Centrelink Being Too Harsh OnSame Sex Couples?

www.samesame.com.au

About the Author

mickel_23

view my other 26 articles

Tue 31st Mar, 2009 in Local News

27
0
3179

Maree O’Halloran, director of the Welfare Rights Centre, has written to Finn Pratt, a chief executive of Centrelink, in protest against the inadequate warning about new laws that require gay and lesbian couples to declare that they are in de facto relationships, from Monday 30th of March 2009.

The Federal Government who have introduced this new legal obligation, have initiated a national advertising campaign in relation to the changes but according to The Australian O’ Halloran expressed that this method of informing gay couples is not standard or fair.

In the letter O’Halloran said, “The Welfare Rights Centre requests that all single recipients of a Social Security or Family Assistance payment be sent a letter specifically notifying them of the same-sex law reform amendments.

“We are concerned that without such notification, people may either be unaware of the changes or be waiting for Centrelink to contact them, as would be the case with any other major change.

“It would be unconscionable, for example, for Centrelink to make retrospective decisions about a person’s ‘member of a couple’ status if proper notification has not been sent… Other people may well miss out on the beneficial aspects of the changes.”

It is uncommon for Centrelink to not directly inform welfare recipients about changes in their obligations, but the Federal Government claim that they cannot write to those individuals who are in same-sex relationships because they are not able to identify them.

From July 1st Centrelink will have the right to investigate couples who are thought to be dishonest with the Government in regards to their situation, but the Welfare lobby and other groups believe this measure may be too harsh.

Only 11 people contacted Centrelink on Monday (the first day of the advertising campaign), to declare they were in a same-sex relationship.

The changes to the commonwealth laws that previously denied same-sex couples and their children basic financial and work-related entitlements in areas such as superannuation, taxation, social security, health benefits and child support was announced by the Government last year and will come completely into effect as of July 1st.

Nobody has hearted this, be the first Be the first!

Comments

www.samesame.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

8262

mandy g

mandy g said on the 1st Apr, 2009

so if they don't know who is in same sex relationships, how are they going to start investigate people they feel are "dishonestly claiming payment", sounds very like a legalised way of discriminating if someone "looks" to be different, watch out all those butch girls or ultra femme guys, you just got painted with bigoted targets.

last year i got put on single person payments as a post op trans even though i am legally still married (14 years today), so now my wife and i will lose $50 each a fortnight, shame they still wont let be have a F on my birth certificate...equal rights? yeah right dream on

ammonite

ammonite said on the 1st Apr, 2009

This is crap, they contact me all the time about stuff that has nothing to do with me when they know that it has nothing to do with me. For example I was sent a letter a while ago about the child care payment or baby bonus or something to do with kids, and they know that I don't have kids. They always send out letters about any changes, they also send you letters to let you know nothing has changed! - I got one of those the other day. So why on this particular occasion are they suddenly not sending letters?
The worst part about this is that the homophobes will turn the complaining around and say 'see, you only want equal rights when it beneifts you. you don't want to be a contributing member of society.'

bgf northernnick

bgf northernnick said on the 1st Apr, 2009

The worst part about this is that the homophobes will turn the complaining around and say 'see, you only want equal rights when it beneifts you. you don't want to be a contributing member of society.'
Personally still a bit confused around this issue.........At no time did I ever see in any of our arguements for same sex relationship recognition that we be treated differently from everyone else in relationships......We have had months of warning re this issue so it's not like it's come out of the blue.
Can concede that two partners on benefits will be around $100 worse off if they are living together but isn't their rent halved, utilities costs halved too?........ Two can live much cheaper one .........My major concerns are for people on low incomes who may just want to house share/flat share for economic reasons......Will Stat declarations signed by a JP be enough to prove that you are not in a relationship for benefit entitlements?.......
Maybe this legislation will make people think twice before jumping into co habiting with new partners till the relationship is established as secure too.........We do exist in a community where long term relationships can be as long as six months!:D :eek:
We as community have come soooo far in the last few years and still have
special needs...........apart from the fact that we are same sex attracted we face the same challenges finantially as everyone else ......does anyone pay higher rent ,power ,food costs because of their sexuality?;) .

