Family’s Centrelink benefits slashed

Family’s Centrelink benefits slashed

A gay father affected by Centrelink changes has labelled the legislative changes unfair if not counterbalanced with the right to adopt.
After declaring his relationship of eight years, Clint Law, a 30-year-old father of one from Blacktown, was switched from single parent payments to a Newstart Principal Carer’s allowance. His pension card was also revoked.
Law’s welfare eligibility is now calculated to include his partner’s assets, which include a recent inheritance worth $270,000, Austudy payments and income from part-time work.
His son Lachlan’s tuition fees to a Catholic school are covered by the child’s mother.
Law, who quit his job to study zookeeping, now receives payments of $230 a fortnight, which he said has left him financially dependent on his partner.
At the risk of doing a disservice to all of my brothers and sisters who have been fighting for equal rights and for this change to happen, dare I say, we’re not like straight couples -” we’re two men and we have male egos and it’s hard for me to have to say, -˜Can I have some money please?’ he told Sydney Star Observer.
What annoys me is the Government blustering and posturing in front of the general public saying, -˜Oh we’re such a fabulous Government, we granted equal rights’ when it’s a long way off.
All these changes have meant all these negative things have happened to me. I started doing the research and thought, there must be some benefit the Government has given us, but there’s really only one thing I wanted and then I found the state Government has kept that door locked, because for a while we’ve talked about wanting [my partner] to legally adopt … I’d shut up about all of this if that door was open to me.
Laws said he has been told by Centrelink staff that his partner is under no obligation to provide for his son, although his partner’s assets will be taken into account if his child applies for Youth Allowance.
A spokeswoman for Centrelink confirmed that the point from our perspective is that the rules for same-sex couples are the same as rules for opposite-sex couples in relation to eligibility for Youth Allowance.
As with children of opposite-sex couples, parental income is taken into account when determining eligibility. Legal guardianship and adoption are not the basis on which Youth Allowance -˜Parental Income’ is determined, but rather it is based on who has responsibility of caring for the child.
The parental means test is used to work out if parents can financially help their dependent children.
Centrelink does not have figures on how many families with same-sex parents are in the welfare system.
We have never had to consider these sorts of impacts -” financial and otherwise -” before, Law said.
We made the decision to live together as two single people as far as the Government is concerned. It’s the same as a 70-year-old in a relationship who thinks they’re going to die as a single person then have that income cut off because their partner’s recognised.
Straight couples have always had this set of factors to consider when making their decisions, so it should have been gradually rolled out for us and we should have been warned.

You May Also Like

25 responses to “Family’s Centrelink benefits slashed”

  1. I live with my ex-partner. We have been separated for over 5 years. We live together to pay off the house we bought 9 years ago. If we didn’t live together, we would simply be paying rent somewhere else.
    My ex works casually and has broken his foot, so is in need of some illness benefit. He (I think) stupidly said that we were once a couple and now has both of us jumping through hoops to prove we are independent people.
    The latest gripe is that because I stated I was in a relationship with someone else is that Centrekink now wants my lover to send in a letter saying he is in a relationship with me. The problem is my lover is in a relationship with someone else also!
    This is getting really bloody annoying.

  2. if the bloke is willing to adopt his partners child then he should be willing to cover the cost to care for his partner & child. This couple should be embaressed as they are nothing more than welfare cheats.

  3. Centrelink wrong on de-facto relationships

    Centrelink is 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, according to a new analysis released today by a national peak welfare advocacy body, the National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN).

    Michael Raper, President on the NWRN said today: “The fundamental problem is that Centrelink is not looking closely enough at all the factors that indicate that no relationship exists. It makes judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and often makes decisions based on flimsy information and prejudicial attitudes.

    “We are representing a record number of clients in appeals against decisions to cancel or reduce their payments because of an alleged marriage-like relationship and we have assisted a number of them with complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.”

    “The extraordinarily high number of cases that are overturned on appeal ¬– is proof that Centrelink’s current approach is flawed and not working as it should. Last year 45 percent of the Centrelink decisions on these cases that were appealed were overturned at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

    “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 “marriage-like relationship”. They do care for each other, but the last thing they see themselves as doing is “shacking up together”, and they get embarrassed and offended by the Centrelink investigations.

    “Centrelink is also making rash decisions about separated couples with children. Increasingly, we are finding that where the non-resident parent (usually the father) tries to maintain an ongoing relationship with the children, Centrelink takes this as a sign of an ongoing de-facto relationship between the two adults and cuts the payment of one or both parents.

    “Both family law and child support reforms emphasise equal roles and responsibilities for both parents in caring for their children. Yet, if they share the care, or one party provides financial assistance for their children (often in compliance with child support orders), then these factors are used by Centrelink as a sign of a marriage-like relationship.

