You can always rely on PHILIP RUDDOCK

You can always rely on PHILIP RUDDOCK
Have you heard about the bloke who’s taking Australia to the UN over its refusal to give him a widow’s pension? Yes, a bloke has applied for a widow’s pension. Well why not? In these days of same sex relationships we need to allow the word widow a wider definition. The bloke in question was the partner of a WWII veteran, whom he nursed through twenty years of illness. When his partner died he applied for a war widow’s pension. Of course, he was knocked back. I say of course, not because I think he should have been, but because I wouldn’t expect anything else of this government. (I might add that I am not altogether confident that a Labor government would have acted any differently.) Anyway, our bereaved friend got some support from various quarters (some people would say the usual suspects) and he’s taking his case to the UN. When questioned about this Philip Ruddock pointed out that legally, a widow is a woman. But, insisted the reporter, we now live in an era of same sex relationships; do you think it’s fair to discriminate against someone who in every other way qualifies as a widow just because he’s a bloke? Ruddock’s reply was: What you’re suggesting would involve widening the entitlement; for which we’ve got to find the money. But, returned the reporter, this is not widening the entitlement. The bloke we are talking about was the life partner of a veteran. Had he been a woman he would have got the widow’s pension. The money’s actually there. Ruddock was unmoved.