| INTER |
|
SECTION |
What is wrong with these article headlines in the Fairfax media? To save you guessing, we will provide the answer! WIDOWER is the word which is incorrect and hypocritical of the media and the government in dealing with this issue.
The use of the word WIDOWER implies marriage, and the government when it was in opposition and currently, together with the current opposition when it was in government passed legislation which states that "marriage is between a man and a woman only" and for all time!
Now the government is talking about marriage-like arrangements in its instructions to Centrelink to pursue same-sex people living together in a residence and being de facto couples. The hypocrisy is a disgrace and needs to be exposed as much as possible. That is what these web pages will endeavour to do.
Article in the Sydney Morning Herald - also in The Age with the heading: Pension fight win for gay war widower:
Edward Young … "What I wanted was to take on the little man, Howard, and fight."
Edward Young has finally proved he is entitled to a war pension, writes Jonathan Dart. Every so often, Edward Young sits on the couch in his apartment and closes his eyes. "And then I just pretend I'm not here any more," he says.
It has been 10 years since his partner, Larry Cains, died. They met in London in 1960 - he, a model, was introduced to Mr Cains, a photographer who had served with the Australian Army in Borneo during World War II.
"He was desperately handsome," Mr Young said. "We spent two weeks together and I told him I wanted to spend my life with him."
Now, after a decade of fighting to have the law recognise his and Mr Cains's love as equal, the Sydneysider will soon become the country's first recognised gay war widower. Laws passed in November mean that partners in gay relationships with serving and retired soldiers will, for the first time, be allowed to claim pensions - opening the door for the so-called "forgotten people" of our military heritage and allowing for more people to make claims that must be paid out.
The decision will end a long-winded battle for Mr Young that began in a small inner-city law office, when he applied for a pension only to find the Veterans' Entitlements Act limited the definition of "couple". Under the old law, his 38 years with Mr Cains were invalid because he could not prove he was "living with a member of the opposite sex".
Having lived through a time when discrimination against gay men was rife, Mr Young said the wording still jolted him. "I didn't really need the pension," he said. "I didn't even really want it. What I wanted was to take on the little man, [the former prime minister John] Howard, and fight."
Mr Young took his claim to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The case dragged on for years.
"I wanted a decision that wouldn't just apply to my own circumstances," he said. "What I wanted was something that would apply right across the board. I wanted something that would say that, yes, there was discrimination and it didn't just apply to me. It applied to all facets of our law."
In September 2003 the UN concluded Australia had breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Mr Young was "entitled to an effective remedy, including the reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation".
But the victory was short-lived. Although the decision was used as a reference point in other countries to implement anti-discrimination laws, the Howard government held out on reviewing Mr Young's case. As late as November 2007, the UN high commissioner asked the government to clarify whether it would review its laws. A spokeswoman for the Veterans' Affairs Minister, Alan Griffin, said yesterday the new laws would apply to Mr Young and take effect in July.
"People such as Mr Young will not be denied a war widow or widower's pension on the basis of a same-sex relationship," she said. "We would encourage anyone who was (or is) in a same-sex relationship who wishes to make a claim to the department to do so after that date."
The last jolt in his struggle came this week when Mr Young applied for his war pension one last time before the legislation changes.
He received the familiar pro forma rejection letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs informing him he did not qualify for the pension: "But I don't mind waiting another six months," he said. "The laws have been changed; we've won now. I've been waiting 10 years."
The following letter was sent to MCV, suggesting that they may like to publish it as a carbon copy (cc). The magazine edited it and published their edited version. The letter is shown below in full and the edited items are shown in blue:
The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,Dear Minister,
The members of this group have had time to consider some of the consequences of the recent change of legislative status, to take effect on 1st July 2009, for same-sex couples who are already receiving age or disability pensions.
The government has gone to some length to inform us that, with this legislation, it has removed same-sex discrimination from a wide range of Commonwealth laws. That may well be so on paper but as far as pensions are concerned the Rudd government has just added its own new brand of discrimination against us.
Every significant change to social security laws passed in the last 15 years has included a ‘grandfather’ clause to minimise harsh consequences for those already in the system (Adele Horin, SMH 6.12.08). Why wasn’t there a grandfather in this legislative change, for lesbians and gays? It looks as though it may well have been intentional to let us know that our relationships aren’t really in the same class as hetero marriages.
However, there is still time to give us a grandfather clause allowing those already in the system to be exempted. We think it could be done by one of those convenient regulations that don’t always have to be approved by parliament. I think you’ll find that Ministers in the previous Howard government used the regulatory system in a raft of anti-terror laws to cover some controversial sections.
The next best status to a marriage is de facto because there is no binding official recognition like a Marriage Certificate so the government equates a same-sex relationship to de facto provided we tell them we are in a marriage-like relationship or Centrelink decides to use its guidelines to determine two people living in the same house are in a marriage-like relationship and therefore a same-sex couple. We had a badge back in the 70s which we wore with pride which said: ‘How dare you assume I’m heterosexual!’ Now we need to change it to ‘How dare you assume that mine is a marriage-like relationship!’ Your government joined the previous government to amend the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. So, really it’s discriminatory to call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage-like’ because the government has refused to give us the equivalent status of a regulatory licence, and it has said so, because it would look like a marriage. It’s not just discriminatory it’s hypocritical to expect us to accept the inappropriate interdependency lower couple rate of pension.