  4. can someone please explain what ‘we’ the gay community have gained under this legislation ? As a retired couple , we have just had our pensions changed from 2 singles to 1 couples payment. A considerable reduction ! What have we gained, or what has anybody gained ?? Please say that someone will benefit, otherwise we will be very disappointed . Peter.

  5. Everyone should ring welfare rights about this issue perhaps some clear guidelines will be established.

  6. My carer and i got dragged over the coals, we are not in a r/ship but both gay, now what about friends with benefits?? where do they fit into all this too?, so many variables centrelink have to take into account. Instead of just saying your in a r/ship. To me r/ship means joint accounts,HOw many people will be unfairly discriminated against with this stupid legislation? I think centrelink should put all it on hold untill they are clear about things, it’s just a blatent money grab from Rudd N co government to fix its deficiet and it stinks. Picking on the minority is an easy way out, and causing alot of grief stress for people in all different situations. Fine if you want to ring up delcare your relationship do it, but dont go blaming or accusing others of having a full r/ship when they are not.

  7. Chilli, I don’t disagree with anything you said in your response. The definition of “de facto relationship” is now in the Family Law Act. It is not black and white. I agree it sucks that you have to go through a government process which can lead to erroneous results, and you are being assessed by someone who probably does not have the qualifications to make a determination about something which is a legal issue. I don’t advocate having to go to the law – that was not the point of my comments. However, if you are in a situation where you feel you have been unfairly treated by Centrelink, or they have made a decision and have got the result wrong, there are a number of community legal centres who may be able to provide advice and assistance. Although I’m not entirely sure, the Legal Aid Commission may be able to act as well.

  8. Dear Paul, Well lets say that Centrelink uses their ‘wide’ investigative powers and finds a gay couple living together.

    I imagine that Centrelink will review the claims made by the couple or one of the couple. They will then make a determination and a decision on whether or not to continue paying benefits and/or seek reimbursement for overpayments made.

    The claimant or claimants can then appeal the decision to Centrelink and/or go to law to appeal the decision.

    If the matter goes to law the question on whether or not the couple are in a defacto/same sex relationship which falls within Centrelinks definitions will be determined.

    The Centrelink officer/investigator/review panal has a duty to make a decision.

    If the matter goes to law then a judge will have to determine if the decision made by the Centrelink officer/investigator/review panel was correct or incorrect.

    I do not find government processes extraordinary but I do find them inaccurate and ineffective and prone to error.

    We all have a right to go to law but 99% of the population and probably 100% of Centrelink customers do not have the means to go to law for a remedy. So most of Centrelinks decisions and the decisions of most government departments go unchallenged.

    I certainly do not have the financial means to go to law about my problems with Centrelink. I will have to deal with their internal review mechanisms and hope for the best.

  9. Perhaps I wasn’t clear in what meant about Centrelink staff investigating. In the absence of a recipient declaring they are in a de facto relationship, Centrelink has wide investigative powers to determine if they are in such a relationship if they suspect as much, which may have a consequence upon the level of benefits received. In those circumstances I find it somewhat extraordinary that a beaurocrat has the power to determine something which at law is not black and white, and may be a matter of opinion.

  10. Reply to Paul, The Centrelink employee did not investigate or decide the facts of the relationship.

    I was told by the government that I had to register by the 1st of July this year.

    I registered by telephone and I also had to tick a box on the claim for payments form to collect my Newstart Allowance.

    I then had to get my partner to fill in a large document in which he had to disclose all his financial details to Centrelink.

    Then they cut off my Newstart Allowance.

    Then they sent me a letter saying that all my benefits were terminated because I did not supply Centrelink with my partner’s tax file number.

    They told me to destroy my Health Care Card, immediately.

    My partner did include that information in the form he had to complete so obviously the staff at Centrelink did not enter the data into the system.

    Officially I no longer exist. At least according to Centrelink.

    However the ATO still recognises my existence and still communicates with me occasionally.

  11. Has anyone noticed the google ad “ClickMuslims Matrimonials” which comes up on this page? “We found each other on ClickMuslim”. How bizarre.

  12. As a couple who have recently declared our relationship to Centrelink, I have to say that for us it hasn’t been a bad experience.

    My partner is on a disability pension, I am self employed on a low income.

    Yes, we had the payment from Centrelink reduced quite a bit, but I am also listed on his pension card so that has it’s benefits for us as far as visits to doctors, getting my meds (we are both HIV+), and other places where concession card is used.

    Yes, we are slightly worse off financially, but the rules are the same for us as everyone else. We’re not wanting special treatment. We don’t want to hide anything or break the law.

    We support each other and live as a couple. It’s not hard.

    This guy should get over it and start dealing with reality.

  13. If he’s sitting on a quarter of a MILLION DOLLARS (!!) , I don’t see why I and my fellow-taxpayers have to contribute to his household.

