STRATEGY AND POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE 2 AUGUST 2004 POLICY AND PLANNING

Transcription

1 STRATEGY AND POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE 2 AUGUST 2004 A1 LOCATION/ADDRESS: RESPONSIBLE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: AUTHOR: FILE NO.: ATTACHMENTS: SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS RECOGNITION NA GEOFF OULTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY DEVELOPMENT MANDY PRESS, MANAGER NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT NA 1. SUMMERVOWS SURVEY 2. MINUTES OF GLBTI ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON 15TH JULY 1. KEY ISSUES Results of Summa Vows survey; Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Victoria and other jurisdictions Why a state based register is important Federal government and same-sex relationships Feedback from the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) advisory committee on same-sex relationships register, governance review and preferred structure, meeting the needs of older GLBTI people, and identifying the needs and issues for young GLBTI people. 2. CONTEXT 2.1 Request from GLBTI Advisory committee and Summa Vows survey. In November 2003 the GLBTI Advisory committee sought council s support to establish a same-sex partnerships register on similar lines to that offered by South Sydney City Council in New South Wales. The committee also initiated a survey, in conjunction with the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (VGRL) to determine GLBTI community attitudes to the concept of a same- sex partnerships register. The survey was administered during Summavows, a same-sex commitment ceremony conducted as part of the 2004 Victorian Midsumma festival. The results from the survey reflect the long recognised and commonsense view that the majority of the GLBTI community wants legal recognition of their relationships and the rights that this confers 1. (Appendix 1 provides details of the Summavows survey) 1 Summavows survey results correspond with those collected by VGLRL in 2001 on same sex partnerships. 98%of respondents supported legal recognition of their relationship via a register. VGLRL website

2 Following consideration of the survey and the various options, the GLBTI advisory committee recommended that council request the Victorian State government to establish a relationships register and thus provide tangible legal recognition of the rights already available to same-sex partners under the Victorian Relationships Act (2001) 2.2 Victorian Relationships Act (2001) In 2001 the Victorian Parliament passed the Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act and the Statute Law Further Amendment (Relationships) Act, giving same-sex couples legal recognition in a number of areas in the same way that defacto couples have.the main ones are: inheritance rights, stamp duty exemption, a system for property division if the relationship splits up, accident and workers compensation if a partner dies, partner s State superannuation, recognition as next of kin for autopsies and tissue donation, disclosure of partner s health information, protection from discrimination on the basis of marital status, recognition as a parent of a non-biological child in some cases. These Acts do not create new rights specific to the GLBTI community rather, they reduce previous discrimination. Not all Victorian Acts have been amended in this way. A notable exception is that gay and lesbian couples don t yet have the right to adopt children, and may still face discrimination in the use of assisted reproductive technology in Victoria. The Relationship Act creates a new category of relationships, called domestic partner replacing the concept of de facto spouse. This category covers all couples that aren t married, regardless of whether they are samesex or heterosexual. These Acts amend Victorian law only. They do not give lesbians and gay men the right to marry, as this is federal law. Nor do they affect the status of gay and lesbian parents under the Family Law Act, which is a federal Act. 2.3 Why a State Register? Given the gains made in over coming discrimination against same sex couples in Victoria over the last 3 years the question to be asked is why not a register? The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission recommended a register be established in Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission-1998 Same sex relationships and the law 7

3 Relationships registration is simply a tool to provide same-sex partners with more formal legal recognition of their relationship that is currently available via a statutory declaration. Registration could be made available as one of the State Registry office services in the same way that it is possible to have a civil marriage ceremony at the state registry office. Once registered a couple would be presumed to be in a domestic partnership and therefore entitled to all the rights benefits and protections currently available under state legislation and currently outlined in the Relationships Act. Registration is important as a way for anyone in a significant personal relationship to prove their relationship if challenged, particularly in emergency situations. This has obvious importance in a legal regime where legally recognised relationships are largely self-defining. 2.4 Relationships recognition and registration in Tasmania For the purposes of state law the Tasmanian Relationships Act gives samesex relationships virtual equality with married couples. This equality extends to over 100 state laws and includes everything from state superannuation through next-of-kin, medical treatment and state taxes to statutory compensation schemes and license transfer fees. It also includes stepparent adoption, but does not include general placement adoption of presumption of parenthood for the same-sex partners of women who conceive through fertilisation procedures. The Tasmanian Relationships Act gives a broader range of rights and responsibilities to a broader range of significant personal relationships than any other legislation in the world. These relationships may include two older companions, a carer and the person they care for, people in ethnic or aboriginal families whose kinship is not recognised by traditional European law, or any two people who are significant to each other for whatever reason. There is no requirement for there to be a sexual relationship, or cohabitation. There simply needs to be mutual support and a shared life. For the purposes of the Relationships Act these relationships are called caring or significant relationships. The terms "de facto relationship", "husband", "wife" and "spouse" have been erased from all Tasmanian laws and replaced with the terms "significant partner" and "caring partner". The philosophical basis for this feature of the legislation is that two people may be very important to each other without being in a conjugal relationship (a sexual, domestic, married-like relationship). Consequently, conjugal relationships should not have a privileged legal position over non-conjugal relationships. In the Relationships Act the only rights ascribed to conjugal relationships, which non-conjugal partners cannot access, relate to parenting. 8

