Man denied partner’s superannuation

Man denied partner’s superannuation

A man who has fought for nearly two years to access the super entitlements of his alleged partner has been turned down by Mercer Super. The case highlights the difficulty of same-sex super claims in the private arena.
Peter Bartholomew last week received final confirmation that he had been denied access to the super entitlements held by Paul Alexander -” the man Bartholomew alleges was his partner of 16 years.
Alexander’s family has maintained that the two men were not in a relationship at the time of his death.
Our family wishes to acknowledge their support for the rights of gay people. Mercer considered this case carefully before making a decision, Alexander’s brother Jeff Burrows told Sydney Star Observer.
Our family really, really do support gay rights. We don’t think it’s right if someone’s truly in a long-term relationship that they should not be entitled to the same benefits, but every case is different.
Bartholomew has denied the family’s allegation that the pair were no longer a couple at the time of Alexander’s death. He said he would not only be willing to produce proof of his relationship but would also be willing to be used as a legal test case to challenge laws which allow private superannuation companies to deny same-sex partners.
There has been no reasoning given for Mercer’s decision and I will now look at taking this further as some sort of sexual discrimination case, Bartholomew said. He said he has sought political support from Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, among others.
Mercer have not asked me for any proof of our relationship -” photos, letters of endearment. And what this case shows is that the legislation does need to be changed and I would be more than willing to be a test case.

You May Also Like

4 responses to “Man denied partner’s superannuation”

  1. A simple answer to the question “who do you wish to have your superannuation when you die?” would suffice. And that answer should be legally binding – no exceptions and no argument entered into. As it is, you can say who you want to receive your savings when you go but it can still be contested. That is the problem.

  2. Or they instead of that long list, they could just have a simple ceremony so that their relationship is registered and if they want to separate they just get a legal divorce like happens with straight marriage. Much easier to sign one document than ask that long list of questions!

  3. Why don’t the questions that Centrelink will use to determine a relationship (and slash welfare gays’ incomes) also apply in to the determination of a relationship in such superannuation claims?

    Questions Centrelink will use to assess relationships include: -œDo 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?

  4. Mr Rudd, a simple union ceremony would make this wrangling over “proof of a relationship” completely disappear!