The pink list: Centrelink couples register scaring the pants off gays
|
I hate to ruin the start of an election year, but I have a serious problem with recent legal changes regarding gays and lesbians. I know it’s supposed to be all hugs and puppies for the gay community these days and that we have allegedly entered a new era of tolerance and acceptance, but I’m not buying it. Hatred, suspicion and discrimination take a long time to die and you’d have to be criminally naïve to think otherwise. The Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws Reform Bill of 2008 was meant to remove inequalities in the way gays and lesbians were treated. Sadly, that is not the case. I know a lot of gays and lesbians have celebrated these changes and see them as a great move forward, but that doesn’t hold for the whole community. While the wealthier end of the spectrum can have their faux marriages, reorganise their superannuation and start claiming their idiot toy boys as dependants, things aren’t so jolly at the other end of the economic spectrum. The key difference is choice. Wealthy people can choose to use these laws, or they can stay closeted and private. Poorer gays and lesbians who rely on Centrelink have no such choice. We are being forced to come out and go on the lower couple rate or face massive financial penalties later if we get busted. We weren’t even notified by official letters. Centrelink put ads in various papers and then expected us to dob ourselves in. And that’s not the worst of it. If we come out to Centrelink, that information will be put on a government database for all time. That database will contain not just the fact that we’re gay, but our home address, phone number, Centrelink reference number and bank details. Gathering this information in one place is inherently dangerous and stupid. It is, in effect, a pink list and this government will be holding gays and lesbians on the list hostage to any future government who may not be as tolerant. It’s no use saying that this information will be kept private and confidential. In a paper given at a banking and identity conference at RMIT in 2006 it was revealed that in a three-year period from 2003 there were 858 breaches of privacy cases at Centrelink. Investigations resulted in 19 staff being sacked, 92 resigning when confronted with information and a further 346 were either fined or reprimanded. And that’s just one government department. That database can also be hacked by malicious outsiders, or information can be “accidentally” released in the course of exchanging information with the welfare departments of other nations. How bad would this government feel if someone’s gay status was accidentally revealed to a country that still applies criminal charges or the death penalty to gay people? No hugs and puppies there. If you think I’m being too alarmist, let me remind you of what happened in Germany in the 1930s. Once the Nazis got into power they devoted a whole division of the Gestapo to creating a “pink list”. The reason they were able to do this was because under the previous, tolerant Weimar regime, gays and lesbians felt confident enough to emerge from their closets and form clubs and associations. That’s how they were found. Gays and lesbians trusted their government and were horribly betrayed. More than 9000 ended up in concentration camps. That might not be a huge number, but bear in mind that gays were the only group refused compensation after the war. Right up until the 1960s they were considered common criminals who received appropriate treatment. This partly explains why Centrelink hasn’t got the response it was expecting. These changes have scared the pants off people. They don’t trust any government to protect them or keep that information private. So even though I’ve been out for years, on behalf of the people who want to stay private and can’t even complain publicly about these changes (for fear of being identified as gay), I’m telling the government: I will not dob myself in and I will not be on your pink list. This whole debacle could have been avoided if Centrelink, instead of trying to force more people onto the lower couple payment, just abolished the stupid couple rate instead — for all couples, not just gay ones. Recent suggestions point to the possibility that whatever paltry amount is saved by having couples rates the government could actually save more by not conducting expensive and intrusive investigations into people’s living arrangements. Why on earth does the government need to know what consenting adults get up to in private? It’s none of their business. |
|
|
|
28 Comments
Easy fix: Get a job.
This is what “equality” is people. Its not just the good stuff. As they say, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
No Sue Anne you’re right. What is their business however is when they set a rate that a single person can receive to support themselves and another rate to recognise that couples share costs then paying a couple (any couple) two single rates would be inherently inequitable so you need to tell them which you are.
I understand straight poor people are also regularly discovered to be couples and forced to cough-up. Rather than seek another division why not join the straights and demand a change to the couples rate? Of course reciprocity anf proportionality of rights would then suggest governments would have to allow gay mariage but that’s another fight.
Damn straight, Sue! (Um, damn bent?) I was registered with centrelink when I was a student. More than 10 years later I found myself between jobs and so enquired as what would be involved to receive benefits. Not only did they still have all my contact details, they were able to tell me what my net worth was, what assets I owned and even the make, model, colour and year of the car I drove. WTF does it matter what kind of car I drove?! Why do they need this much detail?
I declined to participate in their information gathering exercise this time around and shortly found myself re-employed.
It’s definitely an issue. I once worked in Centrelink, and knew a gay aged pensioner who’d fled to Australia from Germany, post WWII. He was far from comfortable about talking about his sexuality with the govt, unsurprisingly, so I wonder now what he thinks of all this?
If we’re going to work towards equality, then the gay community shouldn’t be able to just cherry-pick the benefits. But it’s also harder to accept the drawbacks when full equality hasn’t been granted. In this case it’s the govt doing the cherry-picking. Your relationship won’t be recognised legally as a marriage, but we’ll still cut your pension. Recognising your relationship at Centrelink saves the govt money, but recognising your relationship as a marriage might cost the govt votes. So human rights take a back-seat, and your relationship by definition is not equal to others.
I imagine that aged gay pensioner from Germany might feel less concerned with trusting the govt with his personal life story if the govt made a clear statement that gay relationships would in no way be considered beneath others, which is not what we have now.
And you made a very important point that for well-off gay people, including some very rich and famous personalities out there, they still have the option to remain in the closet. While if you’re a disabled pensioner, the govt talks tough if you withhold your relationship information. Which is a pity, because the people affected by this will be classed by some as bludgers who should stop complaining (as has happened to you in the comments), while there are some powerful gay people out there who could help fight for change but won’t because they benefit from keeping quiet. I’m not saying every closetted gay celebrity needs to become an activist, but by choosing to be stay closetted, while less lucky gay people are being legally forced to tell the govt everything - well that’s inequality of another sort.
MAYBE IM JUST A TOTAL NUT but its not paranoia, Federal governments are not trustable for they are based on the idea of the nation itself it the most important and overriding cause. Look through out history and even now all i can is i would never want a government like the US or the european union to have a hard copy of my sexuality should they mood of that nation change (PS I AM VERY OUT AND PROUD BUT I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THAT FACT)
I found Edward Thompson’s knee-jerk “get a job” comment infuriating.
First, people have contact with Centrelink for all sorts of reasons ranging from family benefits to veterans’ affairs and disability – it isn’t just an unemployment agency.
Second, “get a job” doesn’t actually seem like a suggestion here. It’s abuse and dismissal.
Third, this is the same kind of retreat into privilege that shows state schools and public hospitals suffering as they’re deserted by people who can afford their private equivalents. Once he puts down his copy of Atlas Shrugged, Edward may be surprised to learn that getting a job does nothing to disrupt the gap between rich and poor that Sue-Ann brings up in this article.
Scott, there’s nothing equal about being forcibly put in a vulnerable position. The complaint here is not the couples rate (which is rotten, but that’s an argument for another day), but the position having such a list puts people in, let alone the problems associated with forcing people out of the closet with the threat of massive financial punishment.
Yes - straight people suffer from financial punishment should they choose to hide a relationship from Centrelink, but straight people are, it has to be said, significantly less likely to recieve a belting from family, friends, whoever, should they be forced to reveal their ‘secret’ relationship - sure, this doesn’t happen as much as it used to - but it does still happen and people are scared of that. Many gay people choose to hide their relationships - often for very good reasons, such as the threat of being disowned from the family or the fear of physical abuse - and being forced to reveal those may well put those people at risk, or strain.
Sorry but let’s just slow down a bit. The contention that collecting a list of couples will some how bring about the fourth reich is just not a reasonable contention. Our governments have traditionally and increasingly been part of the movement against such abuses. As a unionist I would be on firmer ground arguing that I am also endangered. It might happen but you’ll probably be hit by a bus first.