You can get over the whole problem by simply dispensing with the outdated 19th century couple rate and instead pay the single adult rate to each individual of a couple. It would save a heap of money by doing away with Centrelink’s intrusive and costly investigations into people’s lives. What an unexpected gift from this government to all those different-sex couples, too. It should be a strong recommendation by Dr Jeff Harmer (Secretary, FaHCSIA) to the Review Panel chaired by the Secretary to Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, of the Inquiry into Australia’s Future Tax System. It’s the obvious solution to the vexing problem of the couple rate in pensions which is a throw-back to the time when a woman was regarded as a chattel of her husband.
Sincerely,This letter was sent to Nicola Roxon, and also to some of the gay and lesbian papers. So far the only one to publish it has been SX in Sydney. Here is the letter, also sent to KRudd:
An open letter Written by Mannie De SaxeI have received a letter dated 24 December 2008 from Julianne Quaine of the Department of Health and Ageing in which she states that you have asked her to reply on your behalf to the email of 28 November 2008 which I wrote to the Prime Minister about the men’s health ambassadors.
I notice that you did not reply to the email I sent to you personally about the appointment of the homophobic Barry Williams as one of your ‘ambassadors’.
As an 82-year-old gay man, I would not consider for one moment consulting with, or having anything to do with, a group of people which contained those who actually wish to see people like me eliminated from the face of the earth.
It is incumbent on you as the Minister for Health and Ageing to consider the characters of people appointed to positions in which they would be dealing with a diverse group of men whose sexuality is a sensitive issue, and has been for much of their lives.
Dealing with a government which is basically homophobic and constrained by religious principles in its responses to people of different sexualities does not inspire confidence in a Minister who persists in retaining her appointment of a known hater of homosexual men.
Ms Quaine’s letter states: “More men’s health ambassadors will be appointed from a range of professions, in order to have a cross-section of the population capable of representing a wide range of men”.
Strange, therefore, is it not, that you have not appointed any gay men or any men who are knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Strange too, that you have remained silent about the complaints from the gay community about your appointments.
The Prime Minister has also declined to respond to these complaints and has instead referred the letter to him to you for your response.
The words gay and HIV/AIDS do not appear anywhere in that response. The rest of the letter is just political fudging in the classical “Yes Minister” mode.
It is time you dismissed Barry Williams as one of your men’s health ambassadors, for that he is certainly not.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.
This article was drawn to our attention by Dr Jo Harrison, and is printed here in full. It is interesting indeed that the issue of the discriminations about to be visited on gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS ageing people after a lifetime of discrimination and abuse by governments and the population at large, is about to be officially sanctioned by the government pledging to remove "some" of the discriminations.
From "The Spectator, Australia", this well-reasoned and clearly explained article on the discriminations about to be re-inflicted on the ageing in our communities gives a dark scenario indeed!:
Rudd’s Same Sex Relations Bill is a challenge to the well-earned privacy of retired gay couples, says John Izzard
It is quite possible that 2009 might find the government of Kevin Rudd in a whole heap of trouble regarding its human rights record. Ever so keen to criticise other nations about how they treat their citizens, it seems incredible that Rudd might find himself in the same category as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Because he’s about to go gay-hunting!
Rudd’s new Same Sex Relations Bill 2008 is imminent, and while those living in the Wild Wood are ecstatic, those living along the River Bank are far from happy. It could be getting a tad ‘windy in the willows’.
The new bill gives equal treatment to same-sex couples regarding a range of laws that had been, until now, restricted to married or heterosexual couples. The changes affect things like superannuation, entitlements and legal status, and can briefly be summed up by the law’s subtitle, ‘Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws’.
The new laws were a result of lobbying by high-profile, middle- and upper-class gay activists and a recommendation by Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The main emphasis is on the legal rights of gay couples to the superannuation of their partners. The new laws are a welcome reform, and remove substantial injustices. Overall, they are good news.
While the Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws bill sprang from the noblest intentions, the Rudd government ignored advice that highlighted the moral and ethical problems this law would unleash regarding privacy, discrimination, harassment, embarrassment, anguish and financial suffering, and that it would affect tens of thousands of aged pensioners and welfare recipients.
Unfortunately, because of ministerial and bureaucratic bloody-mindedness, a small yet vulnerable section of the community is about to get it in the neck, or perhaps more crudely, get a kick up the backside.
With the passing of this bill a new wave of sexual harassment, imagined or real, is about to be undertaken by the Commonwealth’s welfare agency, Centrelink.
People living in same-sex relationships will be forced to ‘confess’ their sexual preference to bureaucrats at Centrelink in order for their welfare payments to be re-assessed, and, most likely, reduced. The most vulnerable group, affected by this intrusion into their privacy, are aged pensioners.
Any bachelor pensioner with a dog called Bruce or a Miss Marple with a pussy called Dorothy should be afraid — very afraid. Centrelink is Australia’s most powerful bureaucratic body. With 25,000 staff, it is about the same size as the Australian army and equal to the combined strength of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. The Australian Federal Police is only 6,000 strong.
Pensioners living in a same-sex relationship, the ‘pink and greys’, make up one of the most vulnerable groups in Australia. The last state in the country to remove homosexuality as a crime was Tasmania, in 1997. Until then it was possible to receive a sentence of 20 years for what Lord Arran (as quoted recently in The Spectator) described as allowing ‘…men of a certain age to be as friendly as they liked’.
The bill also has the potential to disrupt and possibly destroy the privacy of this group, many of whom have spent their lives keeping their relationships, if not secret, then at a discreet distance from the officious and the intolerant.
Many have a built-in wariness of government and investigative bodies, and the thought of dossiers and databases, containing details of their personal life and sexual preference, is repugnant and frightening.
The image of thousands of pensioners in their sixties, seventies and eighties shuffling into Centrelink offices around the country, Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs in tow, whispering across the open-plan office space, ‘Yes, I’m gay’ beggars belief. And this is a government initiative?
