|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2012 14:46:02 GMT 7
High Court to hear test case on welfare
THE High Court will hear a test case led by Victoria Legal Aid that if successful could help Australians at risk of welfare fraud charges because they have made mistakes in dealing with Centrelink.
The court today decided it would hear the case of Melbourne woman Kelli Keating, who has been charged with welfare fraud for receiving an overpayment of $6942 from Centrelink due to what Centrelink says was a failure to declare her income.
Murdoch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2012 14:49:29 GMT 7
Here's the Age. High Court to test Centrelink fraud lawsThe High Court has agreed to hear the case of a Melbourne woman accused of defrauding Centrelink, testing the constitutionality of retrospective welfare fraud laws introduced last year. Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) successfully applied on Friday to have the case of single mother Kelli Keating heard by the High Court, a case it says could affect 15,000 past convictions as well as future prosecutions. Keating has been charged with welfare fraud under legislation passed in July last year which made it a criminal offence for a person to not tell Centrelink of any change that might affect their entitlements within 14 days. The legislation applies retrospectively, from March 2000. Centrelink alleges Keating was overpaid $6942 after failing to declare her income. VLA's barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, told the full bench of the High Court in Melbourne that the legislation "invented" and then imposed a duty on a person that was incapable of being performed. "The commonwealth has criminalised conduct that was not criminal in any sense at the time it was committed," Ms Mortimer told Justices Kenneth Hayne, John Heydon and Virginia Bell. Wendy Abraham QC, for the commonwealth, said welfare recipients were always aware of their responsibility to report changes to their income. "Any recipient of a social security benefit would have been under no misapprehension ... that there is a requirement to notify of a change of circumstances," she said. "One doesn't simply go on Centrelink and get it forever." The High Court agreed to hear the matter next Tuesday. Outside court, VLA director of civil justice Kristen Hilton said the case was about challenging the breadth of the law and whether or not parliament can pass retrospective laws.She said one in three overpayments were the result of mistakes made by Centrelink. "This is not about getting people off the hook where there has been clearly fraudulent behaviour," she said. "It's about people who have made a mistake, it's about people who haven't understood the system."It's a very complex system and we know that people on Centrelink are generally people who perhaps don't have high literacy levels, they may be from non-English speaking backgrounds, they may have a mental health issue or a disability."It's the most vulnerable getting caught up in the system and this legislation intends to cast that net even wider." AAP Read more: www.theage.com.au/national/high-court-to-test-centrelink-fraud-laws-20121214-2bf2f.html#ixzz2F0i5OdLg |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2012 14:52:50 GMT 7
I'll watch this with considerable interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 14, 2012 14:57:47 GMT 7
I was just about to post this & my internet went down AGAIN.
Yes I will be watching this also with great interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 14, 2012 15:03:02 GMT 7
It seems that VLA is not afraid to take on Centrelink and this SO-CALLED Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Dec 14, 2012 16:13:44 GMT 7
Given the decision in Lynne's AAT case I reckon you can start polishing your dancing shoes Banjo.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Dec 14, 2012 16:25:33 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 14, 2012 16:32:45 GMT 7
Given the decision in Lynne's AAT case I reckon you can start polishing your dancing shoes Banjo.... ;D Being a poor broken down old pensioner that he is, he only wears flip flops. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 14, 2012 16:44:57 GMT 7
I keep them well polished though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 14, 2012 17:11:10 GMT 7
I keep them well polished though. Yes we can all see that now. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 15, 2012 6:03:32 GMT 7
Here is a bit more on it. Single mum takes Centrelink battle to High Court A MELBOURNE woman has won the right to appeal her welfare fraud charges to the High Court, which could affect thousands of others charged under the same law. Kelli Keating, 36, worked casual shifts that varied from week to week when she failed to declare changes in her income to Centrelink between 2007 and 2009. Last year, the single mother was charged with welfare fraud after she received overpayments of $6942. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill, which came into effect last year, makes it a criminal offence from March 2000 to fail to report any changes that could affect Centrelink entitlements within two weeks of them occurring. Advertisement Victoria Legal Aid, representing Ms Keating, challenged the law, saying it was unconstitutional because it retrospectively criminalised such behaviour, and interfered with judges’ ability to determine the law at the time of the offence. Justice Kenneth Hayne, Justice Virginia Bell and Justice John Dyson Heydon granted Ms Keating leave to appeal to the High Court, with a hearing expected next year. Victoria Legal Aid’s director of civil justice, access and equity, Kristen Hilton, said the organisation had 52 clients in the same position as Ms Keating, with about 15,000 people across the country charged under the law for mistakes dating back to 2000.If successful, their charges could be overturned, she said. ‘‘If someone’s going to commit a crime, they should know what the law is at the time at which they commit it,’’ Ms Hilton said. ‘‘In this case, because the legislation is backdated by 10 years, Parliament is effectively saying ‘pretend the law was different from what it was’, and our view is that that interferes with the exercise of judicial power.’’Ms Hilton said that those who had not actively sought to claim higher benefits should not face criminal charges. ‘‘A whole lot of vulnerable people could be caught up in the criminal justice system simply because they don’t understand their Centrelink obligations or they make a mistake in reporting them. ‘‘Lots of clients we see may have a mental health issue, live with an intellectual disability, come from a non-English speaking background or their lives may simply just be quite chaotic and they don’t always report in time,’’ she said. Wendy Abraham, QC, for the Commonwealth, could not be reached for comment. Read more: www.theage.com.au/national/single-mum-takes-centrelink-battle-to-high-court-20121214-2bf2f.html#ixzz2F4Phl8bK
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Dec 15, 2012 6:09:33 GMT 7
The pieces I have high lighted are interesting.