Next just who is being forced out of the closet. Two people living privately, complying with the law by disclosing to a government agency that they are, in fact (de facto if you prefer latin) a couple aren’t being put on some easily accessed list or made admit their shame in the town square.
Centrelink can only use that information for the purpose that its collected. While the fear this might lead to accidental disclosure with severe consequences may be real I would guess that such disclosure is also incredibly rare. I’m guessing that the act of living together might give the game away to the neighbours too. Geez even straight people doing that for more than about 12 months sets tongues wagging.
Many people, not just gay people, choose to hide their relationships for all sorts of reasons but the idea that disclosing your relationship status to centrelink immediately sends a note to your parents or paints a pink triangle on the front of your house is just wrong.
Sue-Ann, a question about the nuances of your phrase, “That database can also be hacked by malicious outsiders.” Is there a known deficiency in the Centrelink network’s information security? Or should the word “can” really be “could”, in the sense of a potential?
Clearly since Centrelink’s databases contain everything needed for someone to commit identity theft on a massive scale, security is paramount — for everyone, not just people concerned about the privacy of their sexuality.
However which the scary stories of malicious hackers get the adrenalin flowing, the real risk will always be the insiders. Low-ranking staff with access to personal data will always face the temptation of earning a bit more on the side by providing the odd tidbit of information now and then, or will through poor training or ill-thought procedures commit a massive privacy breach by leaving a laptop full of data on the back seat of their car.
What an excellent illustratation of the proposition that if you need to rely upon “the Nazis” to support your argument, it is likely that the argument is entirely without merit.
I don’t know what it is with all these “take the rough with the smooth” comments about cherry picking equality.
If we did actually have equality, we’d have marriage and adoption rights. But the government cherry picks what equality we can have.
I thought the nazi reference was germane.
Scott if you really believe there is equality, you need to go and look up comparable statistics for gays across all areas of adult life - adopting children in same sex marriages, inheritance rights for long term gay couples, resolution of gay hate compared to court outcomes for non gays who are bashed and murdered. I cannot believe that if you knew of these statistics you would claim any sense of equality here.
I came upon these issues indirectly when I was researching a related topic, and the more I read, the more aghast I became at the injustices previously and currently perpetrated against gays.
Angus, regarding the ‘if you need to rely upon the Nazis to support your argument..’ argument.
In most cases, you’re right. But gays were actually rounded up by the Nazis, so maybe gay people do have the right to drop the Nazi scenario in there sometimes. To put it another way, would you have said the same thing to a Jewish person who had made a similar reference to past history involving the Nazis? There is a difference between paranoid hyperbole, and not being quick to forget the past. Some Australian residents come from countries where same sex activity is currently a crime, or where being an openly gay person means you risk being murdered by your own family. There are some employers in Australia that can legally fire you for being gay. And even now gay marriage is thrown around by straight politicians - instead of the question being simply whether gay citizens should be seen as equals entitled to the same rights as everyone else, our govt waits to see how the mood of the straight majority is going. That’s the way of things, and gays aren’t the only minority this kind of thing happens to, but it means gay people cannot sit back and presume they’ll always receive the same fair treatment as everyone else.
Just look at the change in attitude between the Howard and Rudd governments (in this case, the changes were mostly for the better).
I’m not saying that necessarily justifies a gay couple lying to Centrelink about their relationship, since if gay people want to achieve equality some basic risks and drawbacks have to be accepted, just that I wouldn’t be flippant about their fears.
It sucks being a Centrelink ‘client’. They know the make and year of your 24-year old car, and all sorts of stuff. Like if you’re living your boyfriend/girlfriend or not. And everything you tell them (as you are told you must) can cost you money. And everytime you get one of those ENVELOPES thru the mail your heart starts pounding.
I hate it too. And the pension rate is too low.
But I’d hate far more to live in a country where there is no Government help for those unable to earn their own living. It must be hell.
I think Sue-Ann raises a reasonable argument regarding the requirement for sexual identification to a government body. Clearly the requirement is discriminatory. At the same time, Sue-Ann has pointed to a reasonable solution, basing all payments to individuals with Centrelink on the single rate, ie abolishing the couples rate. With a bit of pressure, perhaps the government could be made to report on the extra costs involved (minus the compliance costs). That could result in an overall improvement to the system and removal of all the inherent flaws in this recent move.
Sue-Ann makes exceedingly good sense to inform those not affected by the impact of Centrelink applications of the changes in law. I worked for 6 years at my local Social Security office in the 80’s. One of my first questions to my trainer was to ask why a couple are paid less than two singles. There was, and is, absolutely no official justification for it. The number of people experiencing financial and emotional hardship due to the new laws would be drastically reduced if the lower rate for couples was abolished.
The Government is going to have to work hard and long to gain the trust of clients in same sex relationships. We’re still stuck with a traditionally gay-hating Catholic suck-up Government that opens sessions with the friggin’ Lord’s Prayer (it turns my stomach) and with Government Ministers who won’t even attempt to present a logical basis for their refusal to dump the heterocentric definition of marriage. (the fact that it’s party policy isn’t a logical argument).
There’s no doubt that money buys a better class of misery, and no doubt that the rich and gay have little in common with the social experience of their low income compatriots.
Love your work Sue-Ann.
Thank you to the people who’ve confirmed that there’s no official justification for the couples rate being less than twice the singles rate. I’ve always thought it strange to impose a penalty upon people who’ve decided to cooperate to reduce their living costs. As a society, we should be congratulating and supporting them. Instead, we have Centrelink poking its nose in and demanding to know whether they’re having sex. Apparently if you’re not having sex, it’s OK to live under the same roof.
In the case of Centrelink “clients”, we should also remember that we’re dealing with people with virtually no other options left in life and, if they’re receiving benefits, being paid an amount which is known to be far less than the poverty line — that is, known to be far less than the amount of money you actually need to sustain yourself as a human being and as a member of society. Another punishment. You’re too old or sick or other wise unequipped to work for a living? Well, you must be punished and live in poverty.
Too bad Crikey are so selective in the comments they publish.
Does Sue-Ann Post know the law regarding the provision of information to access Centre-Link payments?
It would appear not.
Nice Godwin BTW.
@Most Peculiar Mama,
Sometimes it helps if you read the article before you comment:
“It’s no use saying that this information will be kept private and confidential. In a paper given at a banking and identity conference at RMIT in 2006 it was revealed that in a three-year period from 2003 there were 858 breaches of privacy cases at Centrelink. Investigations resulted in 19 staff being sacked, 92 resigning when confronted with information and a further 346 were either fined or reprimanded. And that’s just one government department.”
the argument being made is not that it is wrong to use the information other than what it was collected for, nor that there no penalties. It was that the information was unnecessary for the provision of the service and that, as a result of its collection, it could be used incorrectly causing embarrassment and difficulty for the “client” (what ever happened to “citizen”).
BTW it’s not a Godwin. how about I propose a list of everyone’s political beliefs with the name and addressed attached. Surely that could never cause any problems at all. How about we start with you…(Posting under a nickname shows how much faith you have in open dialogue).
Australia is a work in progress in regards to gay rights. Still a long way to go, but for the government to accept same sex relationships as legitimate defacto couples with all the rights and privileges that it entails is a big step forward. Social change is usually denoted by the banal. When centerlink public servants (and clients) don’t blink an eye at a loving same sex couple (civil union or marriage) rocking up to collect benefits (with kid in tow), we will know we have made it as a tolerant nation.
But work is required from the gay community as well. You can’t agitate for equal rights and then not accept them because of “special cases”. It’s one in, all in. It takes a bit of bravery initially and there is no guarantees that all will be ok in the end, but hiding in the shadows is not the way to move society forward.
