New coalition fights for rights
The Rudd Government will again be asked to review its stance on changes to same-sex pensions.
ACON has joined six other health and welfare organisations to form a lobby group seeking a grandfather clause in the welfare changes.
The group includes the National GLBT Health Alliance, NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, the Welfare Rights Centre, People With Disability Australia, Positive Life NSW and the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations.
The Coalition is seeking a 12-month grace period for anyone under 55 years of age currently receiving benefits and anyone aged over 55 on welfare should be exempt from future changes.
info: For more information go to www.acon.org.au/pensions.
I rang Centrelink, they had absolutely no fucking idea how much my carer pension would be reduced by my partners income, no idea whether they would be included on my pension card, no idea how our family tax benefit between my kids and my partners would be assessed, the list goes on. So if they have no idea then why don’t they fucking grandfather the payments until they do!?!?!
Well if the Greens LGBTI mob are so in favour of grandfathering, could they please let their party leaders including Senators know this, because they are sure as hell not listening on that one.
Bringing into the conversation all people who may be needy is a red herring – we are talking about the gay rights legislation and its pros and cons, and how best to deal with the cons. Let’s not get distracted by other fights which should also be fought, for better social security rules for everyone, for instance.
The legislation’s pros are good and what we’ve all been wanting, but its cons are that some gay people will be disadvantaged – these are generally poorer people and those dependent on social security. Therefore they are more likely to be women, the sick and elderly.
Older gays have suffered social and financial disadvantage all our lives. Being eligible for the single pension has really been the only benefit of our invisibility. We will not now benefit from the changes to superannuation, etc, which only benefit younger people.
Therefore, in the interests of equality, I strongly support a ‘grandfathering/mothering clause’ and gradual feed-in of the new equality.
Thanks for your comments, Brendan, but for once, I’m going to ignore your enmity entirely as I think this issue is far too serious for the usual pettiness and sniping that these forums so often host.
In law, ‘stare decisis’ or the principle of precedent, is paramount. There are many precedents for ‘positive discrimination’, like Affirmative Action and the rights of the indigenous, based on the reasoning of justified discrimination for certain disadvantaged groups. Glbqti do not enjoy social equality in this homophobic culture and it is a mark of our civilisation that it be ameliorated by special provision. It is not difficult to argue that -˜welfare gays’ are deserving of such consideration in this homophobic society, particularly the HIV+ who rely on their DSP, concession cards etc., because many are unable to work and have ongoing costs, for medications (not all of which are on the PBS,) therapies and so on. 82% of pozzies are glbqti and a third of them live below the poverty line. In fact, I think this is the argument that any lobby should be putting to the government. Elderly glbqti stand to lose $200 a fortnight. Lesbians with children may lose child support.
The acon-led lobby seeks a 12-month grace period for under 55s and a grandfathering for over 55s. But by July it will be 15 months since the government’s announcement and the Attorney General and the Minister for Human Services have already said on numerous occasions that grandfathering -œwould result in inconsistencies in the recognition of a same-sex relationship in other social security and health programs” “and would undermine the purpose of the Government’s reform.”
THAT is the problem I have with this hastily cobbled together coalition’s ‘lobby’. It’s not about your agenda Brendan or mine or acon’s or anyone’s but those glbqti who already are struggling to put bread on the table.
Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.
This gay welfare debate seems headed for an opportunity collectively lost, given the effort being exerted towards protecting an arbitrary SUBSET of welfare gays when the focal point, particularly at this time of economic uncertainty, surely ought to be the genuine needs of ALL of the most disadvantaged (including ALL welfare gays who fit that category, but none who actually don’t).
The elephant in the room, arising from any clumsy grandfather clause based on subjective age/time limits or on a pre-existing status of welfare recipiency, is the inevitable passing of the inequality buck onto yet another different subset of welfare recipients (eg. those that fall below the age limit, outside the time limit, are not yet on welfare but will be in the future, or are heterosexual). That is hardly reasonable or fair across the board.
For example, under a grandfather clause, if you’re a 50y/o gay but in greater need of welfare than a clause-protected 55y/o gay, that’s too bad for you. If you’re a hetero of any age but in greater need of welfare than a clause-protected welfare gay, that’s too bad for you too, because apparently your welfare needs are less than those of a gay couple in the same circumstances and you are apparently obliged to pay the involuntary price of legal and political prejudice that you probably had absolutely no hand in. That’s essentially the corollary of what grandfather clause proponents are saying.
As a public policy approach, a grandfather clause is short-sighted. As a community lobby issue, it misses a significant strategic opportunity, at a looming time of need, to demand serious welfare reform that places the genuine needs of the many worse off in our society (regardless of age, gender and sexuality) in the spotlight of our national conscience. The earlier proponents of a clause rightly pose the implicit question: when did being a community come to mean leaving people behind? The telling question they don’t consider is, who does a grandfather clause leave behind?