In effect the government is going to force same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves under threat of financial punishment or being charged with fraud. Details of their sexual preference and their partner’s details will be logged in Centrelink’s database, and dossiers kept on their status.
Centrelink denies this, but it already does this to unmarried mothers, and its ‘regulations’ give it the power to undertake such questioning.
Section 4(3) of the Social Security Regulations gives the department 14 areas under five headings which the secretary (or bureaucrat) can assess in ‘forming an opinion of the nature’ of a relationship (between two people). It includes ‘the social aspect of the relationship, any sexual relationship between the people and the nature of the commitment to each other’. What this boils down to is forced confessions of sexual preference and a creepy system of recording sexual preference onto government databases.
When I questioned Centrelink about the security of this information, I was told: ‘Customer privacy is paramount and customer records are strictly confidential.’ What Centrelink didn’t say was that, in 2006, 800 instances of ‘illegal access’ were detected. How many went undetected we do not know.
Historically, any unmarried person in Australia would have been taxed at a single person’s rate throughout their working life. They would have been denied many of the benefits (joint income, family, housing and so on) available to married couples. Having been taxed for a lifetime as a single person, all previous governments thought it reasonable that single people be paid a ‘single person’s pension’. Rudd’s Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws will change all that.
Meanwhile, back at the River Bank nursing home — apart from having to worry about incontinence, prostate cancer, lumps in the breast, type two diabetes, the upcoming hip replacement, bad food, blood pressure, to say nothing of a spot of dementia — the inmates are now having to consider exactly who their ‘same-sex partner’ might be. After all, they live at the same address.
Incidentally, this murkiness of government bureaucrats snooping into peoples’ private lives could have easily been avoided. All the government had to do was insert a ‘grandfather clause’ to exempt these pensioners who had arranged their affairs to suit existing laws. Or they could have excluded the Social Security Act from their reforms.
In a submission to a Senate inquiry last September, the National Welfare Rights Network warned: ‘There are compelling reasons to continue to treat people in same-sex relationships as “single” under Social Security and Family Assistance law. Applying Social Security means tests to people who have long been disadvantaged before the law is effectively a doubling of their experience of discrimination.’
Dr Jo Harrison, a leading gerontologist with 30 years’ experience in aged care, is staggered by the adverse effects of the legislation.
‘Colleagues in other countries are expressing to me that they are astounded to hear that a federal government is, in effect, “outing” elderly gay people,’ she says.
‘It gives one cause to wonder whether the holding of records that reveal the sexuality of people, including those in their eighties and nineties, is a serious breach of privacy regulations, anti-discrimination laws and even the UN Charter of Human Rights.’
A sad aspect of all of this is the reaction of the younger homosexual set, and the politically active ‘celebrity gays’ who have encouraged this legislation. They show little compassion or sympathy for the ‘pink and greys’. In the aggressive tribal world of gay rights there is a very much me/now attitude, which can find instant offence at perceived discrimination, yet when discrimination doesn’t affect them or their immediate circle, their diamante glasses fog up.
Only the brave — wearing hob-nailed boots and asbestos clothing — would venture into the world of pink politics. Unfortunately, the issue of pensioners privacy rights cuts across the agenda of the gay lobby, who are trying to force the introduction of gay marriage. Part of this push is the attempt to establish, in each state, a ‘gay register’, a preliminary stage to gaining full marriage status.
Obviously, elderly same-sex couples are repelled by this, particularly as many have spent a lifetime trying to shelter from discrimination, endemic in Australian culture prior to the present generation. The thought of public displays, flaunting their sexuality, is unimaginable.
Pensioners standing up for their right to privacy is the last thing the gay marriage lobby wants — hence the lack of support for the elders of their tribe.
The champions of the Same Sex Relations Bill are an exotic lot who will most likely never have to enter a Centrelink office or seek pension assistance.
In the political arena we find Senator Penny Wong and Senator Bob Brown. Wong is Australia’s first openly gay cabinet minister. Brown is Australia’s environmental wunderkind and Australia’s first openly gay Senator. A key supporter of the new law was Judge of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby.
Michael Kirby’s justified eagerness stems from his imminent retirement, and the need to sort out the superannuation issues for his lifetime partner. The push by the government was to ensure the bill passed in time for Kirby’s retirement next month.
Other players in this saga include Senator Robert McClelland, Australia’s Attorney General, who announced ‘a system of registration of personal relationships’ in April 2008, and whose department drew up the legislation.
Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission initiated the introduction of the new laws. How they will handle any complaint or legal challenge will be interesting.
Strangely, the new laws will be given Royal Assent by the new Governor General, Quentin Bryce, who, in a previous life was Queensland’s human rights and equal rights commissioner and sex discrimination commissioner for the federal human rights agency.
Perhaps Kevin Rudd should re-read The Wind in the Willows to remind him his heart should be on the River Bank, not in the Wild Wood.
While many in government see the ‘pink and greys’ as an easy target, and a chance of reducing the pension budget by about $9 million a year, they should not underestimate the bent-aged as a fighting force.
While Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs may affect mobility, their plan to use the internet to take their case to world forums is something Kevin Rudd should be very wary of. An internet campaign, high-lighting what the Australian government is up to, might not be a pretty sight.
As one old tottering ‘pink and grey’ said last week: ‘Our legs might be buggered but our fingers can still type.’
This letter was written by the Coalition of Activist Lesbians (COAL) to the following politicians concerning the urgent issue of a grandfather clause on the new same-sex legislation:
To: JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.auRe: Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reforms) Act 2008, and Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Act 2008.
COALITION OF ACTIVIST LESBIANS - AUSTRALIA (COAL) is a national community-based Non-Government Organisation. We advocate on behalf of lesbians in Australia. COAL is an accredited NGO with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as well as the Division for the Advancement of Women.