4 Registration The Tasmanian Relationships Act establishes a registry for all newly enfranchised relationships. No extra rights or responsibilities will flow from registration except parenting rights for same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples. As a way for same-sex couples to have their relationships officially and explicitly sanctioned by the state the new registration scheme is nationally unprecedented. 2.5 Australian Federal Government and Same-Sex relationships Consideration of the current amendments to the Marriage Act is outside the scope of this report. Council should note that the Federal government is seeking to tighten the definition in the Marriage Act to enable only heterosexual couples to be married and to ensure that same-sex couples married in overseas jurisdictions are not recognised as legally married in Australia. These amendments have been referred to a Senate committee for further consideration. The GLBTI committee noted that marriage appears to be of less significance to the GLBTI community perhaps because of its focus on heterosexuality. Nonetheless it is worth pursuing a national framework for overcoming current discriminatory practices affecting same-sex couples. 2.6 Other matters raised by the GLBTI Advisory Committee The minutes of the meeting are attached as Appendix 2. Council should note the following: Response to governance review- the GLBTI committee recommended that they be constituted as a forum for advising council. The ALSO Foundation report About time-glbti Seniors Also Matter is well considered and recommendations for council services should be followed up. A CoPP staff member is to be represented on the implementation group. That the next GLBTI forum will be on the needs of young GLBTI people and opportunities available locally to address their issues. That council is commended for its continuing support for the PRIDE March The Port Phillip library continues to maintain the rainbow collection. 3. PROPOSAL 3.1. That council advocates for the provision of register to enable the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. 9

5 4. OPTIONS 4.1 Advocate that the State Government establish a relationships register to legally recognize same-sex relationships Sustainability Assessment Economic Pillar - No impact Environmental pillar - No impact Social & Cultural Pillar - The provision of a state register to provide legal recognition of same-sex relationships will promote greater equity and inclusiveness for our GLBTI community Policy, legislative implications This option is in keeping with Council s Cultural Vitality goal of building tolerance through embracing the diversity of lifestyles, populations and values Risk Implications None Resource implications None 4.2 Council establishes it own same sex relationships register similar to South Sydney Council (As for 4.1.1) (As for 4.1.2) Risk Implications Burden of proof of relationship Inaccessibility to people from across Victoria No real legal basis to the relationships register Resource Implications Establishment and recurrent costs of operating the relationships register. Recurrent costs could be met via user charges aimed at full cost recovery. 4.3 The preferred option is for council to advocate to the State Government to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships through the establishment of a register. The reasons are that this option maximizes the access, credibility and legal status of the registration scheme as well as minimizing the costs to council in establishing its own register. 10

6 5. INTERNAL CONSULTATION Mayor Councillors Managers Governance Staff 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION GLBTI Advisory Committee; Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby; Other local governments; and Ministerial Advisory Committees on same-sex issues to Attorney General, Minister Victorian Communities. Consultation has or will occur with all of these groups. 7. IMPLEMENTATION Mayor to communicate with the Attorney General and Minister for Victorian Communities Council s request for a same-sex relationships register. Planning and organizing of next forum on young glbti needs. Representation on ALSO implementation committee for the report on addressing the needs of the older glbti community. 8. CONCLUSION It is clear from the research and consistent advice from the glbti advisory committee that a state initiated register would provide tangible evidence of the legal status of same-sex relationships and consolidate the very real gains made for same sex couples as a result of the introduction of the Victorian Relationship Act. 9. COMMUNICATION Press Release to be prepared indicating council s support for the glbti advisory committee s request for a state initiated same-sex register as well as some of the other initiatives of the committee. 11

