But the changes announced yesterday by Attorney-General Robert McClelland go only so far.

They cover financial matters where opinion polls show 70 per cent of Australians back what they are doing and do not concede any ground from the Howard government position on civil unions.

Asked what difference there was between McClelland and Philip Ruddock, the much-criticised attorney of the Howard government who overrode ACT legislation on civil unions, veteran campaigner Rodney Croome, of the Coalition for Equality, was adamant.

"In the eyes of a same-sex couple in the ACT who want to solemnise their love and commitment, I don't think there would be any difference," he said. "Both stand in the way of formal recognition of same-sex love, or, more to the point, their leaders do."

Many gay and lesbian people across the nation supported "the principled stand" of the ACT Government, whose leader, Jon Stanhope, has flagged he will make an election issue of the Territory's power to implement its Civil Unions Bill.

The Bill was put up and struck down by the Commonwealth. It was then amended and does not include the much-complained-of term "marriage" but does provide for a formal ceremony, which former prime minister John Howard said was marriage in all but name.

Croome is convinced that the Rudd administration is acting on a false premise when it seeks to point to distinctions between what Stanhope is proposing and the register of civil unions that operates in his home state of Tasmania, with which the Federal Government apparently has no problem.

"In my view, the Federal Government is bullying the ACT on this simply because it can," he said.

Under the ACT Self-Government Act 1988, the Commonwealth can disallow Territory laws at its whim (via instruction to and action from the Governor-General) a situation unthinkable in the states.

Former chief minister Gary Humphries became the only Liberal senator to cross the floor during the life of the Howard government when he stood up for both the thrust of the ACT civil-union legislation but also for the Territory Government's rights to make Territory laws.

Croome emphasises that the ACT is acting in accordance with the demonstrated wishes of the overwhelming majority of its constituents.

"The Stanhope Government has a mandate to enact this reform. The Federal Government does not have a mandate to override it," he said. "I know from experience in Tasmania how valuable it is for same-sex couples to formalise their personal unions and I fully support the ACT proceeding down the same path, even if its model is slightly different."

He welcomed the financial moves announced yesterday, saying it was "really important and overdue", especially for older, retirement-age couples.

Heidi Yates, of the ACT lobby group Good Process, similarly welcomed the federal amendments.

"We've been waiting a long time for them and they'll have an extremely significant impact on the lives of gay and lesbian couples around Australia, particularly in Canberra, given the large number of long-time public servants who, for the first time, will be able to leave their superannuation to their partner," she said.

However, she joined Croome in concern about the inability of McClelland and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to back the ACT Government in legislating for Canberrans.

"Good Process hopes that the supportive attitude of the Rudd Federal Government [on financial matters] will assist with the smooth introduction of the ACT's civil-partnership scheme, including a ceremonial component," Yates said. "We hope that the steps towards economic inclusion at the federal level will also lead to social inclusion.

"Necessarily a part of that is ensuring that all couples, regardless of gender, are able to publicly declare their commitment to one another in front of family and friends in a formal ceremony."

The Law Council of Australia welcomed McClelland's announcement, noting that the 100 laws to be amended included the 58 areas identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in a report last year.

Council president Ross Ray QC said, "Any step towards eliminating discrimination brings us closer to meeting our international human rights obligations, makes us a fairer, more just community and ought to be greeted with strong approval."

However, Ray stressed that the job would not be complete until the Commonwealth Marriage Act was amended to remove legal restrictions preventing the marriage of same-sex couples.

"As long as the Government remains intent on preserving a special class of state-sanctioned relationship which is closed to same-sex couples, discrimination will persist," he said. "And it will persist regardless of whether or not any government entitlements are exclusively available to couples within that limited class.

"In the end, it's simple all people are equal before the law and should be entitled to the same fundamental rights," Ray concluded.

The Greens echoed Ray, with Senator Kerry Nettle vowing her party would "continue to push for the removal of all discrimination, including in relation to marriage" and pledged to refer government amendments to a Senate committee for scrutiny.

Democrat Deputy Leader Senator Andrew Bartlett welcomed the financial moves, which had been "a very long time coming".

"The Democrats have worked for decades to have these legal inequalities removed," he said. "We've had legislation before Parliament since 1995, have moved literally hundreds of amendments, and as late as last year we were fighting to have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's recommendations for reform adopted by the then conservative government with our Same-Sex Entitlements Bill."

However, "political action was thin on the ground".

Humphries admitted that his side of politics had been slow to act.

"The Howard government did actually say before the 2004 election that it would remove discrimination in a range of areas - and it didn't get around to doing that," he said.

"I think that that's unfortunate. It's to our discredit that we didn't get around to doing that and I'm pleased that that omission now appears to be being corrected."

Illustration: Robin Cowcher