Loading ...
- Category:
- News
- Author:
- Harley Dennett
- Posted:
- Thursday, 27 November 2008
Centrelink estimates around 11,000 people receiving social security or family assistance benefits will come forward to declare they are in a same-sex relationship.
The same-sex equality reforms will come into effect from 1 July 2009, allowing some couples to access additional benefits, while others will have their payments reduced from the single rate to the couples rate.
Centrelink customers will have six months to understand the changes and inform Centrelink of their circumstances, Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said.
“If you are living in a relationship and receiving a social security or family assistance payment you don’t need to do anything now,” he said.
The welfare agency will establish an inquiry line in December so customers can discuss how the changes will affect them, and allow time to adjust their finances. Customers will be able to declare their relationship status from 30 March 2009 by phone or in person at Centrelink Customer Service Centres.
“After July 1, customers who are members of a same-sex couple will have another 14 days to advise Centrelink of this relationship. Customers who do not advise of their relationship within 14 days of 1 July, may incur a debt.”
But some same-sex couples will be entitled to extra benefits for the first time, including Widow Allowance, bereavement benefits and concession cards.
Centrelink will consider the financial aspects of the relationship, nature of the household, social aspects of the relationship, presence or absence of a sexual relationship, and nature of the commitment when determining if a couple is in a “marriage-like” relationship.
Ten organisations were consulted about how to implement the changes, including those representing people with disabilities, people with HIV/AIDS, and the gay and lesbian community.
“We’ve engaged with the gay and lesbian community through the Community Reference Group and its market research, and we will be listening to what they tell us,” Ludwig said.
As a result of that consultation, awareness training will be provided to Centrelink staff undertaking the payment reassessments of anyone coming forward to report their same-sex relationship.
Have your say: Is six months enough time to adjust to the changes?
Tags: Centrelink, Joe Ludwig, law reform
November 26th, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Now is the time for Joe Ludwig and all those on the CRG to show us they are serious about protecting gay elderly couples most of whom are closeted, from being subjected to unreasonable and unjust inspection and investigation. They need to tell us how they intend to let these elderly couples know that the fear and distress they are experiencing now in anticipation are not necessary, because measures are in place or will be in place, to ensure that they are safe, have access to advocacy that is independent of Centrelink and provided through organisations trusted by their own community, and that those with whom they have to interact, across the aged care industry, are trained in cultural competence.
Otherwise this is waffle and the future is far from bright.
How a closeted couple can deal with assessment by Centrelink for residential care admission is still beyond me - either a relative is living in the family home and it is exempt from the assessment of fee levels, or a relative is not and it is counted into the assets test.
Now is the chance to show us that the government is serious about protecting gay elders from harm and abuse. If we don’t insist that they do, we are all guilty of shameful neglect.
November 26th, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
“marriage-like” relationship! Except we are banned from having any official ceremony (apart from the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Ceremonies), in any state of Australia, and even banned in the A.C.T. thanks to Rudd. Although I think all the reforms are fantastic & have have Rudd to thank for that, I just don’t see why he personally won’t allow any state or territory to perform a ceremony, & even went out of his way to stamp out the proposed A.C.T. ceremonies. A ceremony really makes it into a “marriage-like” relationship. They have it in New Zealand & the U.K., but here we are kept invisible at all costs.
The other thing a few people have mentioned is that we still won’t be equal in private superannuation schemes, after retirement when we are most vunerable.
November 26th, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
edinburgh scotland uk
I am so pleased to hear the changes re centrelink story
about benefits etc, i would think 6 months would be time to adjust to the changes
always good to read the star observer on line and read whats happening in sydney and australia
November 27th, 2008 @ 12:38 am
I think 6 months is enough time if there is a lot of publicity about this
Centrelink needs to inform ALL of its customers about this change
For example, some Centrelink clients may be bisexual, so Centrelink cannot go on the past relationship history of their clients
Hmmmmmm … the above article says Centrelink will consider the “presence or absence of a sexual relationship”. I wonder how it will do that, what questions will Centrelink ask, and how it will gather evidence to establish this?
How does Centrelink do this now with heterosexual couples - does it ask what sort of sexual activities they engage in and how often?
It is good Centrelink have done some community research and consultation on this - thank you
It would be good also if Centrelink did not ask questions about sexual orientation at their counter, as people in the queue are often close by and may not like people who are gay and lesbian. Clients may be willing to come out to Centrelink staff (as they have signed confidentially agreements) but not to come out to strangers in the queue.
It is difficult to publicise this to the gay community - the only real avenue is the gay press - but not everyone reads this. Perhaps you could have a Centrelink float at Mardi Gras? Or perhaps some tv advertising? You definitely need to have a stall at Fair Day to publicise this.
Yeah, I guess Mardi Gras next year is the major opportunity to publicise all these reforms in general to the community
We also need to target those in rural communities, who may not make it to Sydney to attend Mardi Gras
November 27th, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
My same-sex relationship cannot be considered “marriage-like” in any form according to the Marriage Act 1961!!
