Special rule for same-sex couples

Same-sex de facto partners will escape being treated as couples for social welfare purposes for a further two years as officials determine how to deal with those in closet relationships.

And it appears the considerations might result in a wider review of the definition of de facto couples under the Social Security Act, which Government MPs yesterday conceded appeared problematic.

The issues were raised during debate in Parliament yesterday over the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, the legislation designed to amend laws in the wake of the passing of the Civil Union Act.

The bill, considerably rewritten by the justice and electoral select committee, passed its second reading 75-45 yesterday.

When first introduced the bill aimed to amend a raft of largely minor statutes which would have placed the same rights and obligations on married, de facto and civil union couples.

But it was returned to the House retaining distinctions in some laws between de facto couples and those who had opted to formalise their relationships - through marriage or civil unions.

This followed Opposition and, belatedly, Government recognition that some de facto couples - heterosexual and same-sex - did not want to be legally treated as if they were married.

Introducing the bill, the Government said the plan to recognise same-sex couples under social welfare law would save it $10 million a year.

Under current law their relationship is not recognised and could lead to one partner claiming the domestic purposes benefit, for example, while living with a working partner.

While same-sex civil union partners will be considered partners for social welfare reasons after the bill is passed, the Government will not apply the same rules to de facto same-sex couples until April 2007.

Act MP Stephen Franks yesterday said that could see same-sex couples on an unemployment benefit gaining an extra $60 a week, because they would be assessed as individuals, he said.

Labour MP and committee chairman Tim Barnett said the two-year lag was designed to give the couples time to reorganise their affairs.

It would also give officials time to consider how to deal with same-sex couples whose relationship might not be public knowledge.

This did not mean they would be treated differently, rather that the issue required sensitivity and an acknowledgment the law change could make some couples vulnerable, especially to prying neighbours.

Fellow MP Lianne Dalziel said Ministry of Social Development officials had told the committee they were "struggling" with existing definitions of de facto couples and it was felt the issue should be addressed separately.

Mr Barnett conceded it was possible a wider review of the social welfare legislation and its definitions would now be held.