Comments on: Pensioners might find gay equality’s not all it’s cracked up to be

By: The Colonel

The Colonel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Eva Cox is correct in pointing out this obvious flaw in the legislation and if Centrelink can make someone's life hell, they surely will.

Th only solution-one person wll have to go back into the closet and become a "straight" for all intentions and purposes. Yet again, government show their real intentions by producing discriminating laws.

By: Bob Barker

Bob Barker — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Anyone with a knowledge of social security law will tell you that defining a ‘marriage liike relationship’ for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 is a complete quagmire. As Eva Cox article points our there are numerous indicia to be considered. Deciding whether two people should be considered members of a couple or not involves evaluting the financial, sexual, emotional aspects of the given relationship as well as whether the couple shares responsibility for the rearing of children and whether the couple hold themselves out to be a members of a couple in the public sphere. These issues are not new. They simply extend the quagmire of determining a marriage like relationship to gay and lesbian couples. Well and maybe the changes could also create some problems for two two blokes who share a flat for a while and have a joint bank account for the groceries, and maybe bought a plasma in 50/50 shares. Single mothers who have a boyfriend have faced this grey area and Centrelink investigations for decades. Dont get me started on elderly married couples who divide their marrital home into two living areas and refuse to talk to each other. These are known as a ‘separation under one roof’. There really is no way to clearly define the great variance in human relationships. This is the problem and the changes are ‘equality’. And dont forget, if Centrelink gets is wrong you have a right of review internally at Centrleink, then to the independant Social Security Appeals Tribunal and if your still not happy to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. All free of charge. Viva la revolution.

By: Move On

Move On — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There was plenty of community consultation leading up to the omnibus bill, so why didn’t any of the affected pensioners voice their concerns at the time? They could have raised their concerns at gay community forums, or made submissions to HREOC or to their MP. Squeaky hinges get the oil. If you bury your head in the sand, if you hide in the closet, if you refuse to join your community group, if you wear victimisation and fear as a badge of honour, then blame yourselves.
Change was overdue and this is progress. The courage of the people who advocated for change has been vindicated and rewarded. The cowards who prefer the past ways want to stop the world from moving forward. If they want a voice, start a group, join with others, count how many of you there are. In politics, numbers count.
Most of the old gay pensioners weren’t working in times of compulsory superannuation. The straight couples didn’t get the extra benefits from the PBS and Medicare safety nets until the Howard government rewarded them at the expense of gay couples and singles. Yes, they suffered fear and discrimination, but not necessarily confiscatory government taxes.
The people who marched in the 1970s to start gay law reform and continued to argue for equal rights are pleased with the progress so far. There are still some areas which need to be progressed. Those who chose not to rock the boat rather than fight for their rights can’t expect to stop the world from moving on. Somehow, I doubt they exist as pensioner couples in great numbers.

By: Cam

Cam — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I must agree with M A Smith - it’s long been obvious that payments to pensioners by Centrelink (and, I might add, to struggling students on Youth Allowance) would be affected by these changes to the legislation. However, on balance it remains a significant step in removing discrimination from the law. Sure, it may disadvantage some people but it provides benefits to others and most significantly removes a point of difference.

By: spotbanana

spotbanana — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Move On has nailed it. This is significant change for and development towards less inequality for those with non biblical sexual orientations. Change always comes at a cost.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I can only think of Catherine Tate’s character who meets all of the gay stereotypes but who gets most offended by any suggestion he might be gay: “How very dare you!” he exclaims. Offensive but humourous stuff. I’m picturing him in a Centrelink queue now.

By: Move On

Move On — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Imagine the impossibility of getting the legislation through the hostile senate with special pleading. It was hard enough and took long enough as it was.

By: Darren

Darren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

is Centrelink now a marriage celebrant?

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Being married by Centrelink” - Soo, when you join the queue at Centrelink to be married, is that one ticket or two? :^)

By: M A Smith

M A Smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You can’t have it both ways. Either you are a couple or you’re not. If you have long agitated for ‘gay rights now!’, with all the potential benefits that can bring, you have no business expecting to be grandfathered by Centrelink (who love to find couples under every bed). I have long realised that those who gain same-sex couple status in law will lose out to some extent with Centrelink and anyone with half a brain would have known the same.

The unfairness, to my view, is for any income support to recognise/penalise coupledom status, when other family members (like me and my aged Dad for example) can live together and both get independently assessed pensions. Plus I get $100 per fortnight extra for looking after him! Obviously I’m not complaining but as a bisexual person I can see that there are many inconsistencies in the system.