November 29th, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
How can they think July 1 is fine when they have worked out NONE of their own admin arrangments around this stuff, so gay couples have NO IDEA where they stand with any of this -this is seriously absurd stuff.
Centrelink should be able to inform all customers of their rights reponsibilities and the processes of assessment and other provisions, and THEN gays get 6 months to work out their arrangments.
This stuff is driving pensioners who are already elderly and sick into depression, and they are telling me so.
Shameful stuff.
November 29th, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Look at http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-2/ssguide-2.2/ssguide-2.2.5/ssguide-2.2.5.10.html
for the DSS guidelines on how to determine a ‘marriage like relationship’ and note that it is up to one centrelink officer to interpret these guidelines.
Read the Welfare Rights Service submission to the Senate about how many couples have been determined to be ‘marriage like’ and are having to appeal that decision.
I am getting contacted by people in their 70s 80s and even 90s who are confused and distressed. Shameful elder abuse.
December 8th, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
This so called recognitioon stinks. It is causing me and many of my friends extreme distress…where is the definition of defacto…..
After years of losing jobs, discrimination, low pay, death threats at 2 of my jobs, almost no superannuation I now care for my fragile mum and get a part carers pension.
I share a house with another lesbian,who works part time, are we to be classed as in a defacto relationship? Will my right to a pittance tp care fulltime for my mother be lost because we bought a house together because neither of us was ever likely to be in a situation of being to buy a houe oputright.We enterered our current sharing arrangements including a sizeable mortgage only 10 years from retirement 10 years ago. We wouldnt have entered into this agreement if we thought that either of us jeopardised our independant financial situations. people talk about the 60’s & 70’s well I am only 55 but with no formal education or abliity to earn much of an income especially while looking after mum. Do we have to sell our home? Does my mum have to go to a nursing home?
December 16th, 2008 @ 12:05 am
slimy bass-turds they take our money yet wont let us marry? well let them try and prove it 2 straigh men living together maybe just in for a nice suprise. Illegal and downright disgusting centerlink
January 28th, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
take our money and refuse to let us adopt children.
we;re not declaring
February 25th, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
This is pathetic, it really is.
To all the gays of Australia: DO NOT TELL CENTRELINK ANYTHING. Seriously. If the government has the balls to recognise a gay couple for taxation/benefit purposes, it should have the balls to recognise gay marriage. Until that day, keep “in your closets” on this matter. They want you to be treated equally where it benefits them, but when it comes to your benefits, they couldn’t care less.
I’m not gay, but I support equal rights and believe that if the government can try to treat gay people equally in this case, they can let them marry too. It’s the fear of religious voters voting for the opposite parties that brings about these hypocrisies. Remove religion from society / politics and we’d live in a much better, equal world–gays could marry, there’d be no pointless fighting in the name of someone’s supernatural-imaginary-friend, and we’d abolish all the rest of the crap that comes with religion. Damn Rudd and his religious idiocy. Ugh.
May 15th, 2009 @ 3:12 am
hugely bothered by this blatant double-standard from the gvmnt. i’m speaking from a relatively uninformed position here, so please correct me if i’m wrong, but -
i realise some people see this as a step forward, i can understand that view. for some couples, there will be benefits, but it strikes me that those who will have their entitlements cut will far outweigh those who benefit. centrelink is so careful to label this an anti-discrimination move - that would be believable if changes were made to other legislation, like that governing marriage & family law, and not just that covering how much $$ they have to pay - hence why they are also so careful to point out that this ‘equality’ ONLY applies for welfare purposes. if same-sex relationships can be recognised on the gvmnt expense accounts, what makes them less recognisable in all aspects of law??
from my/my accquaintance’s experience, payments can be slahsed on the most absurd grounds when centrelink decides you are part of a couple. i am sorry that what seems like a symbolic step forward could well, in practice, just subject gay couples to centrelink’s infuriating reasoning on defacto relationships - what should have been progress will just become another bureaucratic hurdle for gblt couples. and unless those relationships are legally recognised across the board as being exactly equal to straight relationships, i think this is in many ways a backwards step.
on the plus side, centrelink are ridiculous in how they ask about and establish a relationship, so for those who also disagree with this, it should not be difficult to avoid the red-tape monster.
May 23rd, 2009 @ 11:36 am
“Centrelink will consider the financial aspects of the relationship, nature of the household, social aspects of the relationship, presence or absence of a sexual relationship, and nature of the commitment when determining if a couple is in a “marriage-like” relationship.”
this is appalling..how many straight couples get this degree of scrutiny…the onus of proof will be on Centrelink and it turns my stomach to think of the intrusive and demeaning questions they will ask in an open work space in their offices. It’s none of their damn business!!This is really outrageous! Considered equal only where it benefits the govt and nowhere else…yuk!