| INTER |
|
SECTION |
A coalition of community health and welfare agencies has convinced the Federal Government to support a range of measures to ease the impact of new legislation affecting Centrelink payments to same-sex couples.
The measures are part of a package offered by the Commonwealth following lobbying from a broad coalition of more than 30 social welfare agencies and community health organisations led by ACON, the leading health promotion agency for NSW’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community and the Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE).
Highlights of the package include:
* a review of Centrelink policies of who is a member of a couple, including consultation with LGBT community representatives on the draft changesACON CEO Stevie Clayton says the measures are an important win for the GLBT community.
“The concessions we’ve obtained demonstrate that the Government has listened to us and now understands the harsh impact these reforms may have on many pensioners in same-sex relationships.”“While it’s disappointing that we could not achieve ‘grandfathering’ of these reforms – as has occurred with most such changes in the past – the fact that the Government is consulting GLBT representatives about changes to policy is a significant step forward and these concessions will have lasting impact in protecting the most vulnerable in our community.”
Ms Clayton says ACON is looking forward to working with the National LGBT Health Alliance and other community partners to deliver the national education campaign.
“It’s important to understand that the education campaign will not only cover the Centrelink reforms but will also help inform our community about the impact on their lives of the 85 pieces of Federal legislation that changed in 2008 – laws in relation to taxation, superannuation and family law.
“ACON has been advocating for this kind education campaign for some time, so we’re very pleased that the Government has finally recognised the importance of educating our community about their rights under all of the new laws.”
Ms Clayton says a national advisory group will be formed over the next few weeks to oversee the implementation of the education project.
”We’ll be calling for nominations from a range of community and welfare agencies across Australia to get a mix of knowledge and skills that will ensure this work meets the needs of the communities we serve.“
Organisations who would like to express their interest in contributing to the project advisory group should contact Nic Parkhill at ACON on (02) 9206 2000 or nparkhill@acon.org.au.
Full details of the Government package are available on the ACON website: www.acon.org.au
Members of the community who need help or information about Centrelink payments or practice should call the Welfare Rights Centre on 1800 226 028 or (02) 9211 5300.
The following measures are part of a package offered by the Commonwealth following lobbying from a broad coalition of more than 30 social welfare agencies and community health organisations including the ACON, Australian Coalition for Equality, the National LGBT Health Alliance, Positive Life NSW, the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, People with Disabilities and the Welfare Rights Centre.
A letter from Government is anticipated to be received within days outlining the below items. Further information about the broad coalition including the discussion paper presented to government may be found at www.acon.org.au/pensions.
1. A review of Centrelink’s policies and procedures in relation to who is a “member of a couple”. LGBT community representatives on the Community Reference Group will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft changes to policies. This update will provide clearer directions to Centrelink staff in assessing same-sex couples in a compassionate and caring manner.
2. Centrelink will provide information in Centrelink offices and websites for individuals to ‘self-assess’ if they are a member of a couple for Centrelink purposes. This will prevent members of same-sex couples having to ‘out themselves’ to Centrelink unnecessarily. This information will publicise the five factors Centrelink considers when assessing a member of a couple. Not all of these factors are required by Centrelink to determine if a person is a member of a couple. If a person determines they are in a same-sex relationship they will then need to declare their relationship to Centrelink.
3. It is important to note that not all same-sex living arrangements will be seen as a member of a couple for the purposes of Centrelink. Each situation is different and will use Centrelink policies to make a determination where someone is unsure or does not declare a relationship. Same-sex couples who are unsure if they are a member of a couple should speak with an independent service like Welfare Rights or ask Centrelink for an assessment rather than automatically declare their relationship. People who declare their relationship will not undergo an assessment to ensure they are actually a member of a couple.
4. Centrelink will conduct LGBT sensitivity training for all relevant staff involved in the same-sex changes. This training will assist Centrelink staff in dealing with same-sex couples in a respectful manner.
5. $350K will be provided to the National LGBT Health Alliance to deliver a national education project on the 2008 same-sex reforms. This campaign will be coordinated by ACON on behalf of the National LGBT Health Alliance and delivered in partnership with local LGBT service providers. A national advisory group will be created to inform and assist in the creation of the education campaign.
6. $100K will be provided to the Welfare Rights Network to provide advocacy for same-sex couples affected by Centrelink changes. Members of the community who need help or information about Centrelink payments or practice should call the Welfare Rights organisation in their state – www.welfarerights.org.au.
7. A person on Centrelink benefits who declares a same-sex relationship may have their payment reduced or stopped due to their partner’s income or assets. If a person retains a part-benefit they will retain their concession card. If their payment is stopped a concession card may be retained up to 13 weeks.
Government is not prepared to introduce grandfathering provisions that would keep existing pensioners on their current arrangements; nor would they alter the commencement date of 1 July 2009. They also have confirmed that individuals on Centrelink benefits will not be individually written to, due to the cost and inability to identify who may be in a same-sex relationship. Requests for concession cards to be retained beyond the 13-week period have also been knocked back.
Further discussions with government are occurring on the following issues:
* Introduction of a ‘debt-waiver period’ from 1 July 2009. This would provide for automatic waiving of a debt incurred by a person on a Centrelink payment who was unaware of the same-sex changes being introduced. This debt waiver period would not apply to a person who is determined to have deliberately defrauded the government by knowingly not declaring their relationship by 1 July 2009.Government will consider procedural mechanisms for couples to return to their original pension if their circumstances change within a short period of time following a member of a couple determination.
For more information or to arrange an interview or photo opportunity, please contact us.The Rudd government has agreed to a number of measures to ease the impact of changes to same-sex couples on Centrelink benefits. The measures were reached following lobbying by a broad coalition of over 30 groups led by the Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) and National Health Alliance member ACON.
Highlights of the government's undertakings were:
* a review of Centrelink policies of who is a member of a couple, including consultation with LGBT community representatives on the draft changesAustralian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Corey Irlam was encouraged by the outcome of weeks of negotiations.
"It is disappointing the government would not delay the 1 July 09 start date or 'grandfather' existing pensioners so they remained on their existing arrangements. The government explained their reasons and to their credit engaged in discussions about non-legislative solutions to our concerns." explained Mr Irlam
"The fact they are consulting LGBT representatives about the draft changes to policy is a significant step towards protecting the most vulnerable in our community."
Mr Irlam said was ACE was looking forward to working with National LGBT Health Alliance member ACON, and other community partners in delivering a "truly national campaign".
"The national campaign will help inform same-sex couples about the 85 laws changed in 2008. Not just in regards to Centrelink but also including taxation, superannuation and family law."
"ACE started lobbying for an education campaign before the law reforms were announced in 2008. ACE even made sure Mr Rudd heard our pleas by discussing the need for education at the public community cabinet in December."
"While it's disappointing that it took over 12 months, I'm pleased the government has finally recognised the importance of same-sex couples being educated about all of their new rights and responsibilities."
Mr Irlam said while some organisations may have played a more pivotal role than others it was the combined efforts of all 30-plus organisations that achieved the outcome with government.
"The combined efforts of the broad coalition show the types of outcomes our community can achieve when we work together." said Mr Irlam
"No single organisation could have done this alone; particularly given such a small timeframe between February to April to engage with government. Everyone should be congratulated, particularly those organisations from outside the LGBT community."
