Australian gay pensioners disadvantaged?

I wonder how our Australian members feel about the changes to the pension laws there that affect gay couples? The Colonel's Blog has a comment with a link to a newspaper article. It sounds pretty ugly.

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=404 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=404)

Ugly? It simply puts gay and heterosexual couples on an equal footing; if that does not suit the "gay" lobby it demonstrates their desire not for equality but to "cherry pick" legislation which suits them and avoid that which does not, which is hypocritical at best.

The original article from the Sydney Morning Herald is at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay- ... 16542.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay-couples-to-face-new-era-of-financial-discrimination/2008/12/05/1228257316542.html)

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Ugly? It simply puts gay and heterosexual couples on an equal footing; if that does not suit the "gay" lobby it demonstrates their desire not for equality but to "cherry pick" legislation which suits them and avoid that which does not, which is hypocritical at best.

The original article from the Sydney Morning Herald is at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay- ... 16542.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay-couples-to-face-new-era-of-financial-discrimination/2008/12/05/1228257316542.html)is

aren't you missing the point of the article ?>

whilst putting gays & straights on the same level the article quite clearly points out that a gay couple would now be treated as such and thus financially lose out as they were treated as seperate before..plus there is no provision to 'ease' these elderley poeple into a new situation..rather a crash through style of implementing the new rules that could freak out older gays. ( not all fags are as sophisticated and worldly as moi !)

I found the piece quite disturbing as it clearly means no new advantages for many gay men and women who may not be well off. But are Aust public servants like their British counterparts in their approach ?..which is bascially you are guilty of something and must prove your innocence ?

This reminds me of a court case I read of which happened in Aust..an elderley gay man tried to sue for his deceased partner's war pension as they had been together for 50 years ..but he lost the case.

still a long way to go yet I think..

aren't you missing the point of the article ?

I don't think I am missing the point - they were at an advantage before and now they want to have equal rights and to maintain that advantage. Either you are equal or you are not, end of story.

The case highlighted in the article is, to me, one where those concerned had already been taking full financial advantage of the system (effectively getting a disability support pension to compensate for the trauma of coming out as a lesbian) and now they are upset because one of them will no longer be able to enjoy early retirement with her "disabled" partner:

Take the case of a lesbian couple known to the Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre. One of the women had planned to retire soon from her job in an alternative school. A pioneer in the gay liberation movement, she had stayed at the school for 30 years despite the low pay, believing a mainstream school would have sacked her over her political activism. Her partner had been dismissed after having "come out" to her religious employer. The dismissal was lawful because of the religious exemption to the anti-discrimination laws.
Partly because of the effects of the dismissal, and being shunned by her family and former congregation, the woman had been on the disability support pension. The employed teacher said she would have to defer retirement because of the new laws as she could not afford to pay her mortgage on a couple's rate of pension, something she had not anticipated.

The case you are reminded of is one which you mentioned before but which you had mis-represented, as the gay lobby did and as you are doing again.

The case concerned an Australian who had served as a projectionist in a mobile cinema unit in the Philippines towards the end of World War 2. Some 40 years later he developed a heart condition which was put down to the stress he had suffered during the war and he was granted a War Disability Pension. He met his Japanese boyfriend in a bar in Tokyo in 1984, and when he came to Australia he was granted a Carers Allowance to take care of his boyfriend. When the Australian died his pension stopped, as did his boyfriend's carer's allowance. When he tried to claim a War Widow's Pension it was refused as he was not eligible under either the Terms and Conditions of Service in force at the time his boyfriend had served, voluntarily, or the current Military regulations.

If these people, who have already been more than generously treated, are the most deserving cases that the Australian gay lobby can find then they have little to complain about.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

I'm not in any gay lobby..in fact I've been removed form most lobbys at various times including many hotels..but I'm sure the military pension case I read about didn't involve a Japanese boyfriend.

I understand the concept of gays or lesbians who wish to be equal in the eyes of the law ( personally I couldn't care less) but I believe this articlel was pointing out some unforseen circumstances that may arise..such as the gay receiving payment as a couple as oposed to 2 individuals ( obviously they must have received more as individuals).

The solution is to have a blazing full out queens row and in public..tearing out of hair and screeching gay insults etc and then claim they are no longer a couple.

I don't mis-represent things except when getting personal like my age, looks, wealth, drunk or sober etc etc etc.

perhaps this is why The Colonel is.. I mean Homintern is in Melbourne...perhaps he has a boyfriend and is claiming a married fags pension..but surely if Homintern had a boyfriend they would put him on psychiatric pension.

but surely if Homintern had a boyfriend they would put him on psychiatric pension.

The boyfriend, presumably?

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

of course !! :idea: