The same rules don't apply to MPs.

Did you know Centrelink now won’t pay single parents unless one of their friends vouches for the fact that they’re single?

The change took place in January this year, and single mums are pretty pissed off about it — especially because politicians’ relationship declarations don’t receive nearly the same level of scrutiny.

The new rules, cooked up by the Coalition government late last year, force single parents seeking the single-parent payment or Newstart to find a person who is not related to them to sign legal documents confirming that yep, the recipient of the payment is single. Making a false or misleading statement on said form carries a 12 month prison sentence.

If that sounds pretty harsh and unfair to you, especially given how tricky it can be to define a relationship, you’re not alone. Yesterday, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children wrote to Malcolm Turnbull to protest the change, saying it lets Centrelink “police women’s relationship status” in a way that hasn’t been vaguely acceptable for decades.

“We remain concerned for women who have left a violent partner and or women who require greater privacy as well as women who do not have a ‘trusted third party’, noting that the third party cannot be a family member,” Terese Edwards, the council’s chief executive, wrote.

It’s not just the National Council for Single Mothers, either. Advocacy groups have been slamming this policy since it was first announced — the Australian Council of Social Services described it as “intrusive, offensive and demeaning” back in October, and questioned why the government seemed to think “single parents uniquely can’t be trusted to tell the truth to government agencies”.

The “uniquely” part is important, because businesspeople, politicians, and others required to disclose their relationship status or partner’s assets are not subject to the same scrutiny.

As The Guardian pointed out this morning, Barnaby Joyce was free to argue that Vikki Campion was not his partner at the time she got a job in his department. Julie Bishop claimed over $30,000 for her partner’s travel expenses (paid for by the taxpayer, fyi), but didn’t declare his financial interests because she didn’t define him as her spouse.

In both of those cases, the MPs were free to make their own call as to whether they were in a relationship. Neither was forced to find someone they trusted to sign a legal document confirming their statement.

Bit of a double standard, no?

I know someone who ended up with a substantial debt when she reconciled with her husband & Centrelink decided they had lied about being separated. I think about that every time I see these changes. — Brook (@BookWombat) April 3, 2018