We are thankful that the government has legislated to bring about equality for lesbians and gays, however there are some who will suffer from the changes such as those on income support/social security payments eg aged pension and disability/carer payments. COAL members are currently meeting regularly to discuss the impact of the changes on individual lesbians. We have serious concerns.
We believe that legislation, policy and programs must promote substantive justice, and therefore should reflect the reality that the playing field is not level. Equal actions do not achieve equal results. Outcomes should always be considered. In every major Social Security reform for the past 15 years grandfathering clauses have been included. We do not understand why this has not occurred here.
Lesbians experience our social position and financial security as being strongly influenced by both gender and sexual orientation. Generally women earn less, have few years in the paid work force, little superannuation and have spent years caring for children and others in need. The new legislation will create hardship to a great many lesbians who have planned their living, financial, social and retirement arrangements - including mortgages - on the basis of two financially independent beings. The changes have come too suddenly for people to plan or rearrange their long-term finances and housing. COAL has case studies available.
COAL urges the Federal Government to use regulatory measures to create a grandfather clause to guarantee that lesbians and gay men already receiving income support do not lose their existing entitlements thereby jeopardising their current living arrangements.
COAL further urges the Federal Government to fund an independent advocate to assist lesbians who will be significantly affected by the new legislation. Law reform is a part of the picture but we also need resources to protect those that have already lived a vulnerable life. COAL requests a meeting with the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, to discuss these issues.
We ask that you give serious attention to this matter and take action to ensure that lesbians are not further disadvantaged under the law.
SincerelyThe Sydney paper SX carried the following opinion piece from Vanessa Wagner on grandfathers!:
SX 14 January 2009I don't know about you but I have always LOVED grandfathers. They are cute, cuddly and often handy for cleaning blocked pipes.
Those who do not embrace grandfathers are usually mean, selfish and downright ugly.
It seems Kevin 09 is not mighty fine when it comes to grandfathering or protecting our gay elders from what could seriously be outright abuse - since when did we all think dragging oldies out of the closet was kosher?
There seems to be a great bloody mess of a shmozzle of a train wreck associated with the introduction of the same sex reforms, many of which were cause to crack the bubbly.
But for lots of us, the changes mean bloody rotten, unfair, often devastating loss of income and concessions that make us wonder whether to pack the trolley and get the hell out of home NOW.
Centrelink, or is that Centrehell, will be treating those of us in same sex couples much as they have single mothers for decades - badly. Snooping, asking questions Of anyone they like, and demanding that you come out as a couple, no matter what your age or circumstances or face stiff penalties, and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Ready to wake up to clip boarded Centrelink junior in your bedroom ticking the box next to 'sexual relationship' next to her section 24 couples guidelines? No I'm not joking.
What are they thinking, what is the PM thinking, gays and lesbians who are octogenarians lining up on their scooters waiting for Centrelink to open so they can shift into gear and speed across the office floor shouting 'gay and grey' to anyone who will listen and immediately take notes?
If it wasn't so shocking it would be the stuff of comedy. Pity the Hollow Men has finished what a field day they would have had.
How the government could not have grandfathered, like they have for other groups for the past 15 years, those who would be hurt by the changes is beyond me. People who are already poor, vulnerable or elderly should not suffer the shock of complying to new regimes their lives were never set up to encounter.
There are lots of case studies, stories of elderly gays and lesbians, people living with HIV and AIDS, and many others, that show the absurd shmozzle that this situation really is.
Get a grandfather and get one NOW Mr Rudd, - and tell your colleagues Senator Ludwig, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General to get one too.
Otherwise who knows what will ensue - people without grandfathers get very angry, I know it for a fact.
Join me in telling the pollies we want grandfathering protections for our own mob, we don't want to be divided into 'haves' and 'have nots' attacking each other. That might please some, but not any of us, and certainly not me.
Send your emails to:
Kevin Rudd (contact form) via: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfmThe following letter by Noel Tovey appeared in ACT Gay on 14 January 2009 and is reproduced here in full:
Dear Prime Minister,
I write to you as an elder Indigenous man about a matter of grave concern to me.
Our old people suffered great hardship and trauma in the past and you moved to apologise for this and acknowledge that pain. You demonstrated a deep understanding of the significance of respecting elders, acknowledging mistreatment and minimising harm. We will always treasure your respectful treatment of our elders on that day of apology, and in years to come.
I am an Indigenous artist and writer and am myself 75 years of age. As an older Indigenous man who is also gay, I am deeply concerned at the suffering of gay elderly people, who, like me, have experienced severe trauma in the past due to the ignorance of those around us. I was taken away from my family in 1940. In 1951, while living on the streets in Melbourne I was charged with ‘The Abominable Crime of Buggery’. I was vilified by the Melbourne press and spent time in Pentridge Jail waiting to be sentenced. Several of my friends have committed suicide rather than live a life of fear and shame.
I have grave concerns about the ‘same sex equal treatment’ reforms and the way in which these may compound the suffering of elderly gay people, including Indigenous people. Elderly gay people are from a generation that preceded civil rights and they were subjected to shock treatment, lobotomy and other horrors. They hid from view and remain mostly hidden today. Nevertheless, they are elders of our gay community who deserve protection.
I implore you to protect these elderly people from the harm of being forced to reveal their identities, even in confidence, to officers from Centrelink. For this generation, there was no safe confidential context in which to ‘come out’. The thought of having to do so now is causing them extreme anxiety and consequent physical harm.