    It may be OK for Blanche De Bois to rely on ‘the Kindness of Strangers’ but I’m sick of fellow Australians being so unreliant and incapable of organising their own lifestyles that they have the audacity to ask me to subsidise theirs.

  14. Yeah for Centrelink. This couple is financially secure and they have made decisions that we, the taxpayer should not have to support. It is his decision to go to back to study to further his career and higher income potential. Centrelink should be thought as a safety net, helping those that would not be able to afford the basic needs, like food and shelter. It is not a scholarship program. Work and go get your education on part time basis or the reverse.

    For the life of me, I can’t understand gay people that say they want the right to marry and have the same rights of hetrosexuals, but yet would take their commitment so lightly, that they would divide their finances and/or “play”, ie, couple looking for third. If you want those rights, then act like it!

  15. I support the fight for adoption rights, not the right to claim a higher benefit, quit work and go off to study zoo keeping.

  16. I’d rather fight for adoption than defend claiming higher benefits so one can give up work and study zoo keeping full time.

  17. Thankyou SSO for bringing us more stories of Centrelink doing its job and weeding out welfare fraud. What is a fit able bodied 30 year old doing on welfare in the first place.

    And it gets better…..his defacto partner (the article tells us of 8 years) recently inherited $270,000 but they still think that they are entitled to cash handouts from the government. We are becoming a nation of bludgers!!

    Here’s some advice…..drop your welfare mentality and go get a job to support yourself.

  18. I support changing the state laws on adoption – but I don’t support Centrelink payments as a single person to gay couples.

    Those truly disadvantaged are the elderly – not people who stop work at 30 to study zookeeping fulltime at the taxpayers expense.

  19. The 21st Century and gay couples are being driven underground from the prying eyes of Centrelink. No sane gay man would declare his sexuality to any Government Department, yes homophobia is rife in our Community. Having lived with my partner for more than 20 years both of us still like to have our independence, our own Bank accounts etc, and not rely financially on each other. I believe this is what has kept us together for so long, of course if illness or something unforeseen happened we would use any means to support each other.

    Our circumstances have been built on us being independent, although we would appear a couple in the eyes of the Government, financially we would need our own Pension when retirement comes as we have planned our lives on this basis as we have never been recognised in all the years we have been together. Yes it may have been nice to be able to adopt and have a family but as you can see this will never happen when we have Politicians making policies based on their religious beliefs as this is the case under the present regime.

    It is a shame this is the way it is but I will always be anonymous from the prying eyes of a very conservative Government and if it is true to the cliche “history repeats” I think a lot of other gays will not want to be “outed”

  20. I think their complaint is valid. If they are considered a “couple” and their children are affected by that, then how come they can’t legal adopt those children?

    It basically means that they’ll be paid as a couple by Centrelink, but treated as two individuals in the case of the biological parent dying. How come the non-biological parent counts when it comes to payments but not to rights?

    It’s a double standard pure and simple!

  21. It’s somewhat odd that a beaurocrat at Centrelink is charged with the task of investigating and deciding whether a recipient is in a same sex de facto relationship, when this is sometimes an issue for judicial determination in family law cases. Whether or not a de facto relationship exists is not a black and white matter, like determining if a marriage exists. Look at the case of Keaton & Aldridge on the Federal Magistrates Court website on the question of whether a lesbian couple was in a de facto relationship. The bar was set so high in that case, you’d have to rethink making a disclosure to Centrelink. And I don’t think Centrelink is qualified to make these determinations in all but the really obvious cases.

  22. I have sympathy for the elderly and people with permanent disabilities…but they are a couple. Their complaint should really about getting full recognition, not picking and choosing what suits.

  23. A couple is a couple … How stupid was the line …. it’s hard for me to have to say, -˜Can I have some money please?’ Really, if you’re a true couple you would be sharing financial commitments and have joint bank accounts, (not your money / my money)… I do agree that we should be able to get married and have full equal rights, not just save the government money by cutting benefits, because that was their aim !

  24. thousands of partnered gay couples are deliberately not declaring their relationships, why did these two? homophobia is alive and perpetuating.

  25. Centrelink couples are receiving the absolute maximum recognition in this country, with thier relationship being “specially recorded” by a Federal govt entity, on an almost “civil union-like register”. Yet the rest of us are relegated to wishy washy hard to prove defacto status, with no access to civil marriage in a govt registy office. How did this happen?
    Those that want to get married should be granted that first, then Centrelink changes come in 1 year later after full equality acheived, no ifs or buts.
    As far as egos… have you seen half the straight women out there lately… straight people are just as diverse as gay people – we can’t fit them into a box any more that they can us. What’s missing is equality, and this stupid situation of forcing same sex Centrelink couples to be the face of maximum relationship recognition when they should be the last ones to be recognised well after full equality achieved.