Does the taxpayer support men with several wives? What Centrelink actually pays

A claim has circulated on social media for more than a decade. It says Centrelink pays Muslim men to keep several wives, that each wife collects her own benefits, and that the government looks the other way. It resurfaces every few months, often with a screenshot and no source.

This page tests it. We set out the law, what Centrelink and the Department of Social Services (DSS) have said on the record, the cases that have been documented, what a second or third partner can actually be paid, and how Britain has handled the same problem. Where the claim is wrong, we say so. Where something real sits underneath it, we say that too.

Is polygamy legal in Australia?

No. Marrying a second person while you are already married is bigamy. Section 94 of the Marriage Act 1961 makes it a Commonwealth crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison (Sydney Criminal Lawyers, updated November 2020).

There are two important limits. First, the offence only covers a second legal marriage. A religious ceremony that is never registered under the Marriage Act is not a legal marriage, so it is not bigamy. In law, the second "wife" in that situation is at most a de facto partner. It is not a crime to have a de facto partner as well as a spouse, or more than one de facto partner.

Second, section 6 of the Family Law Act 1975 says a polygamous union "entered into in a place outside Australia" is deemed to be a marriage for the purposes of that Act. That lets the Family Court divide property and order support for a wife whose overseas marriage was lawful where it was made. It protects women in those marriages. It does not make polygamy legal here, and it does not decide how Centrelink treats them.

How does Centrelink decide who is a couple?

Welfare is paid to individuals, but the rate depends on whether you are a "member of a couple". Under section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991, that means you are legally married, in a registered relationship, or in a de facto relationship, on a permanent or indefinite basis (Parliamentary Library, 28 February 2023).

Being partnered matters for two reasons. Partnered rates are lower, because couples share costs. And your partner's income and assets count in the means test. A woman with no income whose partner earns $105,000 will usually get little or nothing. The same woman assessed as single is tested only on her own income.

So the real question is not "does Centrelink pay polygamists?" It is "when a man has more than one partner, which of them counts as his partner?" The answer changed in 2018.

What were the rules before 2018?

Until August 2018, the department's own guide said "The existence of a multiple relationship is not excluded by the definition of a de facto relationship" in the Act (2017 Social Security Guide, quoted by the Parliamentary Library, 2023). In plain terms, Centrelink could treat a man and each of his partners as separate couples.

Each partner was paid at the lower partnered rate. Each was means-tested against all of the man's income, which could not be split between them. The Parliamentary Library describes this as applying "the lowest rate payable".

This is the policy the 2010 and 2016 news stories were about. In March 2010 the Herald Sun quoted Centrelink general manager Hank Jongen: "There's nothing preventing them from being in more than one 'member of a couple' relationship at a time." A Centrelink spokeswoman told the paper "It's not our concern if they are a member of a polygamist relationship. We look at whether they are receiving the correct rate of payment."

Read in context, those quotes describe a rule that kept payments down, not one that handed out extra money. They also show an agency choosing not to treat polygamy as its business.

What was actually documented, 2008 to 2016?

The record is thin, but it is not nothing.

• A 2008 community report. The Herald Sun (5 March 2010) reported that a 2008 report by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria found Centrelink payments had encouraged polygamy in a small section of the Islamic community. Its director, Joumanah El Matrah, said it "was a minority but it's certainly a growing minority because Muslim men realised it was possible to get away with it." That is a warning from inside the community, from a women's welfare group.
• Up to 20 investigations. The same report said Centrelink had investigated up to 20 cases of multiple relationships, including polygamy, over the previous two years for payment irregularities, and that some families had to repay money.
• An estimate of about 50 families. Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told the paper he believed "not many more than 50" Muslim families in Australia were polygamous. This is one person's guess, not data.
• The December 2016 row. On 10 December 2016 the Daily Telegraph reported that Centrelink did not collect data on polygamous relationships. Peta Credlin, former chief of staff to Tony Abbott, said one reason nothing was done was that the women might otherwise claim the higher sole-parent rate. Senator Cory Bernardi called the lack of data "a convenient excuse". Then Treasurer Scott Morrison said the practice was "100 per cent wrong", but warned "you don't want to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire" (The Australian, 12 December 2016).

The government's answer at the time was firm. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said "The government of course doesn't recognise multiple marriages." A DSS spokesperson said being in more than one couple relationship had no bearing on the assessment: "if you are in a member-of-a-couple relationship then you will be assessed at the partnered rate" (No Fibs, 11 December 2016, reporting both statements).

We could not find any Senate estimates answer or tabled document that gives a count of polygamous households on payments. If one exists, it has not been published in a form we could locate.

What changed in August 2018?

On 28 August 2018, DSS deleted the section of its guide that explained multiple relationships. It added a line elsewhere: "The Australian social security system does NOT recognise the existence of multiple relationships." The Minister made no announcement. The change came four days after Scott Morrison became Prime Minister and on the day Paul Fletcher became social services minister. The Parliamentary Library says it is unclear whether the two were linked.

The new rule is still in force. The current guide, last reviewed on 11 May 2026, repeats it and adds "regardless of what country they were formed in" (Social Security Guide 2.2.5.10). Section 2.2.5.40, last reviewed on 1 July 2024, sets out how it works:

• If two members of the household are legally married or in a registered relationship, they are the recognised couple. Any other partner "may be considered to be single" under section 24 of the Act.
• If nobody is legally married, the relationship that began first is the recognised one.