Please give your urgent consideration to enacting grandfathering arrangements in relation to age pensioners to protect gay elders from harm. I am mindful that had my own life story not become a fortunate one, I would more than likely be a hidden gay age pensioner myself today. I know you to be a man of compassion and I appeal to your sense of justice, which was so visible to a proud nation on the day of the apology.
I would be very happy to talk with you further about this serious matter.
Yours Sincerely
Noel ToveyWe have been sent a copy of the letter Clover Moore has written on behalf of her constituents to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, about concerns relating to the new same-sex legilsation:
15 January 2009I write on behalf of a number of constituents who have contacted me about recent changes to the pension entitlements resulting from the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Act 2008.
Constituents who have contacted me are concerned that this legislation has the effect of removing rights to single pensions for people who were previously not eligible for benefits paid to couples. They are concerned that some pensioners and beneficiaries will lose their income or suffer significantly reduced income.
Constituents are concerned that some people over the age of 55 years in same sex relationships have planned their financial arrangements based on previous discriminatory laws, policies and practices. I share concern that lesbians or gay men who previously experienced legal and social discrimination will again be discriminated against. I understand that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Same-Sex: Same Entitlements identified this and recommended steps to prevent these impacts and protect existing rights and benefits. My constituents refer to changes to the Aged Pension for women, with a staged process that did not affect those close to the pension age, and gave time for other women to prepare for a higher pension age. They argue that a similar transitional provisions should apply to pensioners affected by these changes, and that those already receiving aged pensions be allowed to retain those benefits.
I share community concern about unintended impacts of this legislation, which was intended to provide fair treatment for people who have historically been subject to discrimination. Could you please inform me how many people are affected by this measure and what action you will take to protect them?
Yours sincerelyWe have noticed that the Australian Greens have been conspicuously silent over the issue of a grandfather clause in the federal government's changes to legislation allowing certain changes for same-sex relationships.
Despite the fact that this has been drawn to the attention of various Greens party members, and despite the fact that Bob Brown is a gay man who should have some understanding of the problems which are about to arise due to hasty and ill-considered legislation, there has been no discussion or announcement from the Greens.
It is a matter worthy of note that many people in the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities have supported the Greens at all levels, local government, state and federal, to help with campaigns and to help with elections and to offer support.
The Greens are in danger of losing such support by many members of these communities who feel let down at such a critical time in their lives, particularly because of the vulnerability of older GLTH people who may need assistance and care from a homophobic society.
We have had support from people who have made public statements about the "grandfather" clause issue.
You may find some of their statements of interest:
http://home.zipworld.com.au/~josken/inters7.htm
We hope to have some positive response in the very near future.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, MelbourneI’m sorry to hear that you feel the Greens have not taken your concerns in relation to the possible disadvantages the new same-sex legislation may have on some same-sex couples.
As you would be aware, Senator Hanson-Young advocated for a 12 month transitional period for same-sex elderly couples, facilitating the changeover to the new laws. Disappointingly, this was overwhelmingly voted down by both major parties and independents.
Unfortunately with the composition of the Senate, the Greens cannot successfully move for a Grandfather Clause to be included in this legislation without the support of a major party. I recommend you contact the Attorney-General, and your local ALP member, expressing your disappointment that the Government didn’t support the 12 month clause put forward by the Greens, and request that they consider implementing a Grandfather Clause.
In addition to raising your concern with relevant Government Ministers, Senator Hanson-Young will also raise this issue directly with the Attorney-General during the first session of Parliament.
Yours sincerely,You stated in your email that we would be aware of Senator Hanson-Young's advocacy of a 12 month transitional period for same-sex elderly couples.
Unfortunately, there is no way we could have been aware of this because there do not seem to have been any public statements to the media nor any media releases.
It is simply not enough for the Greens to have tried to achieve change in the senate without any of the major parties supporting it. The Attorney General has so far refused to back down from his original stance, and when some groups have tried to get statements from him at public gatherings, they have been unsuccessful.
What is necessary is for the "grandfather clause" requirement to be discussed in the public arena and to ensure that the government is getting messages loud and clear that they are about to create further discrimination against older gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS community members, many of whom have remained in the closet for most of their lives because of persecution, discrimination and other forms of abuse levelled at them over time. They are now in a most vulnerable period of their lives and are about to have Centrelink snooping into their private affairs.
This is most unsatisfactory, and the Greens need to do more to shift the government's approach to the legislative changes - separate but equal is more apartheid and is discrimination continued.
We need immediate change and we need politicians to understand the problems and to act publicly, as Clover Moore and others are doing.
If there have been grandfather clauses for other pieces of legislation during the last 15 years, even during the Howard years, why is it not possible now?
Why can't the Greens do it too?
Regards,“Reprinted from Volume 7 No 2 of HIV Australia, published by the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations.”
Same-sex law reform and pension changes are long overdue, but time is needed for transition to prevent harm for those most vulnerable, say community advocates.
From 1 July 2009, changes to Australian legislation will be enacted recognizing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) relationships in many (but not all) areas of law.
Whilst these changes are welcome, there are real concerns that negative consequences of social security reform will disproportionately impact the community’s most vulnerable members, including the elderly, people with a disability and people living with HIV or other chronic illnesses. All previous major Australian social security reforms have had transitional arrangements.
The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO) and 23 other community health organizations have signed a statement advocating for provisions including exempting vulnerable community members from being treated as a couple, a delay of implementation until July 2010 to allow for preparation and education, and saving provisions for pensioners.
The following letter was sent by the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities (QAHC) to Jenny Macklin concerning the lack of the "grandfather" clause in the new same-sex so-called equality legislation:
Dear Ms Macklin
I write to raise our concerns about the impact of changes to pension entitlements for same-sex couples and the lack of information from or co-operation by Centrelink in the implementation of these changes. We recommend ‘grandfathering’ the changes for those already receiving income support, especially those over 55 years.