VLA have 52 other clients in the same situation, I am sure more will be contacting them once this news get out.
And this: ‘‘In this case, because the legislation is backdated by 10 years, Parliament is effectively saying ‘pretend the law was different from what it was’, and our view is that that interferes with the exercise of judicial power.’’
This is what Centrelink think they can do to us, just make up their own rules and say that it is Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 15, 2012 23:10:57 GMT 7
There are not enough details given to judge what the case is really about. There was always legislation to cover the requirement that those on social security, who received income, were legally obliged to report that income to Centrelink. Nothing new about that.
So this legislation, whatever it is, is not about making new rules. It seems to be more about repairing existing legislation that was in some way deficient and that is a normal legislative repair practice.
If the legislative draftsmen make mistakes in drawing up legislation, they will just correct those deficiencies later with adjusting legislation that does not change the provisions of what was previously drawn up, but simply repairs the legislation.
Good legislative draftsmen do not make many mistakes. It is their job not to.
The integrity of the system will not allow those with Centrelink debts to abscond, simply because someone finds a hole in the way the legislation is drawn up because that can be repaired with furthur legislation.
One of the foundation stones of the legal system is that ignorance of the law is never an excuse so it is not a defense to say " I did not know I had to pay back the money".
Another foundation stone is legal capacity of Parliament to pass retrospective legislation.
Its quite a case to ask the High Court to overturn those underpins of Parliament's legislative capacity.
Long odds on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Dec 16, 2012 1:23:59 GMT 7
peter, I don't disagree with the substance of what you are saying but I believe the issue revolves around retrospectively making something criminal that had not previously been criminal. I also do not believe that there is any dispute about repayment of overpayment. I also believe that there has never been any dispute that deliberate fraud to obtain a Centrelink Benefit is a criminal offense. For some comment at the time this legislation was introduced see skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/On that one page is mention of 3 areas of the law that the current Government has introduced retrospective legislation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Dec 16, 2012 7:52:00 GMT 7
There are not enough details given to judge what the case is really about. There was always legislation to cover the requirement that those on social security, who received income, were legally obliged to report that income to Centrelink. Nothing new about that. So this legislation, whatever it is, is not about making new rules. It seems to be more about repairing existing legislation that was in some way deficient and that is a normal legislative repair practice. If the legislative draftsmen make mistakes in drawing up legislation, they will just correct those deficiencies later with adjusting legislation that does not change the provisions of what was previously drawn up, but simply repairs the legislation. Good legislative draftsmen do not make many mistakes. It is their job not to. The integrity of the system will not allow those with Centrelink debts to abscond, simply because someone finds a hole in the way the legislation is drawn up because that can be repaired with furthur legislation. One of the foundation stones of the legal system is that ignorance of the law is never an excuse so it is not a defense to say " I did not know I had to pay back the money". Another foundation stone is legal capacity of Parliament to pass retrospective legislation. Its quite a case to ask the High Court to overturn those underpins of Parliament's legislative capacity. Long odds on this one. This I what we call a realistic view of the situation and they are generally right. I'll admit I get hopeful when something like this comes up but later reality takes over and I realise how hard it is for cases like this to win. For legal aid to take it on may or may not be a good thing, the Government may want it tested in the High court so they can put it to bed for good. |
|