Meanwhile, Shayne Chester, having mischievously conflating marriage and the welfare issue for some time in past comments written to this publication, ostensibly to blame marriage equality advocacy for disadvantaging welfare gays and express your personal contempt for gays in marriage-like relationships, you eventually conceded that this issue was NOT about marriage. Now that you’re using the “married” and “unmarried” lingo once more, can it be safely assumed you’re back to flogging that malodorously wrong dead horse again?
Substantive Equality and Technical Equality is two very different things. Substantive equality looks at the holistic reforms including the fact many same-sex couples were behind the eightball in terms of financial and societal discrimination before these reforms. 15 months of government announcement and a few months of access to Superannuation DOES NOT make people substantivally equal, it merely removes discrimination to provide technical equality.
For example: 80yo gay & lesbian people have never had a social norm provided to them. (They have been told throughout their decades to hide their relationship & would be traumatised at any suggestion to the contray.)
On the flip side 80yo heterosexual couples are aware that it is soceity’s expectation they are financially interdependent – A very big difference when you’re looking at your finances for retirement.
Whilst “grandfathering” may not be the best option available to the government from a political standpoint, it definately is the most effective and permanent solution available to our community. Prevents any changes of the mind from future ministers or governments. This being said – its about compromise and it’s about working with the government to a mutual outcome.
Hopefully some of the other organisations, in addition to ACON and the NSW GLRL will be able to facilitate a mutually acceptable outcome (between the community and the government) that does both protects the vulnerable people affected and supports the governments principal of removing same-sex discrimination.
As with all things, it’s a fine fine line for these people to walk between the perception of “special treatment” and the reality of *substantive* equality.
For those who want to cop out and simply not understand or care about the issues, they can walk the middle ground saying technical equality means equal. It would be disappointing however to see people doing that on this site.
The Greens NSW LGBTI Working Group have voted to support the Grandfather clause. If same sex marriage was legal people might have a argument against having such a clause, however, as it stands we simply are not treated equally. Centrelink should take positive steps to address the inequality the LGBTI community suffers not reduce the payments of the needy to perpetuate some shame equality of equal detriment.
The intrusive nature of Centrelink applies to 80yr old opposite sex couples too. Many opposite sex straight friends have been pursued relentlessly with no mercy by Centrelink investigators….. where is the lobby group to protect those straights?
Also, where is the education program on the complete list of benefits of the changes/recognition. I’m yet to hear a peep out of anyone- apart from the fact we are NOT equal, as we can’t get married yet… making it hard to prove our defacto status (except if you are on Centrelink & your welfare payment forms can be used to prove your status.
So hey- we have a situation where those that want to get married banned from doing so & struggling to prove their status, whilst some on Centrelink who don’t want to get married (or get any relationship recognition at all) are getting the maximum recognition on a federal govt official form (dole form or pension form).
I think it’s a little more complex than “equality should be the same for everyone” Gary:
“Positive discrimination is a form of affirmative action designed to directly redress the disadvantage that groups of people have experienced in the past. It is based on the premise that justified discrimination is needed in some situations for disadvantaged people to have the opportunity to become equal within society…To treat disadvantaged groups in our society as equal ignores situations of inequality and therefore perpetuates that inequality. Aristotle explains this succinctly: -œThere is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.”
http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/hotwords/hottext.php?id=75
“Positive discrimination differs from equal opportunities policies in that the latter advocate disregarding race, colour, gender, sexuality, religion, and nationality in the selection process, while positive discrimination gives preferential treatment to people on the basis of such categories. The main beneficiaries of positive discrimination have been women and members of ethnic minorities, ” etc.
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781529268/positive_discrimination.html
It is not difficult to argue that ‘welfare gays’ are deserving of such consideration in this homophobic society, particularly the HIV+ who rely on their DSP, concession cards etc., because they have many ongoing costs, for medications (not all of which are on the PBS,) therapies and so on. In fact, I think this is the argument that any lobby should be putting to the government, as the proposed lobby argument has already been answered by Mr. McKelland.
I’d have liked to discuss all of this with acon’s ‘advocacy team’, but sadly they choose to ignore my emails and the web page linked above has been offline all week.
Hey folks equality means exactly that,
” opposite sex and same sex couples both being treated equally”.
It’s as simple as Madge’s chalk dunking dish washing liquid commercial.
Stephen, that is complete and very deliberate rubbish. The Lobby statement was “there are SOME couples who were not concerned at being disadvantage”. Which is true.
