3 January 2009

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."

6 January 2009

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,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009.
From: Kendall Lovett,
Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (LGS) Melbourne,
PO Box 1675, Preston South Vic. 3072.

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,
Signed: Kendall Lovett
for Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne).

7 January 2009

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 Saxe
Wednesday, 07 January 2009 10:38

I 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.

7 January 2009

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!:

JOHN IZZARD

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.’

7 January 2009

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.au
Cc: R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au ; senator.ludwig@aph.gov.au ;
Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:18 PM

The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
From: Coalition of Activist Lesbians - Australia
PO Box 424
Thirroul, NSW 2518
www.coal.org.au
Email:coal@aapt.net.au

Re: 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.

Sincerely
Sandra Hall and Wendy Suiter
On behalf of COAL-Australia

14 January 2009

The Sydney paper SX carried the following opinion piece from Vanessa Wagner on grandfathers!:

SX 14 January 2009
Opinion
Vanessa Wagner

I 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.cfm
The Attorney General Robert McClelland:
r.mcclelland.mp@aph.gov.au
Senator Joe Ludwig (contact form at):
http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=84N
Jenny Macklin:
jmacklin.mp@aph.gov.au
Vanessa Wagner

14 January 2009

The following letter by Noel Tovey appeared in ACT Gay on 14 January 2009 and is reproduced here in full: