Equality for gay couples seemed a like a good idea, and it was, for the younger Gay and Lesbian advocates who had grown up post illegality of same s-x relationships. So the recent changes to the swag of 100 plus bits of Commonwealth law were celebrated as a good sign of changing times. And they were, but they failed to take into account the effects the changes in the Social Security area would have on cohabiting aged pensioners.
The young enthusiasts failed to demand and for some reason the Government failed to supply, the same protections to existing recipients (grandfathering) that have followed all other such changes. So a range of older “couples” will lose their individual eligibility for an age pension on July 1. Some may lose all their income and suddenly become a “dependent”. Others who are deemed a pensioner couple with lose $185.20 per fortnight.
This last case raises gender differences: for some fairly affluent mainly older male partners, like Michael Kirby’s long term partner, being able to claim a legitimate share of super was long overdue; for other duos, more likely to be female, a lifetime of low pay, maybe time out for children and care and no super, means no extra income but the pension.
These suffered discrimination and fear, and now are not only likely to lose money and frightened they may be “outed” by investigating Centrelink officers to family and neighbours who still think they are just good friends. For some, the changes will be an emotional mine field and a disaster.
Defining de facto relationships in heteros-xual couples is not simple. Adding same s-x couples to Centrelink’s already problematic practices will create a new set of problems. Where people marry and register relationships, they make a clear contract to merge resources but when there is no legal contract or even public acknowledgement, the Government takes on the power to declare coupledom in order to save money.
There are already wider questions on assumptions about partnerships and sharing with many complaints to Centrelink, the AAT and the Ombudsman about Centrelink staff. These have to interpret the legislation by defining interdependence through a series of social, emotional and financial indicia, none of which are definitive, including s-xual activity. So long term close friendships with some shared housing and other costs but no s-x may qualify.
For people who have never seen themselves publicly, and sometimes not even privately, as a couple, being “married” by Centrelink decree may cause deep trauma. I know some older women who have suffered the double jeopardy of a lifetime of prejudice against them as women and as lesbians.
They are deeply distressed by the possibility of being investigated if they don’t declare, as well as maybe losing their independent income. Where one is still in the workforce, the other may have to become her dependent, even though they have never made any such agreement and have had no couple benefits.
The problem is who is likely to be affected negatively. It is the least advantaged who wear the costs, not those who lobbied for the changes while ignoring gender and other inequalities within the Gay and Lesbian groupings.
Now there is an awareness amongst gay groups of the need to exclude the older retired people from the immediate effects of the changes, but they are finding some Government members surprisingly resistant to adding a Grandfathering clause.
Why does the present legislation fail to include the usual practice of grandfathering existing recipients as the government has done in other changes to social security payments? Interestingly, some of the Opposition members are indicating some support.
So the question is why won’t the Rudd government agree to doing what even Howard did for earlier payment changes such as for sole parents?
Get more Crikey, for less
It’s more than a newsletter. It’s where readers expect more – fearless journalism from a truly independent perspective. We don’t pander to anyone’s party biases. We question everything, explore the uncomfortable and dig deeper.
Join us this week for 50% off a year of Crikey.
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.