Australia: Seven police interviewed, station raided over ‘false’ non-binary claims

[DerekFaker]

I shouldn't laugh really. But I did.

Victoria Police officers have searched the force’s Frankston station and interviewed several officers accused of claiming to be non-binary to fraudulently claim more money for civilian clothing allowances.

Chief Commissioner Shane Patton announced a probe into the issue in July, after reports that some male officers had been rorting a discrepancy in the force’s clothing allowance by identifying as non-binary.

Under the scheme, female officers are entitled to claim about $1300 more than male colleagues.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/seven-police-interviewed-station-raided-over-false-non-binary-claims-20230815-p5dwso.html

Anyone want to bet that the outcome of this will be women losing the extra payment?

I'm guessing the difference in amount is down to the pink tax that manufacturers and retails like to impose on women. Tshirts or jeans are not the same price for men and women for instance, you only need to browse in any supermarket to see it.

What's the difference between gender identity and gender expression? Where does one stop and the other start?

"Officers wanting to claim the allowance, which is paid fortnightly, must now make a sworn statement if intending to self-describe as non-binary."

But given that there are zero requirements to be able to self-describe as non-binary, surely making a sworn statement (which is completely reversible from one day to the next) is no more onerous than claiming to identify as non-binary to claim the additional clothing allowance in the first place?

What employee, when faced with the choice of signing a statement to say they currently identify as non-binary or losing their job, is going to opt for the latter?

Well I can only speak fir uk police but you get a certain annual uniform allowance of, let's say, 2 new pairs of trousers and 4 tops to replace worn uniform. To make this fair on detectives they used to (not sure if they still do) get a clothing allowance to replace worn office clothing. When DH got it I think it covered a new suit a year.

Bruce has a backup plan and has organised a group discount to get the dry cleaners to sew some pockets shut .......

How can you tell someone isn’t? Or how can you tell someone they aren’t if they say they are?

Women's clothes are usually more expensive. Apparently that's because women care more about clothes and are prepared to pay higher prices.

Why does declaring yourself 'non-binary' get you the women's allowance anyway.
Why would they assume a non binary only wants to wear women's clothing?

Think how much money the world could save if we can move on from court rooms, judges, juries and burdens of proof:

"Did you commit this crime?"
"No, I didn't - not guilty."
"Fab, that's that established then; sorry for your inconvenience."

Funnily enough, that sounds like every workplace inquiry into bullying and sexism that I've ever come across. 'Nothing proved'.

Non-binary probably means they need 2 sets of clothes, skirts, dresses, shirts, suits, blouses, mens shoes, ladies heels, etc etc

All madness. But I can't blame anyone for exploiting a gaping big hole that someone else has put in place

As pp have said, the monetary difference has likely been set because of the 'pink tax' around the cost of women's clothes compared to men's.

And there will also be, for plain clothes police, a grooming code regarding appropriate wear. For women in some professions this still can include styles of shoe, tights, styles of skirts, jackets and blouses, manicured hands/nails, smart hair and make-up, scarves, bloody handbags and fitted long coats.

Men can get away with suits, shirts and ties, any old shoes and a raincoat.

The whole female grooming expectation is part of the 'third shift' of women's work.

It looks like the police at Frankston have combined the two great Australian traditions of rorting the system and taking the piss. And who can blame them?

I'm not exactly sure how employment laws are applied to the police, but surely, under current laws, they'd have a case for discrimination on the grounds of their gender identity? Potentially they could tie the system up in knots for a long time.

I think it's tremendous work there from the Frankston Police.

I don't know a single female detective (and I know a lot) that dresses like that. Most only wear really smart clothes to court. If you took a look round any CID office you won't find women dolled up. Most just wear a pair of trousers and a a top. Probably from Sainsbury's.
and there definitely isn't some "grooming code" about hairstyles, makeup and shoes. As long as it's not offensive or revealing you wear pretty much what you like. I'd bet it's not much different Down Under

If I were those men I’d just meet up and agree that we wear pink socks and women’s underwear now. There you go, gender visibly expressed. They’ve obviously got some chutzpah to claim it to start with so I expect they’d be up for that, and happy to loudly talk about how uncomfortable women’s undies are and it’s the patriarchy innit?? They don’t make these things for penises and non binary people!!