7 10. RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 That the Victorian State government be requested to consider the establishment of a register that provides legal recognition of same-sex relationships and is operated through the Victorian State Registry office That council notes the advice from the GLBTI Advisory Committee re the same- sex register proposal, the committee s preferred structure (a forum), the needs of older GLBTI community members, its proposed review of the needs and issues for young GLBTI people, and its support for council s continuing financial support for the annual Pride March. 12

8 Appendix 1 Summa vows survey results Same Sex Relationships Partnerships Register Summa Vows Survey 15 February, 2004 Summa Vows, a mass commitment ceremony aimed at publicising marriage laws that deny official recognition of same-sex partnerships, was an event staged as part of the Midsumma Festival. Over 300 couples registered their partnerships on the day Midsumma is Melbourne s largest Gay and Lesbian Festival. Three hundred surveys sponsored by the City of Port Phillip s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Intersex (GLBTI) Advisory Committee, and the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (VGLRL) were distributed at Summa Vows, measuring community interest in officially registering their same sex relationships, either through marriage in Australia (if it were to become law), marriage overseas in countries where same-sex partnerships are recognised, a partnership s register, or a commitment ceremony. 11 General Information 73 completed surveys were received Gender 57% of respondents were female 43% were male. Age Just under half (49.3%) were aged between 25 and % were aged between 40 and 59 8% were aged below % were aged above 60 Graph 1 Age of Respondents % of respondents Age 13

9 Income 20% of respondents did not state their income 33.4% earn between $45,000 and $65,000 a year 27.8% earn between $25,000 and $45,000 a year 6.6% earn less than $25,000 a year 5.6% earn more than $65,000 a year Graph Annual income of respondents 20.0 % of all replies <15,000 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$44,999 $45,000-$54,999 $55,000-$64,999 $65,000-$74,999 $75,000-$84,999 $85,000-$94,999 $95,000-$104,999 $105,000+ Income not stated Relationship / Length of relationship 92% of respondents were in a relationship at the time of the survey. 38% had been in a relationship for less than five years 32% had been in a relationship between 5 and 10 years 3% between 10 and 15 years 18% more than 15 years Graph years 19% Not in a relationship 8% years 3% Length of relationship, as a % of all replies 0-5 years 38% 5-10 years 32% 14

10 Sexual Identity Graph 4 86% of respondents identified as either lesbian (41%) or gay (45%) bisexual 3% did not identify 4% heterosexual 3% queer 4% No respondents identified as either transgender, intersex or other lesbian 41% Note that some respondents identified with more than one category gay 45% Same-sex partnership registration Summa Vows Given that the survey was distributed at an event celebrating same-sex commitment involving a public commitment ceremony, the results can be expected to favour support for official recognition of same-sex partnerships more than might otherwise be the case. 61.6% of respondents were registered for the Summa Vows commitment ceremony. 79.1% of female respondents were registered for Summa Vows. Just 46.7% of males were registered. Partnerships Register, Marriage, Overseas Marriage, Commitment Ceremony The survey asked four hypothetical questions to determine respondents commitment to registration of same sex unions. It asked whether they would use a partnerships register if it was established; whether they would get married if this were an option in Australia; whether they would travel overseas to a country that did allow same-sex marriage, such as Canada or South Africa, to get married, given that marriage is currently unavailable to same-sex couples in Australia; and whether they would participate in a commitment ceremony through the state registry office if this were available. The responses to these four questions are summarised in graph 5. 15

