Post by Banjo on Aug 9, 2013 8:47:30 GMT 7
CentreLink wrongfully denied disabled Kiwi the DSP
In the case of Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community and Indigenous Affairs v Mahrous [2013] FCAFC 75 (19 July 2013), the Full Bench upheld the previous decision of the Court, which, in turn, affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that a New Zealand citizen who had accrued a total of 10 years residence in Australia AND/OR New Zealand meets the residence requirement for the disability services pension – as per article 12(4) of the Agreement (which overrides the Social Security Act (the SSA) ):
12(4): No person shall be entitled to claim a disability support pension under this Agreement unless he or she has accumulated an aggregate of more than 10 years of residence in Australia and/or New Zealand.
The Secretary had argued that article 12(4) did not override the normal waiting period under the SSA, but was instead an additional restriction that must be met on top of existing restrictions under the SSA (10 years residence in Australia). The Full Bench disagreed.
Will the Secretary appeal to the High Court and string this out for a few more years – particularly in light of the denial of state and federal disability services to these people? Probably…
www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2013/75.html
In the case of Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community and Indigenous Affairs v Mahrous [2013] FCAFC 75 (19 July 2013), the Full Bench upheld the previous decision of the Court, which, in turn, affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that a New Zealand citizen who had accrued a total of 10 years residence in Australia AND/OR New Zealand meets the residence requirement for the disability services pension – as per article 12(4) of the Agreement (which overrides the Social Security Act (the SSA) ):
12(4): No person shall be entitled to claim a disability support pension under this Agreement unless he or she has accumulated an aggregate of more than 10 years of residence in Australia and/or New Zealand.
The Secretary had argued that article 12(4) did not override the normal waiting period under the SSA, but was instead an additional restriction that must be met on top of existing restrictions under the SSA (10 years residence in Australia). The Full Bench disagreed.
Will the Secretary appeal to the High Court and string this out for a few more years – particularly in light of the denial of state and federal disability services to these people? Probably…
www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2013/75.html
