Call for gay ombudsman
An ombudsman is urgently needed to help same-sex couples facing changes to their welfare payments brought about by equality reforms, say gay lobbyists.
The Australian Coalition for Equality will meet with the Minister for Human Services Joe Ludwig in coming weeks to discuss the need for an independent group to help couples moving from single to combined payments as a de facto couple.
In an ideal world the government would have grandfathered these reforms so people weren’t affected, but in the absence of that, we’re asking for somebody who’s on our side, somebody who an older GLBTI person could turn to knowing they’re looking after their best interests, ACE spokesman Corey Irlam said.
Such an advocate would cost $500,000 and would be a necessary alternative to going through the Centrelink hotline, he said.
People have a lot of fear talking to Centrelink. They’re concerned about just trying to get information on what it will mean for them and are concerned that they will lose their complete payment.
The advocate would also be able to talk to people about the broader reforms and show them that there are also benefits to be had through superannuation and Medicare.
Some affected couples have said this won’t change the fact they are still put at a disadvantage.
Kevin (real name withheld), 69, who has been with his 52 year old partner for 28 years, faces losing $400 a fortnight from his disability pension, leaving him $126 a fortnight to live on -” forcing him to sell his house or legally end his relationship.
They should have grandfathered the whole thing. Certainly for people who have already been on the benefits for a number of years, those people should be able to stay on those benefits.
There are many gay people who are saying -˜why should we be treated any differently from heterosexual couples?’ and the quick answer is because historically we have always been treated differently. We’ve copped it for years and years, said Kevin, who did not make a submission to the inquiry.
Sybil (last name withheld) thinks the changes have come too suddenly for people to plan their future. Living on a carer’s pension, Sybil bought a house with her girlfriend 10 years ago based on the knowledge that her welfare payments would cover the mortgage.
We always knew that it would be alright because the dole payment would just cover the mortgage payments, so that’s how we entered into that arrangement and for Centrelink to now turn around and say that this is a de facto relationship when I’m 55 with limited super and no retirement to look forward to -” it’s a no win situation, Sybil said.
James (last name withheld) who is also on Centrelink payments and in his twenties said that this may just be the price that has to be paid for equality.
If you’re going to campaign for equality, I suppose you have to take the bad with the good, he said.
Simon, not sure what you are smoking but no where in Australia is being gay illegal. The new laws mean all Government departments have to recognise same-sex couples as having the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.
centerlink outing people can see it now, yes sir your gay we know it LMAO. How bloody selective of the Gov. Rudd stamp this stupid rule, isn it illigal anyhow to be gay in some states???? so how is it legal by centerstink?
Shayne, the concerns of the Welfare Network are about people living together but who are not in a relationship.
Readers seem to be expressing the opposite concern – gays and lesbians who are in a relationship and not just sharing a house will have to out themeselves.
In any event, rather than getting our own special ombudsman, tip the money into the existing Ombudsman. I don’t want special treatment, I’d be satisfied achieving equal treatment.
The National Welfare Rights Network has a different experience of Centrelink, Shiraz. They say Centrelink has been wrongly accusing thousands of Australians of living in de-facto relationships and is intimidating and harassing its clients to admit to wrong-doing, in breach of its own guidelines. Michael Raper, President on the NWRN said: -œThe fundamental problem is that Centrelink …makes judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and often makes decisions based on flimsy information and prejudicial attitudes [and] ..the increased number of cases involving older people and carers who share rent and provide companionship and support, is extremely alarming. Centrelink has failed to come to grips with the reasons that many older people share accommodation. In many cases, considerations such as physical security, help in case of a fall and the high costs of renting alone are much more important considerations than entering into a -œmarriage-like relationship…and they get embarrassed and offended by the Centrelink investigations.”
http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:GRAWGlq3_sMJ:www.welfarerights.org.au/Media%2520Releases/Gt4005.doc+Michael+Raper,+President+on+the+National+Welfare+Rights+Network+said,+%22The+fundamental+problem+is+that+Centrelink&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a
In any case, the 11,000 glbqti welfare recipients who stand to lose out can always join the queue for the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Jo you refer to “forcing someone out in safety and confidentially”.