Section 24 is a discretion to treat someone as not being part of a couple "for a special reason". The guide says it is meant for "very limited cases". For a declared extra partner, it is the route to a single rate.

The 2018 change was a response to complaints that welfare endorsed polygamy. Its effect was to make extra partners eligible for more money, not less.

What can a second or third partner be paid?

This is the part the viral claim gets half right, and for the wrong reason. The Parliamentary Library put it bluntly in February 2023: "The effect of the policy change is to provide some individuals in multiple relationships with increased payments."

Its worked example, which it says was designed to show the effect clearly, used a man earning $105,000 living with two partners and four children. Under the old rule, the second partner and the man were treated as a couple and their combined income was too high for any payment. Under the 2018 rule, she is treated as single. The Library estimated she could receive around $27,400 a year in Parenting Payment Single and Family Tax Benefit Parts A and B, at 2023 rates.

Here is what the gap looks like now.

The bigger difference is usually the means test, not the base rate. Assessed as a partner, a woman whose partner earns a good wage may get nothing. Assessed as single, she is tested only on her own income and assets. She may also get Energy Supplement and Rent Assistance, and Family Tax Benefit for her children.

Three cautions. These are maximums, and most people get less. The man himself gets nothing extra for having more than one partner. And a woman in this position still has to meet every normal test, including having a young child for Parenting Payment.

Is this a "Muslim welfare loophole"?

Not as the claim puts it. The rule is written for any household with more than one partner, whatever the religion. The Parliamentary Library's example uses a man called Hank. In January 2025, AAP FactCheck rated as false a claim that only Muslims are allowed to claim welfare from multiple relationships. DSS told it the system "does NOT recognise the existence of multiple relationships, regardless of whether they were formed within Australia or overseas."

What is fair to say is that the public debate has centred on unregistered Islamic religious marriages, and the one community report on the issue came from a Muslim women's group. The evidence points to a small number of men exploiting a gap in the rules. It does not point to Muslims as a group doing so, and the women and children involved are often the most exposed people in the arrangement.

How has Britain handled it?

Britain faced the same choice and ended up in a similar place. The House of Commons Library briefing on polygamy says that where a polygamous marriage is valid in UK law, some older means-tested benefits can include more than one spouse. Any extra amount for the second spouse is "likely to be less" than she would get claiming alone as a single person.

Universal Credit, which is replacing those benefits, does not recognise polygamous marriages. The Library says this "means that some polygamous households will receive more under UC than they would have under the legacy benefits." In 2012 the Daily Mail reported the gap as about £40 for an additional wife under the old system against up to £71 as a single claimant. The Department for Work and Pensions said then that there were "fewer than 50 polygamous families claiming benefits". The Commons Library now says "No formal assessment is made of the number of polygamous households."

The lesson is the same in both countries. Refusing to recognise polygamy sounds tough. In welfare law it can mean treating the extra partners as single, and single people are paid more.

Who is responsible?

The fairness doctrine matters here. The pre-2018 rule ran under governments of both sides. The 2018 change was made under the Morrison Coalition government, without an announcement. The Albanese government, in office since May 2022, inherited it and has left it in place: DSS reviewed and republished the wording in July 2024 and May 2026. Neither side has published any figures. The silence is bipartisan.

The verdict: what is true and what is not?

Claim: Centrelink pays a man extra for each wife. Not supported. Payments go to individuals. There is no payment that grows with the number of wives, and the man gets nothing extra.

Claim: second and third "wives" can collect welfare. Supported. Since August 2018 a declared extra partner is generally treated as single and can be paid the single rate, tested only on her own income.

Claim: a polygamous household can get more than a couple on the same income. Supported. The Parliamentary Library said so in 2023, with a worked example of about $27,400 a year.

Claim: there are special welfare rules for Muslims. Not supported. The rule applies to everyone. AAP FactCheck rated the claim false in January 2025.

Claim: taxpayers are funding polygamy on a large scale. Not supported, but not disproved either. The only figures on record are up to 20 investigations in two years (2010) and an unofficial estimate of about 50 families. No government has published a count.

Claim: the government fixed the problem in 2018. Not supported. The change stopped the system recognising multiple relationships, but its effect was to raise payments to extra partners.

What data should the government publish?

This is a small issue in dollar terms. It is a large one for trust. When the government will not say how many people a rule covers, every rumour fills the gap. DSS and Services Australia already make these decisions case by case, so the numbers exist inside the system. We recommend they publish, once a year:

• the number of people treated as single under section 24 because of a multiple relationship, and the total paid to them;
• the number of customers who have declared a multiple relationship, by payment type;
• the number of debts and fraud referrals involving undeclared multiple relationships, and the amounts recovered;
• the legal basis and written reasons for the 28 August 2018 change, which was never announced.

With those figures, Parliament could then decide on the policy question openly. One option is to keep the single-rate approach. Another is a household-level test like Britain's older benefits. Either is defensible. Deciding without data is not.

For the wider picture on welfare and spending growth, read the spending ratchet, the structural deficit and the NDIS and the fastest-growing line in the budget.