Stephen, the reasons that many of our disadvantaged share accommodation include considerations such as physical security, help in case of a fall and the high costs of renting alone. They are much more important considerations than entering into a -œmarriage-like relationship. They do care for each other, but the last thing they see themselves as “married” and are desperately seeking ways to be “unmarried”. HIV Futures found a third of the HIV+ live below the poverty line. And now we want to take away the few crumbs of social security (about half their income) that they receive…
Anyway, the “acon coalition” is only a couple of days old, it all seems a bit late in the piece to be attending issues that I first raised with them two years ago, but I’ve put my questions to them anyway and will let you know if I get a response.
At a legal forum I attended late last year, a spokesperson from the NSW GLRL said that gay and lesbian couples that they had spoken to were happy to be disadvantaged by the same sex legislative changes, because it meant that they had their ‘rights’. Such complete ignorance of how hard it is to live on a pension, let alone have that pension reduced, is the real reason why the NSW GLRL and its allies ‘forgot’ to advocate for a grandfather clause as part of the reform of discriminatory laws.
Ha! Jo. I wouldn’t trust acon to make charcoal in a bushfire. But as so many lives are at stake here, I think if they are going to mount a ‘lobby’, it should be taken seriously. What point is there in demanding 12 months grace when McClelland will respond that they will have had 15 months to ‘adjust’? Why focus on ‘grandfathering’ when he has already said, -œFurther, unlike previous reforms, this impacts on all social security and health programs. To isolate one aspect of the changes for grandfathering would result in inconsistencies in the recognition of a same-sex relationship in other social security and health programs.”?
I believe a lobby should be focussed on precedents for ‘positive discrimination’, like Affirmative Action, and on examples of other changes in social security like the 20-year phasing in of the age for female retirement etc. Not much point hosting gabfests if you don’t have a strategy.
I think those who will be affected, not just the aged, also should understand just what is at stake here. For those that are, here’s a quick fyi from the Centrelink site:
The general manager of Centrelink, Hank Jongen said he
estimated at least 11,000 Centrelink customers would be affected by the changes. (Of the 982 HIV positive Australians who completed the HIV Futures 5 survey, 82% identified as gay or bisexual.)
Same-sex couples who receive any welfare benefit will have to notify the agency of their relationship Elderly gay and lesbian couples under the new reforms stand to lose nearly $200 per fortnight.
Centrelink can question your friends, hospitals, relatives, employers and neighbours and information is collected from ‘the public’ (for example a dob-in by a neighbour, family
member or ex-partner,) the Department of Housing, real estate agents, gas and electricity suppliers, local council, or any other person they think that can provide them with details of a relationship including acon and BGF.
Questions Centrelink will use to assess relationships include: “Do you provide financial support for each other? have any joint accounts or credit cards? jointly own large items? know about each others financial affairs? Has either of you named the other person as a beneficiary in your will or superannuation? lend or give each other money? share the same circle of friends? tell each other where you are daily or what you are doing when you go out? frequently go out together? Do either of you have a boyfriend? 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? take holidays together? How long has the relationship lasted? 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? 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?”
The questions will also apply to those living seperately or apart from my their ‘partner’.
Centrelink investigations may go on for 6-12 months as it gathers information. Centrelink may not contact you to tell you that the investigation has ceased. If Centrelink believes you intentionally provided the wrong information your case may be referred for prosecution.
Overpayments will be recovered by Centrelink. Even if you are repaying the money, you may still be prosecuted.
The National Welfare Rights Network has stated, ” While demanding the same treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples may seem fair at face value, it will not create equity. It is disingenuous to claim that the Bill removes
discrimination against same-sex couples, when the proposed amendments relating to Social Security and Family Assistance will entrench poverty for individuals whose access to employment benefits, superannuation and
insurance entitlements have already been significantly affected by the discriminatory laws that the rest of the Bill seeks to reform.”
It’s an argument I’ve been making for years now, that certain groups in our society require special considerations. Unfortunately, the community response has mostly been, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too.’
Go to the website and read the paper and while you are at it speak to a few hundred age pensioners who are gay and fearful and then get back to me. There are now more than 20 organisations signed up, and many more including pensioner and aged care organisations giving written support.
Since when was what timeline the AG put on this your bible, it’s not mine. A packed forum in Adelaide full of anxious uninformed and confused pensioners, many over 70, has convinced me to never give up on this no matter what those ‘not affected’ say.
http://www.acon.org.au/about-acon/Newsroom/Media-Releases/2009/10
“The Coalition is seeking a 12-month grace period”? McClelland has already said, -œWhen the reforms in this area begin in July, it will have been 15 months since the government announced its intention to end discrimination against same-sex couples.” If that’s the ‘lobby’ then thank gawd the changes won’t affect me.