For further information contact Corey Irlam on 0401 738 996.The following measures are part of a package offered by the Commonwealth following lobbying from a broad coalition of more than 30 social welfare agencies and community health organisations including the Australian Coalition for Equality, the National LGBT Health Alliance, ACON, Positive Life NSW, the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, People with Disabilities and the Welfare Rights Centre.
A letter from Government is anticipated to be received within days outlining the below items. Further information about the broad coalition including the discussion paper presented to government may be found at www.acon.org.au/pensions.
1. A review of Centrelink's policies and procedures in relation to who is a "member of a couple". LGBT community representatives on the Community Reference Group will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft changes to policies. This update will provide clearer directions to Centrelink staff in assessing same-sex couples in a compassionate and caring manner.Government is not prepared to introduce grandfathering provisions that would keep existing pensioners on their current arrangements; nor would they alter the commencement date of 1 July 2009 for the same-sex social security reforms. They also have confirmed that individuals on Centrelink benefits will not be individually written to, due to the cost and inability to identify who may be in a same-sex relationship. Requests for concession cards to be retained beyond the 13-week period have also been knocked back.
Further discussions with government are occurring on the following issues:
* Introduction of a 'debt-waiver period' from 1 July 2009. This would provide for automatic waiving of a debt incurred by a person on a Centrelink payment who was unaware of the same-sex changes being introduced. This debt waiver period would not apply to a person who is determined to have deliberately defrauded the government by knowingly not declaring their relationship by 1 July 2009.In view of your joint media release with the Attorney-General Robert McClelland, issued on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, in which you say you are providing $450,000 for a community education campaign to inform same-sex couples about implications of recent reforms to legislation, we remain sceptical of its effectiveness. Certainly in relation to those Centrelink clients affected by the same-sex changes, it is doubtful that the impact of the reclassification of their pensions can be eased in the short space of time to the July 1st deadline.
Even if one takes into account the new informative website and the National Welfare Rights Network’s new legal advice on the same-sex reforms both yet to take effect, the truth of the matter is that the first official information on the changes by Centrelink to its clients was in the very late April issue of its News for Seniors publication. The delay is indeed unfair to Centrelink clients, the major losers in the same-sex reforms --not the winners.
Centrelink staff, even if they do further “sensitivity” training, have nothing practical to offer that would be a help to individuals suddenly on a reduced pension after being forced to declare that they are in a same-sex relationship. An orientation period before the opposite-sex couple rate cuts in ought to have been available to those existing same-sex clients who needed it. However, if that was to occur, undoubtedly the difference between the higher and the lower rates for the orientation period would have to be paid back to Centrelink. Not exactly compassionate or sensitive, we think, to pensioners who have been reassuring support for each other in retirement. Of course if the opposite-sex couple rate is dramatically increased in next week’s budget that may be a help.
As a matter of interest, does the quarterly News for Seniors get sent to any of Centrelink’s clients in convents and seminaries where retired nuns and retired priests see out their declining years? There must be many retirees in those Catholic establishments receiving pensions. Some of these people may well be in same-sex relationships. They would be unlikely to know of the same-sex reforms, let alone the July 1st outing day deadline, unless they receive the Centrelink quarterly publication. They do not see lesbian and gay newspapers to be aware of the debate in that quarter, we would think. Of course, the Government may consider them exempt from the same-sex changes like it does the religious tax-free institutions in which they have served for most of their lives.
Signed: Kendall Lovett,Thank you for your email of 30 March 2009 to Ihc Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, regarding the same-sex law reforms. The Minister has asked me to reply to you on her behalf.
During the 2007 election campaign the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, announced that legal discrimination against same-sex couples should be removed, including from social security law. The Government announced its intention to remove same sex discrimination, including in the area of social security, on 30 April 2008. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008 was subsequently tabled on 4 September 2008. The Government has staggered the commencement dates for the reforms to provide a period for individuals and couples to adjust to their new financial circumstances.
From December 2008, following the passage through Parliament of the Government's same-sex law reform package, Ccntrclink established a dedicated enquiry line for customers who may be affected by the same sex reform changes to discuss the changes and how their payments may be affected. The enquiry line number was publicised through a media release, and Centrelink has continued to provide information about the changes through the print media and also through participation in radio interviews, discussing what the changes mean for Centrelink customers. The Centrelink enquiry line number is 13 6280. Customers can choose to provide their details or enquire anonymously. Further information is also on the Centrelink website at: wwwr.centrelink.gov.au/intcri)et/inten]ct.nsf/individiials/same_sex.htm. In February 2009 community information kits were issued by Centrelink to various community organisations on Centrclink's extensive community mailing list system. These kits included fact sheets and information relevant to the changes for Centrelink customers.
The Australian Government has agreed to a funding package to complement Centrelink's extensive information campaign. The package includes funding for the National Welfare Rights Network and the development of a community education and advertising program to be developed and managed by the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Health Alliance in partnership with a number of community-based organisations.
Removing differential treatment will result in some same sex couples receiving benefits previously not accessible. Some examples include partner concession card benefits, social security bereavement payments if a partner dies, access to the Child Support Scheme, exemption of the family home from the assets test when one partner enters nursing home care and the other partner continues to reside there, recognition as independent for Youth Allowance if in a same sex relationship for over 12 months, Widow Allowance, War Widow or widowers pension, reversionary death benefits from Commonwealth government (defined benefit) superannuation schemes, access to the Medicare Safety Net and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety nets as a family, and tax concessions.
Equal treatment will result in some same sex couples having the benefits they currently receive reduced to be equal to the benefits received by opposite-sex couples in the same circumstances. For instance, members of a same sex couple will be paid the partnered rate of social security and family assistance and be subject to the income and assets tests that apply to couples. The different rates of payment and income and assets limits available to partnered and single people recognise the ability of couples to gain financial advantage by pooling their resources and sharing living costs.
Equity in treatment of all people under the law was the foundation of the Government's reforms. Grandfathering of benefits would require the continuation of differential treatment in Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexuality. In this way, grandfathering would undermine the purpose of the Government's reforms.
Grandfathering would also result in differential treatment between same-sex couples in the same circumstances depending on whether they met the 'grandfather' clause. As a consequence, some same sex couples would be assessed as a couple while other same-sex couples would be assessed as single.
In relation to the changes to social security and family assistance, current Ccntrelink customers and new claimants will have a three-month period from 30 March 2009 during which they can voluntarily declare to Ccntrelink that they arc in a same-sex dc facto relationship and discuss the likely impact of the changes on payments and services they receive. From 1 July 2009 customers must advise Ccntrelink if they are in a same-sex de facto relationship.
The Centrelink Financial Information Service (FIS) can also help people prepare for any financial impact of the reforms. FIS officers can help people to understand their own financial affairs and the options available to make more informed financial decisions and plan for the future. FIS is a free service, and an appointment can be arranged by calling 13 2300.
Centrelink social workers are also available to provide counselling, support and referral services as needed. People who are already experiencing personal financial difficulties, or are concerned that the changes might create personal financial difficulties for them, or their partner, may want to seek advice from an accredited community-based financial counsellor. Financial counsellors provide free, independent advice and assistance. People can contact a financial counselling organisation direct or can ask a Centrelink social worker to arrange an appointment. An appointment to see a social worker can be made by calling Centrelink on 13 1021. For details of organisations that provide financial counselling services visit the FaHCSIA website: www.fahcsia.gov.au.
