03/15/2002 "Gay couples left out of court shift"

Gay couples left out of court shift
- Ian Munro (The Age)

Commonwealth moves to simplify property settlements among de facto couples would be limited to heterosexuals under proposals put to a meeting of national attorneys-general.

The Victorian Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, said the Federal Government was being homophobic and discriminatory in refusing to treat same-sex couples equally with heterosexual couples.

He said the states were willing to transfer their powers to have property issues for de facto couples settled under federal jurisdiction in the Family Court. But the move should apply to all de facto couples, regardless of their sexuality, he said.

At present separating married couples have custody and property issues determined in the Family Court, but the court has the authority to determine custody matters only for de facto partners. Property settlements for de factos are decided in state Supreme Courts.

At a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Sydney yesterday, the Federal Government sought to take over state powers for property settlements for heterosexual de facto couples only.

"There's a general consensus it would be preferable and simpler for everybody for all de facto couples to go through one court system," Mr Hulls said.

"The Federal Government is perpetuating a prejudice. It's being homophobic, outdated and undemocratic."

At the meeting the Labor state attorneys called on the Commonwealth to explain its stance at their next meeting, due mid-year.

A spokeswoman for federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams said the government wanted the states to refer powers to deal with de facto couples' property disputes in the same way as custody matters were resolved.

She said: "The Commonwealth regards same-sex couples as being in a different situation to heterosexual couples."

Queensland Attorney-General Rod Welford accused Mr Williams of being a "lame duck", unable to explain the Federal Government's stance during the meeting.

"It's as if he was saying 'no one's told me what to say, so I can't say anything'. We have a lame duck attorney-general who waits for someone to give him instructions on what he is to say," Mr Welford said.

"We believe it's prejudice at its worst. It's as if we are still in the '50s at Commonwealth law level."

The states passed a motion demanding a full explanation of the Commonwealth's stance on settlements of property disputes and superannuation entitlements for separating couples at the next meeting.

Mr Welford said legislation was already in place enabling the Family Court to split superannuation benefits among married couples.

Chris Gill, the co-convenor of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said the federal stance was surprising, disappointing and at odds with the Victorian Liberal Party, which had supported same-sex relationships legislation.

He said the lobby was anxious to read the Commonwealth's justification.