I’ve written about this before, but I hadn’t realised just how much of a difference it really was.
Two jobseekers on NewStart sharing a house. (Because you can hardly afford to rent a whole place on your own on that payment.) Total payment per fortnight between the two of them: $912 ($228 each per week).
They have sex. They call each other partner. Centrelink assumes that, miraculously, living has suddenly become magically much, much cheaper! Their payments are immediately cut by $99 in that fortnight – more than 10 percent – to $813 ($205.75 each per week).
Tell me how that makes even the remotest amount of sense. Good thing they’re sharing a bed (possibly) – now they’ve had to disconnect the heater to make ends meet, they’ll need to huddle together to stay warm.
i don’t agree with this at all, but maybe the logic is if they’re together it’s cheaper to rent a one bedroom unit between 2 people, than a 2 bedroom unit?
that does add up, but it still sucketh the balls (but not in a gay way, or else they’ll give you less)
In some countries they provide rental assistance at a realistic level – not in this one though.
LGWS has got it.
If they’re partners then the assumption is that they will share a room, thus reducing the cost of rent.
So now, instead of looking for a 2 bedroom unit for $450 p.w. they can look for a 1 bedroom unit for $400 and probably get a bit of an upgrade. Alternately they can rent out their spare room for $200 per week and come out well ahead.
Ay. It’s not so simple. Accepting there’s a finite cap on the welfare budget (and we’d both agree it should probably get a boost) the de facto provisions make more sense than first appears. People will tend to pool costs and resources if they are partners…
To put it another way, isn’t it unfair on people who live by themselves and pay all their bills on their own and get no economies of scale from being in a couple to get no additional money?
It IS a vexed policy issue. The case law is very messy. It can be unfair.
Cutting the payment and instead increasing the rent assistance component would be one possible solution.
PS if you feel strongly about it, volunteer to run some social security appeals. When I was in that field there was a real dearth of advocates to assist recipients with their appeals before the SSAT and AAT. Plus it’s one of the most interesting and complex areas of law.
- Don’t need to heat/cool the other bedroom
- Don’t need to power the other bedroom
- Don’t need to do as much laundry (one set of bed sheets)
- Can rent out the now-spare room
This is, of course, a giant load of balls.
Oh, and:
- Don’t need to use as much water (All couples shower together according to videos on the Interwebs)
Mondo Rock : I get your point, but $450pw for rent when you’re a jobseeker?! :p
“If they’re partners then the assumption is that they will share a room, thus reducing the cost of rent.”
That’s of course not necessarily a fair assumption, and even if they share a bed they don’t suddenly halve the space they need for other personal items.
For my benefit, does Centrelink arbitrarily deem people to be ‘partners’, or is this something that people have to formally declare?
It arbitrarily deems them partners. It makes them fill out a questionnaire – one question of which is essentially “do you have sex?” – and then adds up the points and determines whether it thinks they’re in a relationship or not. If so – doesn’t matter if they share a room or what. They will be deemed to be willing to save the Commonwealth some money.
So, essentially, we’re telling them that they can’t move in together to save money and make their meagre payment go further – anything they save we’ll take straight back. Apparently there’s an infinite amount of space in the cities and we’d rather welfare recipients spread out amongst as many houses as possible.
Maybe instead of lying around in bed all day rooting each other stupid they can be out there looking for work.
I suspect they are, or Centrelink would just cut off their payments altogether.
It’s not arbitrary at all, as you’ve acknowledged by describing a process. It’s extremely complicated calculating that stuff and given the law is written by FACSIA there’s no point slandering Centrelink. As a lawyer you can simply look this up yourself.
It’s far, far better to be deemed such up front. People who don’t disclose, and are found later to be in MLRs, can end up in massive debt battles.
The law IS complex on this. It probably COULD use a good overhaul, true.
It’s an arbitrary process. I’m not slandering Centrelink, I’m criticising the policy they’re forced to implement.
Obviously it’s better to be deemed “in a partnership” and punished for it earlier rather than later – but it’d be better not to be punished for it at all.
Pingback: Marriage under attack!1! « An Onymous Lefty
Pingback: Herald Sun’s welfare whinge – Pure Poison