Centrelink understands that it may be difficult for customers to declare their relationships and they will be training their staff specifically in regard to the same sex law reforms.
The training will include dealing with sensitivities felt by this particular customer group. Centrelink has extensive measures in place to protect people's confidentiality. Centrelink is bound by its legal obligation to comply with the Privacy Act 1988 as well as to abide by the numerous confidentiality provisions contained in the legislation that they administer. Acts which have such confidentiality provisions are the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. The confidentiality provisions govern access to, use and disclosure of customer information. There are severe penalties for employees who breach the confidentiality provisions. These include penalties under various legislation {including the Crimes Act 1914) of up to two years imprisonment; facing sanctions under the Public Senice Act 1999 which attract disciplinary measures such as fines, demotions or dismissal; and contracted employees may have their contracts terminated.
Centrelink customers who have fears regarding their privacy may choose alternative arrangements with Centrelink which could include completing their business at any office in person, communication by phone or using the mail system.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerelyThe Rudd Government’s 2009 budget put forward the proposal to change retirement age from 65 to 67. What follows is an analysis of condescension, discrimination, homophobia, double standards and hypocrisy, to name some of the issues, from this government and its responses to the introduction of same-sex legislation in December 2008.
Dishonesty in the advertisement stating that couples are couples whether they are gay or straight is not only dishonest, it is an outright lie, and the government knows it too. It reflects the fact that the Advertising Standards organization, as operated in Australia, is a toothless tiger. The lie is that straight couples are able to register their relationships while gay couples are not – this is discrimination and homophobia!
The first item to examine in this litany of deceit is the matter of how the government has approached the proposed change of retirement age from 65 to 67.
An article in The Age newspaper on Wednesday 13 May 2009 reports that “. . . the Government will lift the pension age from 65 to 67 within 15 years and claw back more money faster from future pensioners who earn other income.” “Pension age to be lifted from 65 from 2017, rising by six months every two years, until 67 in 2023.”
“To start in September (2009), the increase will be worth $32.49 a week for singles (pensioners) and $10.14 per couple.”
The pension age increase is, in effect, grandfathered, meaning that between now and 2017, a period of 8 years, people who will become pensioners at that time will have been given 8 years’ notice of changes to occur.
Contrast this with the situation for the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities who have not only been given only 8 MONTHS’ notice of dramatic changes to financial circumstances in their lives after a lifetime of having known they were discriminated against but were subject to ongoing governmental homophobia, by virtue of the fact that many, now in their 70s, 80s and older, will be “outed” by an irresponsible and reckless government who care nothing for these communities. The laws were promulgated in December 2008, and are due to come into effect on 1 July 2009, with the government agency Centrelink being able to pry into the private lives of some of the most vulnerable members of our society in order to find out whether they are singles or couples
The most dishonest part of the government’s “couples are couples” advertisement is the fact that straight couples are able to register their relationships with civil or religious marriage rites, whereas GLTH couples are denied this basic human right and therefore show the government’s hypocrisy and lies by stating that “couples are couples”.
The next part of this behaviour is the statement by government that the same-sex legislative changes will be promoted through the media on a regular basis from December 2008 to July 2009. So far the straight media have been very silent on the issue other than the false and misleading advertisement with “gay and straight toothbrushes” which is also as demeaning as it is false.
In a letter written on 11 May 2009 from the office of the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the following is the second paragraph:
“During the 2007 election campaign the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, announced that legal discrimination against same-sex couples should be removed, including from social security law. The Government announced its intention to remove same-sex discrimination, including in the area of social security, on 30 April 2008. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Bill 2008 was subsequently tabled on 4 September 2008. The Government has staggered the commencement dates for the reforms to provide a period for individuals and couples to adjust to their new financial circumstances”.
So, 8 months is considered a “period for individuals and couples to adjust to their new financial circumstances” after a lifetime of discrimination and restrictions on financial arrangements for people in same-sex relationships, but 8 years is considered a reasonable time for working people to make arrangements for their retirement years in 2017.
This is homophobia writ large – not surprising considering other actions by this government to prevent equality by every means available by stating in the strongest possible terms that there will be no registration of same-sex couples federally, thus ensuring inequality remains entrenched, thus contradicting Rudd’s statement that “legal discrimination against same-sex couples should be removed, including from social security law.”
Considering that the government has no idea whatever of the numbers of GLTH couples there are in the community, how are they able to assess the costs to government of the changes about to take place in 6 weeks’ time? This is their method of ruining the lives of countless old and vulnerable people who know very little of what is happening with legislative changes and who will be in great difficulties when Centrelink starts prying into their lives.
No members of this government have publicly addressed this issue in any way and have refused to consider the grandfathering that has been requested of them.
Homophobia and hypocrisy will continue to dog the elderly, frail, disabled and impoverished in the GLTH communities in the days, weeks, months and years to come.
This government should be ashamed of the way it has handled these legislative changes.
Many community organisations were not consulted and it is dishonest to say that there were consultations across the board, and the most vulnerable were not consulted at all!
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.The next phase of the campaign!!!!!:
LET'S BE HONEST!
Centrelink could protect its vulnerable lesbian and gay pensioners. Phase-in 'coming out' The federal treasurer plans to phase-in the age increase from 65 to 67 over six years but is denying a fair 'grand-father' cxemption deal to pensioners in same-sex relationships
. Instead of making attofut come out by July 1st this year, why can't the Government be even-handed and allow ut to do it in easy stages? Here's how Centrelink could do it for all its GLBT clients.
Aged 65 to 69: 1 July '09 to30 June'10;The Rudd Government's concessions to Centrelink''s Aged and Disability pensioners in same-sex relationships are insulting to gays and lesbians. All their lives these elders have had to wear the stigma of being 2nd class citizens and paid top-rate Income tax without benefits and entitlements enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Even de facto out-of-wed couples haven't had to endure Vilification. Violence, even Murder, Agents Provocateur and Criminal Law! for their lifestyle like lesbians and gay men.
Even now, our governments aren't ready to recognise homophobia or the wrongs they have perpetuated by anti-gay laws for the last 100 years.
Give us a break from your homophobic tax-exempt nffgJoui A ultra Han rating minority!
It seems Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne is not the only group showing concerns about the proposed budget 2009 measure which will see the pension age rise from 65 to 67 but only commence in 8 years time – in 2017, according to the government’s figures.
Changes to same-sex relationship legislation, passed through parliament in December 2008 will commence in July 2009, allowing 8 months for people who have been discriminated against all their lives for being gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV/AIDS (GLTH) members of the community.
This is not just a case of double standards – the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have uttered all sorts of justifications for the pension age changes to occur later rather than sooner – to allow people to adjust – but have refused to grandfather the legislation concerning elderly and disabled GLTH people, because it will make differentiations in those receiving benefits.
Do you hear the hypocrisy ringing in your ears??
Be sure of one thing – GLTH pensioners still have the vote and know how to mark their papers when they go into the polling booths around the country and many have long memories too!