The Queensland Association for Healthy Communities (QAHC) is a state-wide, not-for-profit community based organisation which promotes the health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Queenslanders and develops the capacity of LGBT communities in Queensland. Formerly the Queensland AIDS Council, in 2006 we extended our remit to address a wider range of health issues for all in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.
We facilitate an LGBT Ageing Action Group, bringing together LGBT seniors, LGBT community organisations and aged care/seniors organisations to raise the profile of LGBT seniors and to improve services. The Ageing Action Group has discussed the upcoming changes to pension arrangements for same-sex couples and wishes to put its concerns to you in writing.
QAHC lobbied for and supports the government’s long overdue recognition of same-sex couples in federal legislation and regulation. We support equality for all Australians. However the transition from inequality and exclusion, to equality and inclusion needs to consider the impact on the more vulnerable members of our community.
Older lesbian and gay people have lived in an Australia were homosexual acts were illegal, where a blind-eye was turned to discrimination, where abuse, intimidation and physical violence was commonplace, and where their same-sex relationships (and the benefits and responsibilities which come with marriage) were not recognised by the State.
Gay men have lived through the horrors of the HIV epidemic, with many still living with HIV, but unable to return to work due to ongoing sickness. The financial costs on individuals and couples has compounded the physical costs.
Now, finally their relationships are to be recognised and the first tangible impact of this recognition is a reduction in income support for many. This is not fair.
Same-sex couples have had to arrange their finances as two independent people. They have received none of the financial benefits or entitlements afforded by the State to married couples. Older LGBT people have planned their retirement finances on this basis. Now, because they will be treated as a “marriage-like” relationship, one or both partners will have their pension income reduced or stopped completely.
QAHC is already receiving calls from worried seniors and people with HIV, afraid of what will happen to them and afraid of Centrelink investigating their lives and relationships. Many are unwilling to seek information or support from Centrelink (even accessing their website) for fear that Centrelink will track them down and cut their pension. Many have never talked publically or to government services about their relationship.
There has been a lack of information through LGBT community communication channels about the changes and what they mean, and a lack of independent advice available to LGBT people affected by the changes from services they can trust. People have not had the information or time to make the necessary changes to their finances.
QAHC has tried contacting Centrelink through various means, offering to partner in conducting community forums, asking about plans for public education campaigns and asking about support for individuals. No response has been provided by Centrelink to date.
Consideration needs to be given to how these changes will affect LGBT people already in receipt of income support, just as consideration has been provided to other groups when major changes to the income support system were introduced in the past.
QAHC recommends:* ‘grandfathering’ the introduction of these changes for those already receiving income support, especially those over 55
* funding independent financial advice and advocacy services for those affected by the changes
* communication by Centrelink, using LGBT communication channels and in partnership with LGBT community organisations, on what these changes will mean and how they will be introduced.
Lesbian and gay seniors, who have suffered so much throughout their lives, should not be forced to suffer further because of these changes. We urge you to take action.
YoursHows & Whats of Effective Lobbying Letters
• Timeline – write ASAP as parliament sits again 3rd February.Many benefits will result from the Commonwealth Government’s formal recognition of the legitimacy of same sex couples. However particular problems will be experienced by lesbian and gay couples receiving the age pension. The problems have not been addressed by many of those asking for instant ‘equality’.
Cuts in income for same-sex couple age pensioners prove problematic when most have had no capacities to officially share certain past couple advantages in income, taxation, health insurance, superannuation and other aspects of financial planning and melding of incomes. There are two more aspects that muddy the equality arguments: one is the continued prejudice and discrimination against lesbians and gay men; the other is the particular problems of gender, ie the financial disadvantage of older women re pay and care, and the foisting of financial interdependence on same-sex couples who have had no experience of the model of breadwinner and dependent spouse.
The changes to the age pension that raised the qualifying age for women from 60 to 65 were introduced gradually over a period of 20 years. The wife pension, which enabled younger women married to pensioners to also qualify for a pension, was abolished in 1995 but recipients of the time were protected. Changes to the widow pension and other entitlements were also ‘Grandfathered’.
As part of the process of change, the Government should therefore introduce ‘Grandfathering’ for all lesbian and gay age pensioner couples and those over 55 receiving the Disability Support Pension and unlikely to rejoin the workforce. This would avoid the distress and stress caused by:
• A loss of up to $92.60 per fortnight per person on full pension ($185.20 couple)We ask for an exemption (grandfathering) to be offered to lesbian and gay Age Pensioner couples and those over 55 on Disability Support Pensions.
Contacts: Diana Goldrick 0414587699 Dorothy McRae-McMahon 0420550900
Jack Draper, COAL 0432368223 or 4285 6747
The aim to achieve equality for same sex couples through law reforms is welcomed by the Older Women’s Network NSW. However equality cannot be accomplished by simply addressing current inequity, without acknowledging that our lives, and particularly our old age is only reached through the experiences of a lifetime.
Although every woman’s experience is unique, throughout their lives, older lesbians have never known a time when their relationships would be formally acknowledged or would have been seen or experienced as socially acceptable or endorsed. In relationships they have paid taxes at the single rate and have not had or anticipated ever having access to any of the benefits that this legislation now brings. However this new recognition comes at a considerable price for women who had never envisaged a life of financial codependence:
• Firstly they must declare their relationship. ‘Coming out’ is a personal decision. Marriage does not necessarily represent the ‘social reward’ for older lesbians, that policy makers imagined. Those who have chosen to live their lives ‘in the closet’ believe the danger this process represents, the fear and anxiety caused by losing their family or friends is just not worth the risk.Has the Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations’s modeling for projected savings for this initiative considered the cost of administering all the appeals under the Hardship provisions contained in Part 3.12, Division3 of the Social Security Act, or any S24 appeals? These appeals will impact on services like ours, who will also be called upon to provide both support and support documentation, whilst at the same time, our wider community suffers from a sudden and dramatic loss of volunteers, carers, partners and grandparent carers, whilst these older women literally fight for their lives.