I’m one of those affected by the legislation and I have a young toddler. Dealing with centerstink has been a nightmare and a half as none of the staff knew what they were doing. I did contemplate not telling them. It’s easy to see how the system could be abused. Still a novelty when I walk in to their offices to issue them my partners quarterly business statement though.
I have to admit I was worried about being on the register.
I couldn’t register both of us to centerlink before the laws changed even though both our names were listed as mother on the birth certificate!
I can understand the concerns about the ‘pink list’ and it does seem a bit trite to simply say ‘ner ner you wanted equality so that’s what you get’ when Australian law (not to mention society) is still a long way from complete equality.
On the other hand, I can’t see what else Centrelink could do. The existing system requires couples to register and therefore once gay couples are acknowledged as such, clearly there is no option but to do what they are doing. The real issue (as has been mentioned) is why the couple rate exists in the first place? As a student I received, along with my fellow hetreo flat-mates, support from Centrelink. By living together we reduced our costs, we shared food and beer money, rent, bills etc, just as a couple of any sort would do. The question is why should any couple get a reduced rate just because they’re rooting, which is basically the difference as far as Centrelink is concerned?
You’re uninformed and alarmist:
There’s no “pink list”. There’s no indicator on any Government computer system which I’m aware off that lets you enter data on someone’s sexual preference, thus I can’t see how anyone could accidentally out thousands of gay people.
No one is asked whether they’re straight or gay, they’re asked whether they’re in a de-facto relationship or not.
Under the social security law, there’s no difference between married and de-facto male-female couples, and there hasn’t been for decades - why maintain this artificial distinction between male-female and same sex couples? How long do you want to continue to be rewarded for decades of negative discrimination in other legal areas? I would have to say that younger gay people that I know don’t seem to have a problem with the July 09 changes.
Are you actually aware of any single incident where someone hacked into Centrelink’s computer systems? I’d be very surprised if it had ever been done. Have you checked the facts?
I don’t really see how telling Centrelink “outs” anyone. The likelihood that you’re “outed” by Centrelink, given the grave restrictions on use of public information and the fact that in most cases you can’t even subpoena Centrelink records, is much less than the likelihood that you’re outed by people who see you on the street with your partner or just happen to hear you talk about your weekend or holidays with your partner. Are you really suggesting that by ticking an extra box and filling in some extra forms you’re worried that Centrelink officers will go door-knock your neighbours? It’s just care mongering.
Your proposed solution to abolish the couple rate is naive and uninformed: It’s not the rate, it’s the income/assets tests that will get you. And before you get on a high horse about how modern couples have separate financial affairs, consider whether you want to campaign for a massive tax rise in order to pay the stay-at-home partner of every well-heeled executive a full income support payment, full family payments and full access to pension cards etc just so every man and woman can be treated as an island. How would you fund your proposal? Apart from the extra social security budget you’d have to somehow rake in, think how many more of those hated Centrelink employees you’d have to pay to process all those claims.
The simple truth is that we, as a society, rely on family unions, whether same sex or not, to act as a financial support mechanism for the individuals in those families (adults or children). We simply couldn’t afford to pay everyone who has a partner on an average wage a full income support payment and all the other add-ons, which is effectively what you’re suggesting.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for elderly gay couples who have arranged their finances in the expectation of their single pensions. While they’ve had a better financial deal than heterosexual de facto couples thus far, it doesn’t diminish the fact that a drastic income would be a shock to them.
“A Girl” has her head in the clouds where everything is “naive and uninformed”. No one here has even hinted that they want each partner in a couple to be considered to have a completely separate income or assets test.
The issue is the basic rate of payment, and that it ought to be the same for two single people as for two people living as a couple. The existing asset and income test which applies to singles or couples is, I personally believe, fair.
The importance of having a basic couples payment rate being no less for than two single people is that couples who are in bona fide need of financial support are not disadvantaged in comparison to two single people who live in a virtually identical sitiuation. To those on very low incomes, especially those relying solely on Centrelink, every single dollar counts. It can mean forcing a choice between eating or paying the rent.