And to add further to the contempt in which the current government holds GLTH people, the latest Centrelink advertisements for telling us that couples are couples – the blatant lie continues! – now show two sets of towels in place of the toothbrushes!
It is not only crass, it is downright insulting!
We always knew that the ALP was homophobic, but we didn’t know how bad they were until this whole episode started in 2008 – and the Rudd government is doing us favours?
We want equality, and equality only has one meaning, unlike in Dr Verwoerd’s South Africa where the Bantustans were “separate but equal”! Rudd’s Australia perpetuates the Verwoerd myth of “separate but equal”.
New laws mean couples have to tell Centrelink about their relationship from 1 July 2009.
Changes to the law mean Centrelink will recognise same-sex relationships from 1 July 2009.
Centrelink customers who are living in a same-sex de facto relationship will be recognised as partnered and assessed in the same way as opposite-sex couples.
If you are a member of a Same-sex couple, you are required by law to advise Centrelink from 1 July 2009, to ensure you receive the correct payment. Because couples are couples.
To iJ»eln* your relationship or find out what the changes mean to you (Hi(Hi 13 62SO or vtall a Canlrittn* CuUww StrHci Centre.
¦tl al I a .a a v.aui i a mc i c ¦ r c tor m ¦Sexual abuse is already taking place by the Federal Government before the same-sex relationships Bill reforms, passed by the government in December 2008, come into effect on 1 July 2009.
Elderly, infirm, frail, unemployed, those living with HIV/AIDS members of our communities are about to be legislatively, but illegally, outed by the government because they have to declare any same-sex relationships they are in.
Those failing to declare such relationships, and found to be living as same-sex partners, will be penalized by Centrelink in various ways, because the government has refused to provide a grandfather clause for this legislation, the first of its kind in Australian history. The legislation has not been properly thought through by the government, and they want to get it out of the way as soon as possible before the next election is due in about 18 months time so that they will get the gay vote – so they believe.
However, those numerous community members – not forgetting that so far they have not been identified by any government statistics to show how many couples there are – will be found by various means on Centrelink’s database connections, and their private lives will be exposed to the public gaze.
This constitutes sexual abuse of these community members when they are at their most vulnerable and many will be unable to defend their situations. In other words, after lifetimes of discrimination, abuse, homophobia and bullying – just some of the aspects of the lives they have led for the past 40 or more years, when homosexuality was illegal throughout Australia, specifically for gay males, they will now have their sex lives exposed and vilified by the very government which is supposed to be introducing “equalizing” reforms for the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) members of our communities.
It is quite obvious that the government expected a backlash if they introduced the change to pension age from 65 to 67 without a lead-in time, and have stated that that time will be about 8 years before the changes are GRADUALLY introduced. The backlash from the GLTH communities doesn’t worry them at all.
Well, it worries us, and we will remember that we are not considered worthy of consideration when it comes to so-called equality legislation.
To compound the illegality of the government’s position, it has refused categorically to provide marriage recognition to same-sex relationships, while touting the “fact” that gays and lesbians are now the same sorts of couples as heterosexual couples – another blatant lie. The Centrelink advertisements, first with toothbrushes, then with towels, are demeaning and disgraceful, because the advertisements state “couples are couples” but decline to show two gay or lesbian people on one side in an advertisement and male and female people in the other side of the advertisement.
It is not too late for the government to provide a grandfather clause and provide peace of mind to elderly, frail, disadvantaged, unemployed, ill people in the GLTH communities and show they are able to be humane after all, at considerable savings financially to the whole community in health services, both mental and physical.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
Northern Star, Lismore 6th June 2009 Bitter-sweet win for same-sex couple
COSTLY VICTORY: Deirdre Dowsett and Elaine Fregar, of Lismore, will be worse off financially under new legislation that recognises same-sex couples for Centrelink payments.
THEY'VE waited decades for official recognition, but now it's finally arrived it leaves them worse off.
In less than a month, same-sex couples will be recognised for the first time by Centrelink, in line with heterosexual partners.
The July 1 changes will affect any gay or lesbian couple that receives social security or family assistance payments.
Lismore couple Elaine Fregar and Deirdre Dowsett, who have spent much of their adult lives facing official and financial discrimination, applaud the recognition.
But in a bitter-sweet irony, overnight it will also make them around $10,000 a year worse off. “Having been discriminated against by the lack of legislation for so long, we're being discriminated against basically by mistake,” Ms Dowsett said.
Ms Fregar, who receives government benefits for six months each year and has a Centrelink health care card, will now have her partner's income taken into account and will lose money as a result.
“For people of our age who have mortgages, suddenly this is going to make a huge hole in our incomes,” Ms Dowsett said.
“My income is high enough to mean that Elaine couldn't get Centrelink, but low enough that we will struggle.”
Ms Fregar said when she first began receiving benefits, she registered her status as a de facto, but was told not to because the agency did not acknowledge her relationship.
After a while, she stopped bothering, she said.
The couple, who are both in their 60s, have been together for nine years and know 'dozens' of other couples who will be affected by the changes in a similar way.
They unsuccessfully lobbied government for a transition period for the changes, as has been applied to the raising of the pension age.
It is all very well for Centrelink to insist that its privacy charter is secure, but how can Centrelink prevent its fearful age and disability pensioners in a same-sex relationship being `outed´ against their will in the public arena?
Centrelink may think it is able to guarantee no leak of a pensioner´s same-sex relationship status by its staff but from the very first reduced couple payment the pensioner receives after 1st July, the financial institution --be it a bank or a credit union-- which the pensioner nominated to receive pension payments, will be well aware of the pensioner´s new status. Don´t tell me that they won´t put two- and-two together especially if the pensioner is in a nursing home or boarding house run by a religious organisation.Centrelink is forcing them by 1st July this year to identify themselves and even if one of them is not a pensioner the other has to identify his or her partner to Centrelink. This, the Government says, is only so that the correct pension payment may be made. But that violates basic human rights every bit as much as disclosing someone´s HIV/AIDS status because the same-sex partner will then be investigated on his or her financial status and the pensioner partner may have his or her pension stopped until the investigation is completed. Is that fair treatment of people who were partners prior to the advent of gay liberation and may have lived their entire lives without revealing their sexuality? Coming out at this time in their lives may not be a feasible option for them.
I remain appalled that this government hasn´t recognised why elderly lesbians and elderly gay men haven´t been open about their sexuality, why they have stayed in the closet. Their fear is genuine. In most cases they have faced ostracism, violence and discrimination throughout their long lives. Forget the highly illusionary benefits of the couple rate to these elderly people, who are you to demand that they surrender their cover so you can just add another discriminatory dimension to the twilight of their lives?
Where´s your Government´s wondrous compassion mentioned today by the Governor General at the swearing-in of new ministers?
Enclosed is a copy of a leaflet doing the rounds. It would be as well if you and the Government took note of its contents because it´s still not too late to change the `no grandfather´ decision.
Sincerely,The federal treasurer plans to phase-in the age increase from 65 to 67 over six years but is denying a fair `grand- father´ exemption deal to pensioners in same-sex relationships. Instead of making all of us come out by July 1st this year, why can´t the Government be under- standing and allow us to do so in easy stages? Here´s how Centrelink could do it for us --its GLBT clients.