11 Graph 5 Partnership register, Marriage, Commitment ceremony % of all replies Yes No Maybe 0.0 here was less support for marriage than for a partnership s register. Some people who answered No to the marriage question indicated that their response was guided by personal reluctance to get married, rather than opposition to the concept of samesex marriage. Nonetheless, support for marriage is high. 84.0% of respondents indicated some support for the prospect of getting married in Australia (62.7% yes ; 21.3% maybe ). There was considerably lower support for travelling overseas to become married (40.8%, including 19.7% yes ; 21.1% maybe ). Some respondents remarked that being recognised as married in Canada or South Africa is pointless if they aren t recognised at home. 90.7% indicated some support for participating in a commitment ceremony with their partner (64.0% yes, 26.7% maybe ). Gender Would you use a partnership's register if it was established? Would you get married if possible? Would you get married overseas? Would you participate in a commitment ceremony? While support was generally high across both genders, male respondents were more likely to not be willing to participate in official recognition of partnerships than females. T 76.6% of males expressed some support for getting married if it were an option in Australia (53.3% yes, 23.3% maybe ), compared to 90.7% of females (72.1% yes, 18.6% no ). More than a quarter of females said they would travel overseas to get married (25.6%), compared to 13.3% of males. 97.7% of females said they would or would maybe participate in a commitment ceremony with their partner (69.8% yes, 27.9% maybe ), compared to 86.6% of males (63.3% yes, 23.3% maybe ). Graph 6 shows the ratio of males and females who answered yes to each of these questions. The black line shows the overall proportion of males and females who participated in the survey (57% female, 43% male). For each of these questions, there was a higher proportion of women answering yes than the overall proportion of women. 16

12 Graph 6 100% Percentage of 'Yes' responses, by gender % of males or females 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Female Male 0% Would use partnerships register Would marry in Australia Would marry overseas = Overall % of male/female responses Would participate in commitment ceremony Age Younger respondents tended to be more enthusiastic about the idea of registering their relationships, whether by marriage in Australia or overseas or by civil registration. Graph 7 shows the proportion by age of people who responded 'Yes' to the four questions, compared to the proportion by age of all respondents. As can be seen, relatively high proportions of people who answered yes were aged 15 to19, and 25 to 29, especially for the question asking whether respondents would travel overseas to get married. The higher age groups (60+) had slightly higher proportions of respondents willing to register their partnerships or participate in commitment ceremonies, but lower proportions willing to get married, either in Australia or especially overseas. Of respondents aged over 45, only 50% said they would marry in Australia if possible, and just 5% said they would travel overseas to get married. Graph 7 35 Age breakdown, as % of people who answered 'yes' to these questions % of people who answered 'yes' Age Would use partnerships register Would marry overseas All respondents Would marry in Australia Would participate in commitment ceremony 17

13 Length of Relationship In general, the longer the length of relationship, the less likely respondents were to indicate support for marriage. There was greater enthusiasm for registering relationships, whether by marriage or civil registration, amongst people who had been in relatively shorter relationships. 93.3% (70.0% yes; 23.3% maybe) of respondents who had been in a relationship for less than 5 years replied that they would or would maybe marry if it were possible in Australia, compared to 84.0% of all respondents, and 71.4% (50.0% yes; 21.4% maybe) of respondents who had been in a relationship for more than 15 years. People who had been in a relationship for more than five years were more likely to reply that they would not get married even if it were an option in Australia, with 25.6%, compared to 16.0% of all respondents. Other points 78.7% of respondents said that a charge of around $150 for using a partnerships register would not prevent them from registering. Overall it appears that the main concern associated with the cost issue was equity with heterosexual couples. Of those who replied that such a cost would be a barrier, many indicated that they would want any cost to be the same as heterosexual registrations before they would agree to pay it. Others questioned what benefit would be gained from paying to register their relationship. In the comments section, there was much support and encouragement for this project. Respondents came from suburbs all over Melbourne. There were particularly high numbers of replies from Brunswick, Northcote, St Kilda, and other inner city locations, though there were many from outer suburbs as well. Some respondents wrote that they had already participated in Commitment Ceremonies. At least one respondent was concerned about how a registry would be used, and who would have access to it. Some people were particularly interested in the legal ramifications of partnership registration and marriage, especially those with partners from overseas. Summary of results Q.1 Would you use a partnership s register if it was established? Yes: 80.8% No: 2.7% Maybe: 16.4% Q.5 Would you get married if this was an option in Australia? Yes: 62.7% 18

14 No: 16.0% Maybe: 21.3% Q.6 Given this is not an option in Australia now, would you travel to Canada or South Africa to get married? Yes: 19.7% No: 59.2% Maybe: 21.1% Q.7 Would you participate in a commitment ceremony to your same sex partner if this was available as an option through the state registry office? Yes: 64.0% No: 9.3% Maybe: 26.7% Q.8 The cost of using the partnership s register could be in the order of $150. Would this be a barrier to you becoming registered? Yes: 21.3% No: 78.7% 19

