For some time I have been agitating about the different treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples by WINZ. Government has been procrastinating and making hollow promises about correcting this anomaly but a quick look at the WINZ manual shows nothing has changed.
Here you see a long list of indictors (presumably established by questioning) for determining whether a relationship "in the nature of marriage" exists between a man and a woman. Are you sleeping in the same bedroom? Are you having sex?
So what of same-sex relationships?
The Social Security Act 1964 only refers to “a man and a woman living in a relationship in the nature of marriage”. Same sex relationships cannot therefore be considered to be in the nature of a marriage for benefit purposes.
But it occurs to me as Civil Unions have legal standing, shouldn't the Social Security Act be amended to read "living in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union"?
There would appear to be hundreds of same-sex relationships where one partner works and the other receives a benefit, most commonly the DPB.
Of course lots of opposite-sex couples are ripping off the DPB in this manner but in the case of same-sex couples they are doing it quite legally and incur no risk of having to face a fine or repayment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well I wouldn't want to be discriminatory and not "bash" same-sex couples when I constantly "bash" opposite-sex couples would I?
For pitys sake. Welfare is supposed to be a safety net. But if you are happy for people to use it for years as of right, no questions asked, while we can't treat sick people or look after the mentally ill properly because there is no money, that's your affair. It's not a view I have any sympathy for.
Equal ought to mean equal. Civil unions were a step forward for equality and these other laws should be amended accordingly.
Post a Comment