ࡱ> +-,` lbjbjss 7l D& & & & 2 I J J J J J J J J  $? h* J J J J J J J   J J J J  J > @˙Jb& ` .  0I    0J J J J J J J J J J I J J J J  My partner and I have been together for 10 years in a same-sex defacto relationship. I have comments to make on equal access to superannuation benefits under Commonwealth superannuation schemes. I am a 36 year old Commonwealth public servant, and have been full time in the service for 11 years. My partner works as an operations manager outside the service, also full time. However she earns significantly less than I do, and I cover a greater share of the household expenses, as well as covering the full cost of our joint health insurance. We are buying a house together, and our wills are made out to each other. We have each other's medical power of attorney. During the last ten years my partner has moved cities twice to accommodate my career path. As the partner with greater on-the-job flexibility and without a career per se, she also takes up a lot of the slack associated with being the partner of a public servant establishing a career. It is her who stays home to wait for plumbers, who picks up the car from being serviced and who gets home in time to take the dogs for a run. My partner has a broken work history in low skilled jobs, although she has been in her current job for 7 years. She is 48 and has very minimal superannuation, a situation we are endeavouring to fix. She also has no investment skills, and a fully taxed lump sum from my estate if something should happen to me, and providing my will is not challenged, would be very difficult for her to convert into an income stream. This represents both a burden and an uncertainty that surviving opposite sex partners do not have to deal with, and is a good example of the way uncertainty around same sex inheritance combines with the superannuation provisions to create two major risks for the surviving same sex partner. It also represents a significantly lowered benefit compared to the benefit she would receive if I were male. I have heard an argument that "budgetary considerations" are part of the rationale for excluding same sex couples from the same Commonwealth superannuation entitlements as opposite sex couples. What some in the Government call "budgetary considerations" I call direct discrimination. I cannot imagine someone arguing in the 21st century that "budgetary considerations" would be sufficient justification for paying female public servants less than male public servants for the same work. This discrimination against same sex couples is just as arbitrary as the old entitlement and pay discrimination against women and aboriginal people was. In any case, if there is money available to make huge superannuation tax concessions, there should be money available to correct this discrimination. Granting my partner access to death benefits available to opposite sex partners will also not make the marriages of my heterosexual co-workers suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke. Anita Langford klh}hTCJOJQJ^JaJ M N I  WXghijkl 7$8$H$gdTl50P:pT/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Listl  zl MNI W X g h i j k n !1!1!1!1!1!1 !1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!MNI W X g h i j k n 00000000000000000000MNI W X g h i j k n h0 h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0l l l ?Fn En :::n kaV KgCn}T@k l @UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New"qhߋ&ߋ&  8  824b b 2X)?T2Oh+'0d   , 8DLT\ Normal.dot4Microsoft Office Word@@/b@/b ՜.+,0 px  8 b   Title  !"#$%(Root Entry F@