Hey, $1300 will go a long way on Frankston. That is about three weeks rent.

And all you have to do is ‘self declare’? I’m surprised there are only 7 officers doing this, frankly.

I’m not sure that’s true; there’s a huge range in Frankston now, and plenty of multimillion dollar homes there.

It looked like dh would be working there a year or so ago and I looked up rental apartments to take the kids and hang out on the beach for a week in the holidays, but was surprised how much it all cost, I’d have thought you could rent a flat outside of peak season for a week for under 1200 but not on the beach side you can’t.

@Codlingmoths short term rentals are notoriously more expensive than long term.

Frankston is not the nicest place to be.

3bed houses are asking $450+ at the moment. That will be new or returning to market stock and therefore slightly higher than what most renters are currently paying.

It looks like it's more than seven people in the state as a whole. From news.com.au:

"In its annual report last year, Victoria Police only had 32 employees who were so-called “self-described” as neither male nor female.
But workforce figures as of June 27 provided to news.com.au show that number had soared to 139 — 127 of whom are sworn officers. Victoria Police currently employs 22,118 people, 16,249 of whom are police."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/victoria-police-looking-into-claims-officers-identifying-as-gender-neutral-for-extra-1300-allowance/news-story/ab85868602ca99251b4aff14ae55d5ff

Surely the police bosses are comitting a hate crime against those NB officers by suggesting they don't exist Or something

I don’t think short term rent anywhere on the beach in Melbourne is going to be cheap. But I agree with Difficult, there are places where that $1300 could be a couple or a few weeks rent.

I do question how they are going to question staff members though. How do they assess the truthfulness, do they ask to see the clothes the officers have supposedly purchased under the scheme? Do they ask to see non-binary documentation (not that that is much of an issue now with the new laws)? But wouldn’t having to have the documentation either be forcing NB people to out themselves formally or be considered a privacy issue?

Surely this goes against the ‘acceptance without exception’ mantra as well.

If these officers followed the correct process to make the claims, then the issue is with the process if they are making false claims. It is remarkable that some people in the LGBT+ groups are calling for this to be a criminal offense. They want it both ways don’t they? They want to be able demand people view them as their identity with no formalities to having that identity but then they demand gatekeeping at the same time.

And I remember when the court case went through to allow the first passport with an ‘x’. I remember listening to the news and thinking that this was not progress. That seems so long ago and now we have how many hours of resources tied up in this debacle?

Probably because women's clothes are more expensive but worse quality so wear out quicker, needing to be replaced more often, so women will spend on average more money on clothing.
Plus of course bras, a whole other expense men don't have it, its like how female conscripts in my country get an extra allowance for underwear, because its more expensive for women than men.

I'm all for our Non Binary police force. If my work offered me 1300 dollabucks for being Non Binary I'm sure I can claim that too. I'm as Non Binary as it gets mate, I don't know exactly what that means, but nobody else does either so who can say I'm not?

If they want me to dress "as a woman" part of the time, then on Thursday and Friday I sit in my home office wearing leggings, hoodie and pink trainers, easy as mate.

When you consider that even a woman’s t-shirt from Target or Big W now seems to have to be some kind of elastane or Lycra clingy number and doesn’t last as well as a men’s shirt you certainly understand why the women’s allowance was more. Considering how even the best deodorant stains and damages those t-shirts because they are tight, they wouldn’t last as long as the male equivalent of a cotton Bonds t-shirt.

Plus to allow for dry cleaning business skirts and dresses vs wash and wear slacks for men. Women’s clothes in Australia have always cost more. Even the basics let alone business wear.

If all men had to do to get an extra $1300 in pay is 'switch their role profile to gender diverse' as per the allegation, then I'm surprised there are any men identifying as men on the force at all.
I can think of few people who wouldn't take a pay increase if all they had to do was tick a box that said they didn't identify as a stereotype.