What steps have been put in place to ensure that there is adequate, safe affordable housing for older lesbians who suddenly find themselves single and abandoned by their families and communities? How many ‘lesbian friendly’ aged care facilities (considering staff and other residents)are there in Australia? What research has been done in this area?
All government policies identify social isolation as one of the greatest risk factors contributing to poor health, depression, and housing stress, yet this policy will actually directly contribute to the social isolation of an already vulnerable group of older people as they hide out in their communities, or worse, separate from each other to avoid persecution.
The Older Women’s Network NSW would ask that the government urgently reinstate the grandfather clause in this new legislation, to recognize this multifaceted historic discrimination, and allow for a realistic period of transition. This will make the new laws something to really celebrate, and will enable all older women to maintain their rights, dignity and wellbeing.
Yours sincerely,Members of the COALITION OF ACTIVIST LESBIANS - AUSTRALIA (COAL) have expressed their shock and dismay at the Labor Government’s failure to protect lesbians on income support through the provision of a grandfather clause as part of the recent same-sex ”equal treatment” legislation.
COAL, a national community organisation, advocates on behalf of lesbians in Australia. It is a United Nations accredited Non-Government Organisation through its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as well as the Division for the Advancement of Women.COAL has consulted lesbians Australia-wide through public meetings, consultations, networks and email, to assess the potential negative impact of the new law.
Usually when introducing laws affecting Centrelink payments the government includes a ‘grandfather’ clause to ensure lesbians who are already established under the old laws are not adversely affected, particularly Age Pensioners and those over 55 who are recipients of Disability Support Pensions and the Carer’s Payment. There is no explanation as to why this has not happened with these new laws. The rules have been changed after granting entitlements for income support: this is blatantly unfair.
“The new legislation will create hardship to a great many lesbians who have planned their living, financial, social and retirement arrangements – including mortgages – on the basis of two financially independent beings. The changes have come too suddenly for lesbians to plan or rearrange their long-term finances and housing,” said activist, Sand Hall. “We have serious concerns about the health and welfare of those on existing benefits who are deemed to be in a de facto relationship and who now will have their payments removed or reduced,” says Ms Hall.
COAL members plan a Parade entry in the upcoming Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, to highlight the detrimental effect of the new laws. Older lesbians have experienced discrimination that has negatively impacted their career, earning capacity and savings for retirement. Some will be left to live on a third of their previous income, some less. “Lesbians’ social position and financial security is strongly influenced by both gender and sexual orientation. Generally, as women, we earn less, have fewer years in the paid work force, little or no superannuation and have spent years caring for children and others in need. We have not been exposed to the notion of becoming financially responsible for our girlfriends and partners as a part of our relationship structure. For many of us it is like being forced into a marriage-like arrangement, something we have actively worked against for years,” says Ms Hall.
COAL has asked to meet with both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister to discuss the dire position some lesbians will face after 1 July this year when the new payment system begins.
COAL has written lobbying guides and distributed information letters to encourage others to demand protection from poverty and emotional hardship for those on existing entitlements.
For copies email coal@aapt.net.auThis was forwarded from the glbti-ageing group and is from crikey.com
Equality for gay couples seemed a like a good idea, and it was, for the younger Gay and Lesbian advocates who had grown up post illegality of same sex relationships. So the recent changes to the swag of 100 plus bits of Commonwealth law were celebrated as a good sign of changing times. And they were, but they failed to take into account the effects the changes in the Social Security area would have on cohabiting aged pensioners.
The young enthusiasts failed to demand and for some reason the Government failed to supply, the same protections to existing recipients (grandfathering) that have followed all other such changes. So a range of older "couples" will lose their individual eligibility for an age pension on July 1. Some may lose all their income and suddenly become a "dependent". Others who are deemed a pensioner couple with lose $185.20 per fortnight.
This last case raises gender differences: for some fairly affluent mainly older male partners, like Michael Kirby's long term partner, being able to claim a legitimate share of super was long overdue; for other duos, more likely to be female, a lifetime of low pay, maybe time out for children and care and no super, means no extra income but the pension.
These suffered discrimination and fear, and now are not only likely to lose money and frightened they may be "outed" by investigating Centrelink officers to family and neighbours who still think they are just good friends. For some, the changes will be an emotional mine field and a disaster.
Defining de facto relationships in heteros-xual couples is not simple. Adding same sex couples to Centrelink's already problematic practices will create a new set of problems. Where people marry and register relationships, they make a clear contract to merge resources but when there is no legal contract or even public acknowledgement, the Government takes on the power to declare coupledom in order to save money.
There are already wider questions on assumptions about partnerships and sharing with many complaints to Centrelink, the AAT and the Ombudsman about Centrelink staff. These have to interpret the legislation by defining interdependence through a series of social, emotional and financial indicia, none of which are definitive, including sexual activity. So long term close friendships with some shared housing and other costs but no sex may qualify.
For people who have never seen themselves publicly, and sometimes not even privately, as a couple, being "married" by Centrelink decree may cause deep trauma. I know some older women who have suffered the double jeopardy of a lifetime of prejudice against them as women and as lesbians.
They are deeply distressed by the possibility of being investigated if they don't declare, as well as maybe losing their independent income. Where one is still in the workforce, the other may have to become her dependent, even though they have never made any such agreement and have had no couple benefits.