Aged 65 to 69: 1 July´09 to 30 June´10;The Rudd Government´s concessions to Centrelink´s Aged and Disability pensioners in same-sex relationships are insulting to gays and lesbians. All their lives these elders have had to wear the stigma of being 2nd class citizens and paid top-rate income tax without benefits and entitlements enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Even de facto out-of-wed couples haven´t had to endure Vilification, Violence, even Murder, Agents Provocateur and Criminal Laws for their lifestyle like lesbians and gay men. Even now, our governments aren´t ready to recognise homophobia or the wrongs they have perpetuated by anti-gay laws for the last 100 years.
Thank you for your email of 7 April 2009 lo ihe Minister for Families, I lousing. Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP. about the same-sex law reforms. The Minister has asked me to reply to you on her behalf. I apologise for the delay in responding.
In 2006. the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission conducted a National Inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships in the area of financial and work-related entitlements. The Inquiry held public hearings and community forums around Australia and received 680 submissions. Many same-sex couples giving evidence to the Inquiry were acutely aware that social security laws sometimes worked in their favour-Almost all of those couples suggested that they would happily give up those advantages if they were treated equally through all federal laws.
The 2007 published report of the Inquiry explained in detail the impact on social security and family assistance payments of implementing the report's recommendations lo ensure that same-sex and opposite-sex couples enjoy the same financial entitlements.
The Government understands that many other older lesbian women and gay men have experienced disadvantage and some are in vulnerable situations. The same-sex law reforms changes are very significant. In recognition of this, the Government is working closely and consulting with representatives of the National Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual and Transgender Health Alliance on funding community organisations to assist same-sex couples adjust to the changes.
One of the outcomes of that consultation was Centrelink convening on 14 November 2008 the Removal of Same-Sex Discrimination Community Reference Group (CRG) with representation from a wide range of welfare, disability and lesbian, gay. bisexual and transgender community organisations and government agencies. The CRG has continued to meet since then. The CRG provides valuable input on a wide range of policy and implementation matters.
From I December 2008. following the passage through Parliament of the Bill. Centrelink established a dedicated enquiry line for customers who may be affected by the same-sex reform changes to discuss the changes and how their payments may be affected. The enquiry line number was publicised through a media release. From December 2008. Centrelink has continued to provide information about the changes through the print media, participation in radio interviews, discussing what the changes mean for Centrelink customers, and on the Centrelink website.
From March 2009. articles have been published in Centrelink and non-Centrelink publications. From 30 March 2009. Centrelink information campaign includes advertising across a wide variety of media, including national newspapers and magazines, gay and lesbian press, radio, selected internet sites and Indigenous and multicultural press and radio. Hie campaign informs people about changes to recognise same-sex relationships and encourages customers to contact Centrelink if they are in a same-sex relationship.
Centrelink staff are undertaking gay and lesbian awareness training to enhance their capability to respond to customer's disclosure in an understanding and appropriate manner. Centrelink engaged the services of a professional trainer from Gay and Lesbian 1 leallh Victoria to develop the training package and prepare internal Centrelink trainers to deliver this training to all Centrelink Customer Service staff.
Centrelink has extensive measures in place to protect people's confidentiality. Centrelink is bound by its legal obligation to comply with the Privacy Act 1988 as well as to abide by the numerous confidentiality provisions contained in the legislation that they administer. Acts which have such contidentiality provisions are the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. The contidentiality provisions govern access to use and disclosure of customer information. There arc severe penalties for employees who breach the contidentiality provisions. These include penalties under various legislation (including the Crimes Act 1914) of up to two years imprisonment, facing sanctions under the Public Service Act 1999 which attract disciplinary measures such as lines, demotions or dismissal, and contracted employees may have their contracts terminated.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerelySame-sex couples who receive Government benefits have been reminded to register their relationship with Centrelink before law reforms come into effect on July 1. Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said the law changes ensured opposite and same-sex couples were recognized equally in social security and family assistance payments. Phone 13 6280. Details: centrelink.gov.au
Complaint sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman:
Centrelink advertisements showing toothbrushes and towels representing same-sex and heterosexual couples are inaccurate, demeaning and insulting to all concerned, and do not show human beings at whom the advertisements are directed. The advertisements are dishonest and distressing to same-sex couples who have had to remain closeted for most of their lives due to discrimination, abuse, insult and homophobia. Same-sex couples are NOT the same as heterosexual couples - they are not permitted to register their relationships in the same way and it is a lie to suggest otherwise.
Centrelink is about to expose - illegally - those who have not been able to be open about their relationships all their lives, and they will now be "outed" by a process sanctioned by the federal government and its agencies. The advertisements must be stopped and withdrawn, and apologies issued publicly for the harm and abuse directed at elderly, disabled, unemployed and otherwise disadvantaged members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) members of our communities.
Advertisement withdrawn and apologies issued for breaches of privacy and misleading and dishonest advertising.
This letter is assumed to be dated somewhere around 22 June 2009, because the person signing the letter couldn't be bothered to check whether the day had been put in or not!
Australian Government Attorney-General's DepartmentI refer to your e-mail of 20 May 2009 to the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, regarding the Government's same-sex law reforms. Your e-mail was referred to the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP. as it concerns matters that fall within his portfolio responsibilities. The Attorney-General has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Government's same-sex reform package amends 84 Commonwealth laws to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families in areas such as taxation, superannuation, social security, health, aged care, veterans' entitlements, workers* compensation, employment entitlements, immigration, child support and family law. The reforms have come into effect progressively, with all reforms being implemented by 1 July 2009.
Removing discrimination will result in some same-sex couples receiving benefits previously not accessible, for example, exemption of the family home from the assets test when one partner enters nursing home care and the other partner continues to reside there, liqual treatment will also mean that the benefits thai some same-sex couples currently receive may be reduced to be equal to the benefits received by opposite-sex couples in the same circumstances. The different rates of payment and income and assets limits available to partnered and single people recognise the ability of couples to gain financial advantage by pooling their resources and sharing living costs.
Grandfathering of benefits would require the continuation of differential treatment on the basis of sexuality in Commonwealth legislation. In this way. grandfathering would undermine the purpose of the Government's reforms.
The Attorney-General's Department, along with the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Centrelink and other relevant agencies have been consulting with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community and welfare representatives to ensure that the concerns of affected community members are carefully considered in the implementation stage.
The Australian Government will provide $450,000 for a community education campaign to inform same-sex couples about implications of recent reforms to legislation. As part of the package, the Attorney-General has committed $100,000 to the National Welfare Rights Network to assist Centrelink customers with independent and confidential legal information and advice about the same sex reforms and also to assist relevant sendee providers understand and assist their clients with queries about the reforms.
Regarding the issue of relationship registration, the Australian Government supports the development of nationally consistent, stale-based relationship recognition that includes the opportunity for committed same-sex couples to have their relationships registered.
The same-sex reform package inserts a definition of 'de facto partner' into the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 that is gender neutral and applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. It also provides that a person is a de facto partner of another if they are in a 'registered relationship1. The intention is to recognise relationships registered under State and Territory laws. This definition of 'de facto partner' will be used in many Commonwealth laws to provide a more consistent approach to the recognition of these relationships. Currently the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Tasmania have relationship registration schemes that are recognised under the Acts Interpretation Act.
