Someone posted this on Pinkboard’s Equality Graffiti Wall:
1st Class Citizen = full equal rights including marriage
2nd Class Citizen = access to de facto right only
3rd Class Citizen = relegated to interdependent only

Mr Ruddock has confirmed that it is the government’s intention to treat us as third class citizens. This is from Monday’s Hansard (PDF p79)

Mr RUDDOCK— … The committee is also considering the issue of reversionary benefits to those in interdependent, including samesex, relationships with members of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. …

That’s right, he classes us as merely interdependents. This took place during a debate about a bill to amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 where Ms Roxon moved an amendment calling on the government “… to give equal treatment to all judges by … treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses …” (Hansard p74). Yes, they amend amendments, but in this case Ms Roxon’s amendment was defeated 76 to 46. The unamended bill was then read a third time, which means it passed the House of Reps.

Ruddock continued (before the vote and the third reading):

… But I would just make the point that there are a range of defined benefit schemes in which the Commonwealth participates. The member wants to deal with one in isolation — the one that deals with judges. … It is in the context that we are dealing with defined benefits schemes that the totality of them and the arguments relating to that issue need to be addressed. Those matters are being considered by the government, but it is our view that it is inappropriate to single out members of the judiciary for special treatment in advance of the consideration of the members of other defined benefit schemes.

Don’t you wish they would talk the same language as the rest of us? Well, Ruddock is now saying it is inappropriate to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. Look at what he said “only a short while ago” “… the Government will consider making further changes to the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis.” (Media Release 116/2007 21 June 2007 by The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock MP).

But wait! There’s more!

Those matters will be the subject of consideration, but they will be the subject of consideration in the broader context to which the opposition pays no regard — that is, defined benefits schemes involve additional outlays if you introduce a new class of beneficiaries. That has quite significant impacts over the longer term.

Yes, Ruddock again from the same speech, saying that giving us equal rights is going to cost.

I notice that the opposition claims to be fiscally conservative these days. A fiscal conservative would want to know what the impact of a measure of this type might be, particularly in the context of the class of beneficiaries that are involved—that is, those who are beneficiaries of defined benefit schemes. …

Then he lays into Labor for not knowing how much this will cost. Well, the Government has, on a number of occasions, refused to release documents that details the costs of giving us these rights. I’ll research those refusals for another post.