How young is “A Girl” - has she lived a life of sheltered privilege? Or is she too young to appreciate the value of a truly effective social security system (which, with the exception of the couple’s rate, is what we have thanks to the massive changes made by the Whitlam Government)?
BTW: I am amused by her typo error expression “care mongering”. It’s what the world needs more of.
I’m not naive, Johnframe, you just don’t understand the full impact of these changes on same-sex couples.
Yes, those couples where both partners, before July 09, were both on a social security type payment will feel the pinch, and I wouldn’t want to minimise the personal impact on those couples. However, the suggestion that by making the single and partnered rates the same you will thereby magically resolve the issue of treating couples differently to singles is uninformed. I bet you anything, there are many more couples where one works and the other one doesn’t, to whom the changes could be an even bigger shock, because they won’t just get a drop in their pension, they could possibly lose it altogether. It also means that in some couples there will be new issues about financial interdependence which were simply not a factor when they coludn’t be treated as a couple due to being of the same sex. That’s not to mention the impact on family payments, if they have kids!
While we have partnered income and assets tests (which you’ve agreed are a good thing), there will always be a need for the Government to assess who is in a couple. And at the same time, there will therefore also be an inducement for people wanting to be seen as single. I was merely suggesting that the whole issue around recording same-sex couples is much more complicated than just the basic rate of pension. I wasn’t suggesting that the rates couldn’t be improved (if we can afford it), only that a universal rate won’t get you around the need to record couples as being couples on Government databases, which is what the article was suggesting.
I do actually think that the wide disparity between some payments and pensions is an issue, and do think that the dole isn’t enough to live on, if you live in a capital city, but that wasn’t really the point of the article.
By the way, I’ve experienced both unemployment and having to support myself without the benefit of shared income or expenses and could only dream about a sheltered life of privilege.
(Glad the typo gave you such a thrill).
Thanks Sue-Ann for a timely and interesting article.
The counter arguments put to your article are pretty much the same as those levelled against anyone who speaks out against same sex regulation. Firstly stupid and cruel arguments such as ‘get a job’. I have two Melbourne friends in their early nineties who have lost income and entitlements. Do you really think they should have to “get a job”? Then there’s the liberal argument (and I think it’s a particularly strong sentiment amongst gays) variations upon the law applies to everybody, that we have some social contract with heterosexuals. You defend a fascist nation like australia and uphold the same heteronormativity that is killing queers. Another argument is that “we wanted this and now we have it”. This is completely wrong. The gay liberation movement fought against, religion, psychiatry and police. We fought the Crimes Act. We never sought ‘equal rights’ because in the early 1970s no one in Australia had rights. At a literal level we fought for the right to be different from other people, not the same. The idea that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones is distressing and sick making. The normativities of gay relationships once had powerful revolutionary and radical determinants. For a while thanks to AIDS activists there was a queer activist element in the gay community. Even now only 30% of gay men are monogamous. The equivalisation of straight and gay is sad, I think. However we can say that even if homosexuals are like heterosexuals then queers are like neither. The historical and contemporary elements that shape our normativities are profoundly and discursively different. Queer kinship is one of those normativities. We have had children and raised them without state sanction or inteference. We have invented our own kinship structures.
We cannot blame the gay community for same sex regulation: it was a product of the ALP and a couple of its gay community hacks. It is nevertheless a project that has wrecked many of our lives and attacked our queer culture and kinship systems at fundamental levels. It is sad to see friends forced to end their cohabitation in order to retain their independence. At the less frequent end it is sad to lose people to serious depression and suicide. We can at least be assured that the gay community will never win gay marriage. If they do then we mayend up imprisoned for polygamy, forced into patrilinealism, or have our children dragged through family law courts. The infinite variety in our parenting arrangements will also be regulated.
We only have one advantage. We know how to fight the state and build a radical community. The Queer Resurgence is evidence of that.