I trust this information will be of assistance.
Thank you for bringing your views to the Government's attention.
Yours sincerely
We received a letter today, 24 June 2009 from the Attorney General’s Department from the Social Inclusion Division. The letter is dated June 2009 without a day given in the date. The letter is in reply to my letter of 20 May to the Prime Minister, and referred to the Attorney General because the matter raised falls within his portfolio responsibilities.
The following paragraph explains why the Government has refused to provide a grandfather clause in the new same-sex legislation coming into force on 1 July 2009:
“Grandfathering of benefits would require the continuation of differential treatment on the basis of sexuality in Commonwealth legislation. In this way, grandfathering would undermine the purpose of the government’s reforms.”
We have been subjected to a barrage of these sorts of explanations since the legislation was passed in December 2008. Subsequent to this date, the Government, in its budget of May 2009 announced that it would change pension age from 65 to 67 starting in 8 years time and being incrementally introduced over a period of six years, so that it would not be a shock move on people due to retire in the next few years, and would give them time to adjust to the changes.
When it was pointed out to the Government that it seemed that double standards applied here, we received the standard reply about differential treatment relating to sexuality.
On top of these insults to people who have been discriminated against for most of their working lives due to ongoing homophobia by governments and the community, we now get further discrimination on the basis, yet again, of sexuality.
Because the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities represent a minority in our communities who do not appear to have enough voting strength to challenge the government, these people are again being discriminated against.
In their Centrelink advertisements, which are a disgrace because they are demeaning, dehumanizing and are blatantly dishonest because they state “Couples are Couples” meaning gay and straight couples will get the same treatment from Centrelink, they fail to acknowledge that straight couples can register their relationships at any time, but gay people can’t and are therefore not able to access equal treatment and discrimination continues.
Grandfathering would only undermine the purpose of the Government’s reforms because their homophobia does not allow them to contemplate that it would only be for a few years as the changes which the GLTH communities did not expect to achieve in their lifetimes were phased in to allow younger members of those communities to adjust to the legislative changes.
Peter de Waal sent us this letter which he sent to the Sydney Morning Herald and to several politicians in Canberra. Peter has requested that we send this on to all concerned people and also to the Melbourne gay papers, and this we will proceed to do.
From: Peter de WaalWhat a difference only six months and twenty odd days make for the estimated 11,000 lesbian and gay Centrelink dependants being affected by the ‘equal treatment in commonwealth laws’.
Wednesday 1 July 2009 will be long remembered in Australian history as the day the most vulnerable of our community, lesbian and gay Centrelink dependants, suffered dreadfully unjust discrimination. Ironically, almost to the day, it coincides with the 40th anniversary (28 June 1969) of the New York Stonewall riots – the commencement of the modern homosexual rights movement.
The unfair social security implementation strategy of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reform) Bill 2008 has completely overshadowed, for us, the equality the modern Australian homosexual movement started working towards almost 40 years ago with the establishment of CAMP Inc in Sydney. We were foundation members.
The above reform bill was tabled 4 September 2008 and signed into law on 9 December 2008. We were given to prepare for drastic (in our case 15%) income reduction only from December 2008 to 1 July 2009, which is just over six months.
In August 2008 when we started lobbying the Rudd Government for a longer Centrelink implementation period we didn’t believe that we could point to discrimination. But when in the May 2009 federal budget’s announcement of the gradual age increase (from 1 July 2017 and ending 1 July 2023) from 65 to 67, for the old age pension, came we believed that our meagre, and mean, SIX months adjustment period to be discriminatory.
It was not surprising to read that fewer than 1,400 people registered their same-sex relationship with Centrelink towards the end of June 2009. Anecdotal evidence shows that some same sex couples have separated to avoid extreme poverty instead of mere poverty. Centrelink dependent same sex couples’ income was, before the so called ‘equality legislation’, already only half of Australian weekly earnings.
A Labor MHR confessed during a lobbying meeting with us, to the fact that the MP "wished they [the Labour party] had got this [the social security implementation strategy] right in the first place". This view was obviously ignored in the party room.
Recently, when the Federal parliamentary electoral allowances were substantially increased we were tempted to ask our local member if we could go on her payroll to supplement our comparatively low income and soon to be drastically reduced income!
Finally, we’re looking forward to federal parliamentarians, and particularly Government members, standing up very soon, as Russell Broadbent recently did, when he spoke on 25 June 2009 about the abolition of the Detention Debt Bill:
"I find that this legislation was wrongheaded when it was introduced …" He continued, "God forgive me that I was part of the parliament that did that, which caused so much distress to so many … " Further saying "But what is it to the people that it affects? It is everything. It is their wellbeing and, to many, it's their honour—after all they have been through …" He concluded: "There have to be some that will stand up for the most vulnerable in our community and consider their position, whoever they are …"
Peter Bonsall-Boone & Peter de Waal, Balmain.We received the following items today, 1 July 2009, following our phone call to Centrelink on 26 June 2009:
CentrelinkThank you for contacting us regarding your relationship status. Changes to social security and family assistance legislation to recognise same-sex couples will take effect from 1 July 2009.
To make sure you are receiving the correct rate of payment we need more information about your circumstances.
Please complete the enclosed form and return it to us in the reply paid envelope by 17 July 2009. While it is not mandatory for you to provide this information before 1 July 2009, you may volunteer to do so. Providing it by this date will assist us in the timely assessment of your payments.
Once we receive your completed form, your payments will be reassessed from 1 July 2009 using the information you and your partner have provided. If there is a change to your payments you will be notified in writing.
Your personal information is protected by law and can only be released to someone else in special circumstances, where Commonwealth legislation authorises or requires, or where you give your permission. If you have concerns about your personal information, call us or come in and see us. We will advise you of your rights to see and amend your information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. If you are still not satisfied, you can contact the Privacy Commissioner on 1300 363 992. If you have a hearing or speech difficulty, you can contact the Privacy Commissioner using a Teletypewriter (TTY) phone on 1800 620 241.
If you would like more information, or to notify us of any changes to the information you have provided, please call us on the number shown at the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely
This letter was not signed, which indicates the contempt Centrelink has for its "customers"/"clients"! A typical federal government effort!
We received this letter today - yet another example of the Federal Government's contempt and homophobia, and their disgusting behaviour continues!:
Australian GovernmentThank you for your email of I April 2009 to the former Minister for Human Services, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig regarding the same sex information campaign. The Hon Chris Bowcn was sworn in as Minister for Human Services on 9 June 2009 and I have been asked to respond on the Minister's behalf I apologise for the delay in responding.
I acknowledge your list of issues relating to the Government's launch of the 'Couples arc Couples' same sex information campaign, which you raised in your correspondence. As most of these refer to policy and legislation, I have forwarded your letter to the Department of Families, Housing. Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for consideration.
You may be interested to know Centrelink staff have undertaken gay and lesbian awareness training. Centrelink engaged the services of a professional trainer from Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria, who has worked wilh Centrelink to develop the training package and prepared internal Centrelink trainers to deliver this training. Each trainer has undertaken a trainer familiarisation course. The gay and lesbian awareness training is only one component of training in preparation for the introduction of the removal of same-sex discrimination changes and will complement program training.
