Abby Brothers, a 30-year-old woman from Adelaide, has been in a relationship with her partner for 15 years, since their teenage years. Despite their long history together, they face a significant barrier to progressing their relationship: the inability to live together without Abby losing her Disability Support Pension (DSP). This pension is crucial for her as it helps cover expenses related to living with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (chronic fatigue syndrome), POTS, and endometriosis.
Currently residing with her parents, Abby receives approximately $1,100 a fortnight, but her medical costs, including medications not covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, put a strain on her finances. The current social security regulations stipulate that if she were to move in with her partner, and their combined income exceeds a specific threshold, her welfare payments would be reduced, forcing her into a precarious financial position.
Abby criticises the “archaic” nature of the partner income test, which dates back to the 1947 Social Services Consolidation Act, arguing that it reflects outdated views rooted in a 1950s family model. Her sentiments are echoed by others, including Elle, a woman from Newcastle living with complex health issues, who states that the assumption that a partner should provide financial support can lead to risks, particularly for vulnerable individuals.
The growing discontent surrounding this issue has sparked a national campaign aimed at abolishing the partner income test. Advocates suggest that this rule entraps disabled Australians in a cycle of poverty and sometimes places them in dangerous domestic situations. The campaign has garnered significant support, with over 500 individuals sharing their stories of financial hardship and loss of independence.
Although The Greens party has expressed support for the abolition of this test, the federal government appears resistant to change. Minister for Women Katy Gallagher indicated a lack of plans to revise the rule, upholding the view that social security is designed around the principle of shared resources in a partnership.
As Abby articulates, many feel that being required to make a choice between personal relationships and financial survival is not only unjust but detrimental to individuals already facing health challenges. “You shouldn’t have to choose between the person you love and the money you need to survive,” she asserts, calling for a necessary review of these outdated policies.