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

Centrelink has wide powers of investigation. They can question anyone who may have information about you. They may ask questions of friends, hospitals, relatives, employers and neighbours and information is collected from �the public� (for example a dob-in by a neighbour, family member or ex-partner,) the Department of Housing, real estate agents, gas and electricity suppliers, local council, or any other person they think that can provide them with details of a relationship including acon and BGF.

Questions Centrelink will use to assess relationships include: �Do you provide financial support for each other? Do you have any joint accounts or credit cards? Whose name is the telephone/electricity/gas in? Who pays the bills and how do you work it out? Do you jointly own large items, eg house, car, furniture? Do you know about each others financial affairs? Has either of you named the other person as a beneficiary in your will or superannuation? Do you lend or give each other money? Do you share the same circle of friends? Do you tell each other where you are daily or what you are doing when you go out? Do you frequently go out together or do you regularly go out separately? Do either of you have a girlfriend or boyfriend? Do you visit each others families? Would your friends and families consider you a couple? Do you correct them? Do your family or friends make plans for you as a couple? Have you ever let a government department, real estate agency or bank assume you were a couple? Do you take holidays together? Commitment to each other. How long has the relationship lasted? Is it different from other friendships? Do you consider the relationship is likely to continue? Who do you talk to when you have a problem? If you suddenly got sick, who would you call? Have you any long term plans involving the other person? Do you think you are likely to marry? Do you think your relationship is like a marriage? If the other person lost their job or had no income, would you feel obliged to offer them financial help for a period of time?� The questions will also apply to those living seperately or apart from my their �partner�.

Centrelink investigations may go on for 6-12 months as it gathers information. Centrelink may not contact you to tell you that the investigation has ceased. If Centrelink believes you intentionally provided the wrong information your case may be referred for prosecution. Overpayments will be recovered by Centrelink. Even if you are repaying the money, you may still be prosecuted.

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

Australia spends over $90billion on welfare.

We're facing poor job growth and a recession.

The [URL="http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25260955-5001021,00.html"]union$ waged a massive and expensive power-play campagin against John Howards workpace reform. I know Johnnie's policy was very unpopular with people, but in some ways it wasn't that bad considering how reuthless the world is. Sometimes I think we're naive.

Maybe the outlook here is a little narrow, since the government is moving to cut welfare in general. And asking people to be honest about their life situation so they can more fairly distribute funding is a good thing.

It's not like they're trying to catch people out, they are giving us notice. It's not like they coming around to our houses with dogs.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

but they're not giving us the same notice as all other people affected by changes get - they are not sending letters.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

'Welfare gays' circumstances haven't changed, just the way they are treated under the law. While many are pushing for 'gay marriage' these unfortunates will be desperately seeking ways to be 'unmarried.'

Those HIV+ too sick to work and others on the Disability Support Pension, the elderly, low income earners and those who rely on the Health Care and the Concession Card, rent assistance etc., often share accommodation for the physical security, for help in case of a fall and the high costs of renting alone. It is these disadvantaged who are going to bear the brunt of equality. If the changes mean the loss of access to the PBS many pozzies will no longer be able to afford their meds. Of the 982 HIV positive Australians who completed the HIV Futures 5 survey, 82% identified as gay or bisexual men.

Same-sex couples who receive any welfare benefit will have to notify When I spoke with (then Shadow) Attorney-General Robert McClelland he said he favoured a 5 or 6 year phase-in period. The phase-in period for changes to the female retirement age was 20 years. Glbqti's are being given only until July. Elderly gay and lesbian couples under the new reforms stand to lose nearly $200 per fortnight. Others will lose child support, etc, etc.

The acon 'lobby' has decided it's tactic will be to seek a 12-month grace period for those under 55, and a grandafthering of the changes for those older than that. But by July 1, it will have been 15 months since the government announced its intentions and the Attorney General McClelland has already said, "To isolate one aspect of the changes for grandfathering would result in inconsistencies in the recognition of a same-sex relationship in other social security and health programs."

I wonder at those who think this treatment of our marginalised is fair; sometimes I wonder if the callous indifference to their plight is simply a matter of resenting that those in need can have something that we can't.

The National Welfare Rights Network has stated, ” While demanding the same treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples may seem fair at face value, it will not create equity. It is disingenuous to claim that the Bill removes discrimination against same-sex couples, when the proposed amendments relating to Social Security and Family Assistance will entrench poverty for individuals whose access to employment benefits, superannuation and insurance entitlements have already been significantly affected by the discriminatory laws that the rest of the Bill seeks to reform.” It’s a pity most in this community don’t feel the same way.

jal_goh

jal_goh said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

see full page colour ad RHS in New idea this week - has the Govt centrelink ad communicating this...

gregii said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

Shane in Sydney wrote:
'The phase-in period for changes to the female retirement age was 20 years.'

And that's a centre piece of this debate that is being largely ignored.

My understanding is that he majority of other changes to the Welfare Act had 'grandfathering' built into it (eg with the changes to the War Widow's pension's, female retirement, etc).

So if this has been done historically in the past with 'straight' relationships, why is this also not applied to same-sex relationships.

THAT is what smacks of homophobia here. It has been done in the past with other changes to welfare payments - GLBTI's are not actually asking for anything different than that which has been done in the past.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

Well, it's not like those that call themselves community leaders didn't see this coming. I wrote to the acon prez 3 years ago and was informed that 'they were in favour of a period for adjustment'. The GLRL statement to the Senate Standing Committee’s report (Oct. 2008) re the then proposed changes was simply: “Same-sex couples are generally willing to forgo the advantage in social security for comprehensive equality across all area of federal law.” I've heard an awful lot of 'you can't have your cake and eat it too' arguments but there's a difference between formal equality and substantive equality, the latter being about outcomes and accounting for past systemic disadvantages, as the National Welfare Rights Network has pointed out. 12,000 glbqti have been sold up the river in a cosy little deal with Labor.

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

imperfect world

try cashing your welfare cheques in Somalia, or something

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

eurolad

eurolad said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

I think it is absolutely pathetic how centrelink expects same sex couples to declare their relationship when same sex marriage is banned in this country

If i were in a relationship i would take them to court over this issue
as there would be no way on earth that i would let them reduce my hypothetical
benefits for something that is not recognized under the law

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

i'd prefer us to just keep working towards relationship recognition

this is a great point to add to our case

eurolad

eurolad said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

i'd prefer us to just keep working towards relationship recognition

this is a great point to add to our case

No thanks. I want ALL rights that the wicked heterosexuals enjoy
including marriage. If you want to keep being a second or even third
class citizen go ahead.

jackie87

jackie87 said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

What do you have against the right for employees to organise themselves? I also hate it when some union heavyweights who has barely worked a day in the real world and half-heartedly defends the workers he represents get golden handshakes from ALP governments but what do you say to the even bigger salary payouts to CEOs who wanted more power to make salaries higher on the big end of town and work harder and less rewarding for those lower. WorkChoices was a rotten piece of legislation, especially AWAs and I'm glad the Australian people woke up and rejected it.

In a sense, the Howard Government tried to push the gap between rich and poor even further under the so-called Howard battler's noses.

We are thankful to have unions in this country, despite shithouse Right wing unions and union bosses such as those of the AWU, the SDA and the TWU which suck up to big business, fail to defend their own worker's rights, contribute to ruining the environment and preach the Pope's gospel about contraception, homosexuality and abortion.

The unstoppable crazy growth, debt and unrestrained spending practices and under-regulated mortgage markets got us into this mess in the first place.

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

I don't have anything against that. But I do think the anti-work place reform was overblown thanks for an expensive political campaign by the unions. I agree that John Howards laws would have worsened conditions to some extent, but during the period they were in place there was no real major shift. The laws might of made more jobs and made Australia more competitive and kept more business here.

jackie87

jackie87 said on the 2nd Apr, 2009

The symptoms of the GFC had been around since the sub-prime mortgage crisis and only worsened when the whole world was dragged down by the US. By being competitive, you mean keeping labour costs down to let those "influential" enough reap all the benefits. There would be way too many losers than winners in that situation and class warfare and violent revolution inevitable in that occurence.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Apr, 2009

The Howard government spent $114m. of our money trying to sell its Dickensian Work(No)Choices policies.

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Apr, 2009

Yeah true shayne

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Apr, 2009

Yeah totally. Business is ruthless and it'd be nice if people weren't so greedy and share the wealth a bit. But we're stuck with the reality that we need to support business in this country or we'll be left like a hallow husk like so many part of 1st world is discovering right now.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 3rd Apr, 2009

No thanks. I want ALL rights that the wicked heterosexuals enjoy
including marriage. If you want to keep being a second or even third
class citizen go ahead.

Your separatist mindset is just a case of 'I am only human if my enemy doesn't want me to be'. How about wanting rights in favour of yourself, not in spite of those 'wicked' people you describe. I don't think the average heterosexual even thinks about gay marriage. I don't think they want gays to be 'abnormal' - they just take their own rights for granted; not caring about denying us ours.

I don't understand why you'd want to disengage & pack up shop to places where other gays have established extended rights in the face of such promising times.

Why do you let the definitions of homophobes define you so readily?

I suspect you like being without hope. Your lack of hope absolves you of the responsibility to own your own happiness. Lack of hope makes people lazy. Being lazy means you'll never enact change and rely on others to do things for you that you're too cynical to fight for yourself...

bgf northernnick

bgf northernnick said on the 4th Apr, 2009

Some gr8 issue's being raised in this thread ....
Would really love to know who's giving the rest of oz the impression that all glbti want to be legally Married?..........Tis a tad confusing when having discussed this issue with many friends that they DO want thier relationships recognised by law for all the reasons we have campaigned for but rarely has the actual word Marriage been mentioned:confused: ........How many of you reading these posts were actually part of Getup.org's immense on line campaign or actually demonstrated publicly for these reforms? Know that there would be quite a few but also many that are content to sit at home and play with words too.
Is this thread now changing to something else?:confused: Feel that fighting for our rights to maintain benefits for those that really do need them......ie elderly, dsp recipients including poz people on meds as Shaneofsydney mentioned in his gr8 post( thanks m8!) and the difference between legally recognised same sex unions and an outdated het conception of our unions (Marriage) are different issues entirely.
For all those GLBTI in long term relationships (who are ultimately going to be the people affected by present day activism) I meant no disrespect in my earlier post when I said that in our communities a long term relationship could be as long as six months .....but was only mentioning something we all know but for some reason won't acknowlege here at least ( have we lost the ability to laugh at ourselves now too?)........I am now in my 50's and have been living in the northern rivers for 18 years and out the few long term partnerships around who were 'out' when I moved up here (around 10) there are now only two people still together......
There do seem to be a select few (including both gay/strait media) intent on keeping the word "Marriage " in the equation which I feel is creating unecessary devisions and slowing any progress down......May be alone in my views but proud to see our communities abilities to debate have NOT been lost.
Have a gr8 weekend guys,
Nick

eurolad

eurolad said on the 4th Apr, 2009

Some gr8 issue's being raised in this thread ....
Would really love to know who's giving the rest of oz the impression that all glbti want to be legally Married?..........,
Nick

I do want the choice, even if i don't give a rat about marriage
that is what EQUAL rights means. By agreeing to any other
civil union scheme (which we don't have btw) you are giving in
to the homophobes of this country. If that's how you want to fight
for your rights and are happy to be considered a lower human species
then go ahead. I am not interested in that

You do not compromise with homophobes, ever.

largs girl said on the 4th Apr, 2009

I agree with Euro lad. We should be able to choose to marry (or not) the same as straight couples do.

As some one who has campaigned for gay rights for the last 30 + years including writing to MPs. , being part of Get Up etc, I want a world where my children and grandchildren gay or straight have the same choice to marry or not .

I'm also very aware that gays my age and older have lived in a world where their relationship was not recognised. They should be able to live out their retirement years in comfort. I support the lobbying of government to grandparent these changes. And I know how this feels as my partner is older than me and will now not get an aged pension in a few years as I'll still be working). At least my income is quite high for a woman so we won't be struggling like many of our community will.
It is not contradictory to fight for our rights (ie marriage) and some sort of quaratine on the changes for those 60+ who had all the negatives and not many of the positives of equal rights. Many couples may not be out to their family either so this cahnge might be quite difficult.

Mydoona

Mydoona said on the 5th Apr, 2009

why would I want to declare that I am in a relationship? I get more money if I'm classed as single.

chad_74 said on the 6th Apr, 2009

Don't think we are being discriminated against anymore than hetro's.
My sister left her husband with three kids whilst she could claim a single mothers benefit she was also put through ther grinder.Centrelink also used to visit and make a home inspection to check out the sleeping arrangements checking every bedroom to make sure the ex or other male had not stayed over or were residing with her as a partner.
To all those whom are winging about losing $100-
What would you rather have the $100-
or recognition that you are a couple so that you cannot be blocked from being beside your dying partner on his deathbed?