I also note your concerns about maintaining privacy when waiting in queues. Centrelink has introduced Customer Liaison Officers whose role is to enquire into the nature of a customer's concerns while they are queuing in order to stream them to the appropriate service point. Where possible, a Customer Liaison Officer will immediately deal with the enquiry or ask customers with longer enquiries lo be seated and then be seen by a Customer Service Adviser. This process assists in reducing wait times. Where a customer feels uncomfortable with divulging personal information in the queue, they can ask to be seen by a Customer Service Adviser at a desk or in an office.
Once again, thank you for writing. I trust my comments have been of some assistance.
Yours sincerelyThank you for your email and the feedback you provided about Centrelink's 'couples are couples' information campaign.
I acknowledge your comments about the images used in the campaign, however I can assure you they were chosen after extensive testing through market research and consultation with gay and lesbian community groups. Our messages were also tested in this way to ensure they were sensitive to the audience. The campaign started on 30 March 2009 and ended on 30 June 2009, and was a key component in Centrelink's strategy to inform customers, and potential customers, about the impact of these important reforms.
I would like to make the point that the factsheets and information products created to provide supporting information about these changes to gay and lesbian couples did feature images of same-sex couples and families. These were readily available in Centrelink offices, at stalls we held at community events and on our website. We recognise the diverse nature of modem Australian families and Centrelink publications are designed with this in mind. Information about the way Centrelink assesses all defacto relationships, whether between members of the same or opposite sex, is now featured in customer letters, forms and publications.
I acknowledge same-sex couples face different issues in declaring their relationships to us - that's why Centrelink established the dedicated enquiry line for same-sex customers to call for information. Calls for information can be made anonymously if customers prefer.
As a result of these reforms all defacto couples will be treated the same way for Centrelink and family assistance purposes. Under the law, Centrelink will assess all couples using the same criteria, regardless of whether those couples are of the same or opposite sex. These reforms form one part of a series of changes the Australian Government has introduced to ensure same-sex couples and their families receive equal access to payments and services. I certainly understand the concerns you raised about couples being 'outed' as a result of these reforms, and the question of privacy has been raised during several radio interviews I have done on the reforms.
Our staff are bound by strict privacy and confidentiality guidelines and face penalties if they fail to adhere to those at all times. Centrelink takes privacy very seriously and customers can feel assured any information they provide to us will be protected.
Centrelink is committed to ensuring all customers, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, are treated with dignity and respect. Customer service staff completed training in the lead up to the implementation of these reforms, which featured components on privacy and gay and lesbian awareness. Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria developed this training.
Centrelink has also worked closely with a community reference group comprised of gay and lesbian, HIV AIDS and other advocacy groups, to ensure these reforms are implemented in a sensitive way.
For more information, please call the dedicated enquiry line on 13 6280, go to www.centrelink.gov.au
or visit your local Customer Service Centre.
with nauseating repetition and more sexual apartheid! We are different but we are the same!!
Interview with Doug Pollard - Freshly Doug on Joy Radio about Fairfield AIDS Memorial Garden
The interview also includes information about the SPAIDS plantings, and the second half discusses the federal government's homophobia in relation to same-sex relationships issues.
Thank you for your letter of 17 September 2009 to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, and the Minister for Human Services, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, regarding same-sex couples. This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of Minister Macklin, and she has asked me to reply to you on her behalf. I apologise for the delay in responding.
You arc seeking clarification as to why the Government did not introduce similar transition arrangements as there are for increases in the qualifying age for the Age Pension from 65 to 67 and for income test changes.
Those increases are not discriminatory. They apply in the same way to both men and women and do not discriminate on the basis of sexuality.
Removing discrimination based on sexuality has been a long time coming and is long overdue.
In 2006, the I Iuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission conducted a national inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships in the area of financial and work-related entitlements. The 2007 published report of the Inquiry explained in detail the impact on social security payments of implementing the report's recommendations to ensure that same-sex and opposite-sex couples and their children have the same financial entitlements.
The Government committed to same-sex law reform before the last election. During the 2007 election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, announced that legal discrimination against same-sex couples should be removed, including from social security law.
When the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP, announced these reforms on 30 April 2008, he explained the impact this would have on same-sex couples on a pension. Since then, there has been much discussion about this in the media, especially in Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgcnder media. The Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reform) Bill was introduced into Parliament on 4 September 2008. Given the potential for the reforms to reduce the benefits that some same-sex couples receive, the Government allowed for a lead-in time for the changes to social security and family assistance. Legislation was passed by Parliament in November 2008, and reforms applying to social security and family assistance commenced on I July 2009.
I appreciate your views on the Government's policy on same-sex marriage/civil unions. The Rudd Government is committed to ensuring that all couples, whether married or de facto, do not suffer discrimination. The Government's posilion is that the most appropriate way to achieve this is through the development of a nationally consistent framework that provides the opportunity for all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have their relationship officially recognised and equal rights for all couples in Federal and State laws. These reforms arc to be implemented consistently with our commitment to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerelyFor at least the past 20 years, the body has been a focus of considerable interest and study in sociology, history, and allied fields. As Deborah Lupton and others have observed, the strong emphasis on youth culture, physical prowess and ‘beauty’ in contemporary culture has meant that age has become a ‘negative cultural value’. Youth is now the most valued stage in the life cycle and, according to Michael Mittenauer, the young have now become society’s role models. If this is the case, and there seems little doubt that it is—notwithstanding the fact that the first of the baby-boomer generation are entering retirement—it would help explain why old age is rejected and why, according to Simone de Beauvoir, ‘Society looks upon old age as a kind of shameful secret that is unseemly to mention’.
In The Changing World of Gay Men, I developed the argument that nowhere in contemporary Western society is this emphasis on youthfulness more pronounced than in the gay world. I examined the gay ‘scene’—that site of physical display where young men are valorised for their youth and beauty—and then suggested that one might reasonably assume that old gay men would be rejected in the gay world for what they lacked in youthfulness or beauty. What my Australian interviewees told me was that indeed they felt marginalised in the gay world but that they were sanguine about their outcast status and in some cases pitied the young gay men their superficial preoccupations.
In Sex and Sensibility, Arlene Stein argues that as the lesbians she studied grew into middle age, their attachment to the non-heterosexual subculture changed: ‘as certainty about their lesbian identity grew, they … feel “at home” in the community with which they mainly identify, but also in numerous other contexts in which they participate and with which they feel some sense of identification’. Although I did not reach the same conclusion in The Changing World of Gay Men about the lives of the men from the middle and old cohorts, I find this persuasive. It helps explain why gay men in their mid-40s and older become less concerned with the values and practices of the gay world and tend to lead what Stein calls more ‘decentred’ lives.
The sample on which this paper is based comprises 21 gay men, aged 40 and older, ten of whom were from Australia and eleven of whom were from the United States. Of these men, two men were in their 70s (one from Hobart and one from New York City); three men were in their 60s (two from Hobart, one from New York City); ten men were in their 50s (four from Hobart, three from New York City. two from Sydney, one from Los Angeles); six men were in their 40s (four from New York City, one from Hobart, one from Los Angeles). The ten Australian men interviewed for this study were all white and with the exception of two upper-class men (one a descendant of rich pastoralists, the other a retired public service head of department), were mostly upper-middle class or middle class. The eleven interviewees from the United States mostly came from upper-middle class or middle-class backgrounds and included two African-American men, two men who were HIV positive, and two upper-class men, both of whom were professors.