15 Appendix 2 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) Advisory committee minutes, July 15 th St Hilda Town Hall Meeting commenced at 6.15pm Present-Cr Julian Hill, Cr Dick Gross, Scott Davis(Vicpol), Ian Gould(VGLRL) Kirk Peterson, Roberta Armitage, Richard James, Greg Horn, Chris Ellard, Liz Pain, Mandy Press(CoPP) Apologies-Jeff Hood. 1/ Same sex register(cr Gross, Ian Gould) The committee considered various options to further the issue. Key messages- The survey simply confirms the long recognised and commonsense view that the majority of the GLBTI community want legal recognition of their relationships and the rights that this confers. It's an equal rights issue. Recommended actions Do not establish a CoPP mickey mouse register that will have no real weight. Seek support for a state register across the local government sector and the state based advisory committees. 2/ Governance review- Review of GLBTI advisory committee (Mandy Press) The committee considered the questions and the various options for structuring their relationship with council. Their preference was to be considered a 'forum' but with the capacity to provide formal advice to council if required, as well as to provide advice on operational matters and projects. Committee members discussed the difficulties of representation and the limitations on the committee in achieving an annual 'work' plan, given the already hectic work and life schedule of most members. The group will come together as required and consider an 'issues 'plan. Each meeting will list the actions and outcomes. The current terms of reference are still satisfactory although it was felt that there should be some reference to the health promoting role of the committee. The terms of reference are attached to the minutes. 3/ Same sex attracted(ssat) groups in CoPP(Roberta) A SSAT group operates from Inner South Community Health service. Council's role in youth issues is one of facilitation rather than direct provision. Young GLBTI people's needs are highlighted in the CoPP Youth Action Plan. The c ommittee would like to raise the profile of this group. A forum is proposed for our next meeting where we will invite various people to talk about the issues and needs of ssat young people. Invitations to be sent to Sassy Lyn Hillier Minus 18- Mark Robinson Garrett Teeters Leo Kelly and youth reference group members. ISCHS gay media 4/ALSO survey of GLBTI older person's needs(richard) A very impressive report with some recommendations for further action. Follow up with Anna Moo in particular re home care services and staff training and representation (Mandy) 20

16 5/ Foreshore Management Plan Input required to address the amenity impacts/issues in gay beats. Greg Horn, Guy Hussey(VAC-gay beats outreach) and Scott Davis to comment. Bruce Parnell also to be invited to have input. 6/ Nightlife policy-(chris and Mandy) Input required to the development of council's policy in this area. Paper circulated. Kirk Peterson, Liz Pain and Greg Horn would be interested in being involved. 7/ Community connections conference-22 July. Jeff Hood will be attending and happy to represent any of the GLBTI issues. 8/ Gathering of the Networks Ian Gould congratulated the Older Person's Reference Group for the initiative. The day was most successful and useful information and contacts were shared. 9/ Pride March- it was noted that the agreement for council sponsorship was coming up soon. The GLBTI committee strongly recommends the continuation of the annual grant and in kind contribution. The PM brings great economic and cultural benefits to the city with comparatively small outlay compared to that provided to other interest groups across the city. Consideration should also be given to indexation of the annual grant. 10/ Obit for Boom Boom Congratulations for the moving tribute to this important St Kilda identity. 11/ Still no response to our request re the identification of the rainbow collection in the library. Mandy to follow up. Date/ agenda and date for next meeting to be advised. Meeting closed at 8.10pm City of Port Phillip Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) Advisory Committee Terms of Reference The Council of the City of Port Phillip has established a lesbian and gay advisory committee to assist in fulfilling its commitment to the inclusiveness of the lesbian and gay community. A statement of commitment was endorsed by Council in September The primary task of the committee is to advise on the development of policies and strategies to promote inclusiveness for gays and lesbians in all areas of council activity. The committee will provide advice on the following areas: The extent to which Council s services and programs are inclusive of lesbians and gays Positive strategies to promote inclusiveness and health of the community where this is required Advocacy needed with other levels of government and/or the private sector in responding to the needs of the lesbian and gay community Methods of effectively consulting with members of the lesbian and gay community How Council can most effectively promote the social, cultural and economic interests of the lesbian and gay community. The committee will meet on an as required basis and a minimum of twice per year. Members will be available to provide specialist advice in their particular areas of interest and expertise. 21