ࡱ> :<;` bjbjss .$dbbbb nZ 1h$ h#*mmmm^md @bF0018,+#|+#d+#dLhJH< 1mmmmZ Z Z DZ Z Z 4" [Names withheld] [Details removed] 16 June 2006 Same-Sex Inquiry Human Rights Unit Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 Via email: samesex@humanrights.gov.au Dear Sir/Madam Re: National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits Thank you for the opportunity to submit to this important inquiry. I would like to draw your attention to my experience of discrimination in the area of Dependent Spouse tax offset. As a woman in a relationship with another woman, I cannot claim the Dependent Spouse tax offset for my partner. We qualify against virtually all the necessary criteria: Both my partner and I are Australian citizens, I contributed to the maintenance of partner, My partner as a student receives a tax free scholarship from the federal government, therefore is under the threshold for entitlements of $6,569, my partner and I were not eligible for the Family Tax benefit (FTB) PartB. However, I was unable to claim the Dependent Spouse tax offset for my partner because she does not meet the definition of spouse under the legislation. A spouse must be of the opposite sex to his or her partner. This discrimination has caused financial hardship for my partner and me, and as a consequence we are unable to support my partners mother in a way that enables her to live a comfortable retirement. I believe that the law providing for the Dependent Spouse tax offset breaches Australias international obligations. In particular, it contravenes Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as birth or other status. by denying tax entitlements to my partner that would be available to opposite sex spouses. We believe that the denial of the Dependent Spouse tax offset to certain families on the basis of a discriminatory definition of spouse is against basic human rights principles of equality and dignity. The Dependent Spouse tax offset is provided by Section 159J of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), and allows for tax rebates for partners that qualify as spouse of the taxpayer (Section 159J (2)). Spouse in this instance is defined under Section 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) as: in relation to a person, includes another person who, although not legally married to the person, lives with the person on a bona fide domestic basis as the husband or wife of the person. This definition of spouse is used throughout the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), denying same-sex couples a range of practical entitlements available to heterosexual couples. Such discriminatory definitions are also used in many other areas of Commonwealth law. Discrimination occurs in Medicare SafetyNets, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS), public sector superannuation, social security and veterans benefits. In superannuation law, the areas of ComSuper pensions, contributions-splitting, reversionary pensions and anti-detriment provisions discriminate against same-sex couples. Such examples of discrimination can pose a profound financial and emotional burden on same-sex headed families, and adds to the stigma attached to same-sex relationships. Discrimination in all the aforementioned areas of Commonwealth law can be removed, and there are three main ways for this to occur. We believe that all three options should be enacted: by establishing comprehensive definitions of interdependent relationship, to include same-sex couples, and extending many spousal rights; by establishing a national civil union or relationship registration scheme, to allow couples to register their relationship to receive equal entitlements to heterosexual and married couples; or by altering the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), to recognise marriages between two men or between two women. We thank you for taking into account our submission. We eagerly await the final report, and look forward to the removal of all areas of discrimination in Commonwealth law. Yours sincerely [Names withheld] #%, ! v y  & 7 : Ih&J+hl  h I h6]h}>h\zhhH #$%234EWb c   !  & F^gd\z! ./^ & F!IJ     & F,1h/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List *W@* Strong5\4B@4 Body Text5\6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*phH@"H H Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ$ z z z2f#$%234EWbc!  . / !IJ    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!H!H!Ճ!H!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ճ!b0!Ճ!!!!!!!!!!#$%234EWbc!  . / !IJ    0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000#$%234EWbc!    h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h02^H@8p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qh33t+it+i!24d2QP(?2 Oh+'0d   , 8DLT\ Normal.dot4Microsoft Office Word@@!@!t՜.+,0 px  i+  Title  !"#$&'()*+,./012347Root Entry FZ@91Table;#WordDocument.$SummaryInformation(%DocumentSummaryInformation8-CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry FpŠ>1Table;#WordDocument.$SummaryInformation(%  !"#$&'()*+,=DocumentSummaryInformation8pCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,< px  i+  Title4 $,