All social security recipients have very high degree of privacy protection.
Remember these public servants deal with all sorts of minorities and sensitive areas – women who are victims of domestic violence, young people running away from homes.
I think they can handle some nervous aged queens and long term spinster flatmates.
there r a lotta rent boy/hustlas getting substantial living support from tired old rich farts, but still claiming pensions or unemployment benefits = all part of the age-old duk-n-weave strategy!
Jo – I understand where your comming from, but why should a younger out proud gay couple continue to be discriminated against in pension payments simply because an older gay couple does not want to out themselves in a same sex relationship. Even if there was the “grandfather” clause in the reforms people would still need to out themselves. Yes there should have been “grandfathering” in the reform, but you must remember that because we were previously treated as singles when in a realtionship we recieved a higher pension than a hetrosexual couple so in a way it does make up for the fact that there is no “grandfather” clause in the reform.
It seems a bit phony for the Australian Coalition for Equality to be calling for protection of same-sex welfare recipients now, none of their submissions to parliament made any consideration of the price to our disadvantaged or the possibility of a ‘grandfathering’ clause so that the old rule could continue to apply to those in such existing situations. The end to discrimination in de facto laws could easily have been achieved without the push for ‘equal marriage’ and the sacrifice of queer pensioners etc.
I think it’s all a bit too late now, but at least we shouldn’t have to listen to such hypocrisy from those who were too selfish in the first place to give a damn about glbqti who, for whatever reason, need welfare support and are about to lose it.
There is NO WAY that centrelink staff, even social workers can be completely independent, and therefore NO WAY that they can be able to provide completely confidential advocacy and support to elderly gays, esp if they are people who have never been out.
This forcible outing is frankly disgusting.
So it the government’s obvious decision earlier on to make sure there would be NO grandfathering, it reeks of a deal with Family First or similar.
Yes administrative arrangements, hardship provisions, Ministerial delegation to the Secretary, all of these have to bundled into a package to that an INDEPENDENT advocate can make absolutely sure that every right, every appeal, etc has been noted, understood and that any forcing out is done in safety and confidentially.
All else STINKS.
Why not what Horin said – because we are gay. There can only be ONE answer.
Pitiful.
I think those that already get $10 mill. a year to advocate for our disadvantaged should do their job.
So what happened to old fashioned activism? Why isn’t the Australian Coalition for Equality fighting for gand parenting particularly for older gays and lesbians?
Recommendation 3 of the senate enquiry reports states:
3.130 The committee recommends that the Government give further consideration to what administrative or regulatory mechanisms may be available to appropriately manage the impact of the reforms on same-sex couples who may have benefits reduced under the changes. -œ
The government obviously took no notice of this recommendation. Why not?
Note Adele Horin’s claim in SMH that this is the first SS legislation that has passed in 15 years that does not contain grand parenting provisions. Again -“ why not?
Any gay men who believe they will be treated fairly by society are in complete fantasy, and are best advised to continue our age-old approach of duck-n-weaving for survival. Yes, David (10/12), what rare good luck gay pensioners got the single rate bonus before Jan 1!
A half million dollars on a sympathetic ear?
The approach by Coalition for Equality isolates gay and lesbian interests from mainstream Centrelink business.
I would much rather existing Centrelink staff with an interest in gay and lesbian issues get special training for the initial rush of phone calls, and after that ALL Centrelink staff be able to deal with gays and lesbians in the same way they deal with other groups – koori, migrant or calathumpian.
Many couples have been paying taxes as individuals all their lives without hetero couple benefits. Now they lose again.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the changes are fantastic as a whole package, but I have a lot of symppathy for those people that have paid extra taxes and now lose out in retirement. It’s unfair for those people.
A stroke of luck in timing- Rudd’s one off pensioner bonus will be paid to same sex couples at the singles rate of $2800 per couple, instead of the $2100 that hetero couples will get. The extra $700 same sex couples get will come in handy, with Mardi Gras around the corner… it’s sooo expensive for entry to the party these days. I think we get ripped off in ticket prices for it. I would like to see a much bigger discount (half current price) for Mardi Gras members.. & let the ring-in straights pay the full whack.