The question that each man answered was, How does the general community regard old gay men, and how do other gay men see them? For the purpose of today’s paper, I am looking at the men’s answer to the second part of the question, that is, what views they believed other gay men to hold of old gay men.
In The Changing World of Gay Men, I made use of three ‘age cohorts’ to assist in my analysis of the three generations of gay men I interviewed. The reader who reviewed the proposal I sent to Palgrave Macmillan for a second book, tentatively entitled Ageing in the Gay World, suggested I widen the age cohort to include a second category of ‘young’ and allow more scope at the top end of the life course. The age cohorts I am thinking of using for this second book are as follows. ‘Very old gay men’ (85+); ‘old gay men’ (65–84); ‘old middle-aged gay men’ (55–64); ‘middle-aged gay men’ (40–54); ‘young gay men’ (30–39); ‘very young gay men’ (20s)
In answer to the question, How do other gay men see old gay men? the men interviewed for this study drew on two principal narratives and four subsidiary narratives. The two principal narratives the men used were first, that gay men were ageist because the gay world is youth obsessed and second, that the young gay men they personally knew were not ageist and respected them.
The four subsidiary narratives comprised stories about respecting old gay men, hustling as a conduit for beneficial relations between different generations of gay men, teenage gays being oblivious to anyone older than 20, and old gay men as predatory, ‘though this fourth subsidiary narrative was used by one interviewee only. The principal narratives are discussed in order in the following section.
The narrative stream connecting the stories of the interviewees who told of youthful obsession runs as follows. Parry (aged 63), who is African-American and lives in New York City, said ageism was symptomatic of the values of US society in general. Such a view corresponds to what Michel Foucault said about ageism in the gay world in the 1980s, which is that, ‘As to the worship of youthful bodies, I’m not convinced that it is peculiar at all to gays or in any way to be regarded as a pathology’.
Unlike other interviewees who raised the matter, Parry was neither dejected nor felt worthless because of ageist practices or beliefs. On the contrary, he said that it was understandable that there were sites on the internet where people under 40 were not welcome but he regarded this as the expression of a ‘preference’, not evidence of prejudice. Interestingly, Parry understood ageism differently from almost all the other men interviewed for this study, that is, as a preference for men over 40. ‘When I was younger’, he said, I liked older men and the older men now are younger men but they’re still the same age, in their 40s and 50s … I’ve always said I’ll always have somebody to have sex with and I carry that in my life now.
By contrast, and speaking for the majority of interviewees, Noel, a 58-year-old man from Hobart, saw ageism in the gay world as a valorising of the young and beautiful, a consequence of the gay lifestyle. ‘The image of being gay’, he said, ‘was a young man in his late teens or early 20s or an older man being able to look young’, which corresponded to what another interviewee, Ross, aged 54, said. Based in Hobart, Ross explained gay interest in youthfulness as follows.
There is certainly a culture in the gay community of appreciating beauty and youth and muscular development and athleticism. And because those tend to be more and better developed in young people, the focus is more on beauty of … young people. Five men from this group spoke of the negative consequences of the youthful obsession in the gay world. First, a group of three men said it meant that old men were seen as ‘not sexy’, in the words of Leslie, aged 74. Second, two men from the United States, both of whom were in their 40s, described a negative consequence that Australian gay men know as ‘mutton dressed as lamb’, that is, where middle-aged men try to appear younger than they are. Positive personal relations or experiences
Seven interviewees or one third of the men interviewed for this study reported positive relations or experiences with gay men who were younger than they. Four of these men were from Australia and three from the USA; one was in his 70s; two were in their 60s; three were in their 50s; and one was in his 40s.
Chief among the reasons the men gave for positive relations or experiences with younger gay men were (a) respect for the longevity of their relationships and (b) regard for their lived experience. The views of these men are represented by the accounts of Des, aged 50, who lives in Sydney, Parry, aged 63 who lives in the East Village in Manhattan and Earl, aged 51, who lives in the Bronx in Manhattan.
According to Des, the young gay men in his friendship circle admire what he, his partner, and their friends in long-term relationships have achieved.
They did not know that it was possible. They think that we are lucky to have experienced it and wonder if they will too. They ask what it was that we did to make our lives possible. We find ourselves being lovely mentors to young gay people.
Parry’s experience of good relations with young gay men occurred in the setting of his HIV counselling as a volunteer. Young gay men are, he said, ‘attracted to my age, my stories about what it was like in the 1960s and 1980s … or the piano bars’. Earl’s views on positive relations between old gay men and young men were based on the regard that he as a fifty-one-year-old has for old gay men. Earl was recently released from prison. According to him, life is tough for old gay men if they are not in his words, ‘big men’. It is possible that his time in prison coloured his understandings about old men. ‘There is a mystique’, he said if you are a powerful fellow, a successful one. God forbid that you’re not powerful because then you are definitely marginalised and you fade in the background. I know an 85-year-old fellow; he’s my father’s age; served in the War. He’s been married, has great grandchild now … He is now in a second marriage essentially—to a man. He’s had … a major career as … a corporate attorney … and he was … big, way up there … [but] not out until the end of a 30-year marriage. He had sex during the war with a guy. He writes about the whole thing in his book. It is quite a story and I have a great deal of respect for him. He lives with his lover in a penthouse apartment on Christopher Street … beautiful fireplace, massive terrace, gorgeous. He is very comfortably well off, very well regarded. His kids come back for his birthday parties …
One thing that struck me very strongly about gay life in certain districts of Manhattan was the greater ease with which relations were conducted between old gay men and young gay men. Sometimes money lubricated the social/sexual relations, sometimes not. But quite a sophisticated understanding seemed to exist of the give and take between young and old and I suspected a great deal less angst about it than exists in the gay world in Australia. Attitudes in Los Angeles are I suspect more like those in Australia. I wonder if the beach culture has something to do with the divide between young and old, for an interviewee from Los Angeles, Jude, aged 46, said that in West Hollywood, ‘there is a strong youth culture that they don’t even befriend older people’. One other possible explanation for the greater acceptance of age difference in Manhattan might be the very high price of real estate and consequent high cost of rent. For example, one interviewees said the rent for his bed-sitter in Manhattan was approximately $US3000 per month.
The narrative stream connecting the stories the interviewees told of youthful obsession linked the following points. First, that mainstream society has a history of ageism, which the gay world simply mirrors; second, that gay identity is associated with youthfulness; third, that consequences for gay men of the ageism that exists in the gay world are (a) old men being regarded as sexless and (b) middle-aged gay men trying to act as though they are 20; and fourth, that in the view of two men from this sample, the youthful obsession of gay men made growing older harder.
Stories of older gay men’s experiences of positive personal relations with young gay men points to evidence of their decentred lives, to use Arlene Stein’s phrase. That is, their lives are now less focused than they used to be on the social networks and institutions of the gay world and they can call on a wider variety of experiences and relationships to fill out their lives and identities.
GAY 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 on 21 MAY 2014 and again on 16 AUGUST 2017
PAGE 130