The problem is who is likely to be affected negatively. It is the least advantaged who wear the costs, not those who lobbied for the changes while ignoring gender and other inequalities within the Gay and Lesbian groupings.
Now there is an awareness amongst gay groups of the need to exclude the older retired people from the immediate effects of the changes, but they are finding some Government members surprisingly resistant to adding a Grandfathering clause.
Why does the present legislation fail to include the usual practice of grandfathering existing recipients as the government has done in other changes to social security payments? Interestingly, some of the Opposition members are indicating some support.
So the question is why won't the Rudd government agree to doing what even Howard did for earlier payment changes such as for sole parents?
(Editor's Note: Either Eva Cox or crikey.com edited the word sex in the article and wrote it as s-x. The Editor has changed it to what it should be - SEX - let the censors do their work if they must do Senator Conroy's ridiculous work for him!!!)
This letter has been sent to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd:
Postal Address: PO Box 1675 Preston South Victoria 3072 AustraliaIn Melbourne last week, the lesbian and gay community newspaper, Southern Star (29.1.09), published a report of a Joy Radio FM interview with the federal Attorney-General. He was asked why no grandfather clause was included for existing pensioners in the Age and Disability Support categories of the same-sex relationship, equal treatment legislation. In his reply he was quoted as saying that “the direction of the changes was announced in April last year, so we would like to think that people were on notice about adjusting to the changes.” We consider this view of the Rudd Government most unfair to same-sex current recipients of a Centrelink pension.
Surely, where grandfathers have been included in past major changes to the Social Security Act protecting those already in the Centrelink system, pensioners of those times would have received at least as much time about adjusting to changes as the Attorney-General claimed was given to same-sex existing pensioners. Of course, it’s a different matter for most same-sex couples not yet Centrelink clients.
Nevertheless, none of those pensioners previously protected by a grandfather if they were in their 70s, 80s or 90s would have spent the best part of 50 or more years fearful of their same-sex relationship being revealed. If their secret came out they risked religious intolerance, ostracism, hate, violence, procedures like lobotomy and shock treatment, and even jail because of Australia’s anti-gay laws. Is it any wonder that they prefer to remain in the closet, especially if they are currently in nursing homes or rented accommodation? Prejudice, violence and intimidation haven’t faded away because late changes have been made to a raft of Australia’s discriminatory Commonwealth laws. Have Christian values suddenly changed? The Pope’s recent Christmas message puts paid to that query when he mentioned homosexuality and climate change as man-made catastrophes that threaten the human race.
So why should Centrelink force all its same-sex pensioners out-of-the-closet when the logical avenue for change would be to do away with the outdated couple rate altogether and treat all pensioners singly? In which case, a grandfather wouldn’t be required either. Think of the savings in Centrelink investigations costs. It would also allow pensioner couples to spend more on essentials and support the ailing economy.
Your government currently is assessing Australia’s Future Tax System. We urge you to withdraw tax concessions from religious organisations. A religious organisation which could prove part of it to be a genuine charity, then that part could retain its tax concession but only that part. Any cost to the government of doing away with the couple rate, recommended in the previous paragraph, would easily be recovered by the tax collected from withdrawing tax concessions from religious organisations.
It’s quite scandalous that in 2004 it was estimated that the 5 big churches in Australia had revenue of more than $21.7B (Business Review Weekly, 24-30 March 2005, Charity Inc, page 45). They are virtually unaccountable to even their adherents because they are not required to provide tax returns because of their tax exempt status or post a public statement annually showing their assets and income. One would think that at the least the Review Panel should be requested by your government to uncover the amount of revenue being annually lost due to the tax exempt status of the big five churches. After all, most of their property in our cities were gifts from colonial governors and don’t even attract rates like our properties and homes do.
If same-sex couples have to out themselves to Centrelink, why shouldn’t the churches have to reveal their financial income to the ATO and be taxed accordingly?
Signed: Kendall LovettInter~Section Part 1 - Introduction to Inter~Section
Inter~Section Part 2 - Information and Details
Inter~Section Part 3 - Gay, Lesbian, Transgender Ageing Issues
Inter~Section Part 3b - STUFF AGEISM! IT'S TIME TO GET ACTIVE
Inter~Section Part 3c - YOU DON'T HAVE TO ROLL UP YOUR BANNER WHEN YOU'RE SIXTY
Inter~Section Part 3d - ELDER ABUSE SUBMISSION
Inter~Section Part 3e - NOT ONLY AGEING, BUT GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDER, PEOPLE WITH HIV/AIDS
Inter~Section Part 4 - Darebin Council and Sexual Minority Issues
Inter~Section Part 5 - Links to documents and sites relating to Gay, Lesbian, Transgender Ageing and other Sexual Minority and Local Government Issues Inter~Section Part 6 - 2006 to 2009 UPDATES Inter~Section Part 7 - 2009 EQUAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN - PART 1 Inter~Section Part 8 - 2009 EQUAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS - PART 2 Inter~Section Part 9 - 2009 EQUAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS - PART 3 Inter~Section Part 10 - 2009 EQUAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS - PART 4GAY AND LESBIAN HATE CRIMES - BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RECOMMENDED READING LIST
Mannie De Saxe also has a personal web site, which may be found by clicking on the link: RED JOS: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM
Mannie's blogs may be accessed by clicking on to the following links:
MannieBlog (from 1 August 2003 to 31 December 2005)
Activist Kicks Backs - Blognow archive re-housed - 2005-2009
RED JOS BLOGSPOT (from January 2009 onwards)
This page updated 21 MAY 2014 and again on 16 AUGUST 2017
PAGE 128