think you register your dog; you don’t register a relationship.”

KIERAN McGREGOR and Tim Hunter met in a chat room on the internet in 1998. “Tim had a photograph of me, which is a bit unfair, because he knew what I looked like,” red-headed McGregor, 36, recalls.

“But we were talking very easily to each other.” McGregor got to see Hunter for the first time when they agreed to meet late at night at a Hawthorn cafe, the suburb where they now live together.

“I saw this guy up the road and thought, ‘He’s kind of cute’,” McGregor says.

Hunter, 41, laughs at the memory. “There was an ease and an honesty and a respect,” he recalls.

They shared a white-picket fence ideal, and over the years Hunter, who had previously been married to a woman, “supported the discussion” of social worker McGregor’s wish to have kids. The two men eventually settled for an apartment and two cats.

The pair have a good relationship with Hunter’s parents now, but there was some distance early on because of the family’s religious beliefs.

Hunter and McGregor had a commitment ceremony, which has no legal standing, in 1999.

“We didn’t set out to mimic marriage,” Hunter says.

“We wanted to show to our family and friends that we loved each other and we were committed to each other.”

He says it was a relief they didn’t need a priest or bridesmaids or best men. They wrote their own vows and made each other cry.

Will they sign the Victorian partnerships register? They’re not sure. “I’m disappointed that it doesn’t have more meaning,” McGregor says.

“I also recognise it’s an important first step. We’ve talked about signing it.”

Says Hunter: “It’s an important legal recognition of our relationship, but I don’t think we need to sign it to demonstrate our love and commitment. The fact we’re still together 10 years later speaks for itself.”

Both men would like to see a federal civil partnerships scheme introduced but would rather it was not called marriage.

“I know there’s all these arguments that say having a ceremony is going to equal it to marriage for gay people, that it’s going to undermine the institution of marriage,” Hunter says.

“I think marriage does a good enough job of undermining itself.

“However, I’m glad we don’t have to go along with all that stuff. That’s one of the beauties of gay relationships; each one is completely different and we can make it up as we go along.”

[Link: Original Article]

On the eve of moves to end discrimination against gay couples across a range of federal laws, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson has written to federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland to urge a further shift in family law.

The reform would give gay couples access to the cheaper specialist court and its mediators — instead of being forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to resolve disputes in the Supreme Court.

Under current laws, de facto heterosexual couples are also denied access to the Family Court. In the letter, obtained by The Age, Professor Nicholson argues the reform would ensure more cases are settled at mediation without trial.

“To force same-sex couples to continue to rely on State Supreme Courts, which are often more expensive and whose personnel have less experience in family law matters, would be a continuing breach of the human rights of lesbians and gay men and their families,” he wrote.

Professor Nicholson also urges the Federal Government to give automatic recognition to gay couples listed on state relationships registers. He says they are different from de facto heterosexual couples, because the partners have taken a decision to formalise the relationship.

In practical terms, such a move would also cut the amount of paperwork gay couples need to provide to federal agencies to prove their relationship was genuine.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome backed the move, arguing the specialist family court should be open to all couples.

“State Supreme Courts are not set up to handle these matters, and many same-sex partners forced to resolve their disputes in this way find it cumbersome, time-consuming and very expensive,” he said.

But Australian Christian Lobby chief Jim Wallace said he had strong concerns about giving Family Court access to gay couples without children because it undermined the traditional model of family. But he said there was a case for gay couples with children to have access to the specialist court to ensure the best interests of the child were protected.

“The expertise for dealing with children in family break-ups lies with practitioners in the Family Court and we wouldn’t want to disadvantage children,” he said. “(But to give access in childless cases) would be the wrong signal because we believe we need to hold up the traditional model of family.

“It just removes a nuance of the fact that family is mother, father and children.

“We would want to preserve that definition in all law as much as possible.”

Gary Singer, the deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne who is in the midst of a high-profile court battle after a break-up with his gay partner, said the reforms were urgent to protect privacy and end inequality for both gay and de facto couples. His case became public because Supreme Court documents are not covered by the same privacy protections as Family Court cases.

“One of the problems with being under state law is that your file is open to the public so anyone can access your file and read the affidavits and material in your file,” he said. “When people break up, they say nasty things about each other — that exposure doesn’t happen to other people.”
KEY POINTS
Gay couples should be able to settle property disputes in the Family Court.
Forcing gays to use the Supreme Court is costly and compromises their privacy.

[Link: Original Article]

In a letter to federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said Family Court protection should be extended beyond married couples, Fairfax newspapers reported on Thursday.

Under current laws, homosexual couples and heterosexual de facto couples must rely on state supreme courts to settle property matters.

But married couples have access to the specialist Family Court and its team of mediators, which were available for tens of thousands of US dollars less.

In the letter, obtained by Fairfax, Prof Nicholson said the change would ensure more cases are settled at mediation without a trial.

“To force same-sex couples to continue to rely on state Supreme Courts, which are often more expensive and whose personnel have less experience in family law matters, would be a continuing breach of the human rights of lesbians and gay men and their families,” he wrote.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome backed the proposal.

But Australian Christian Lobby chief Jim Wallace said while giving Family Court access to gay couples without children undermined the traditional family model, those with children had a case for Family Court access to ensure the best interests of their children were protected.

[Link: Original Article]