|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jan 13, 2014 8:29:38 GMT 7
( Banjo, move this as required as there has been various discussions on various threads regarding Section 24 and I thought it might be appropriate to have a centralised thread) I am confused in my understanding of this Section of the Act. On the one hand the Act does not recognize the legality of a relationship outside Australia but on the other you still have to declare the existence of such a relationship and then you will be paid the Australian married rate accordingly. Then Section 24 is offered up as a means to redress any hardship situations that may result from the above decision but it seems to me to only apply if in fact you do not live with your overseas partner. The fact that you might live with them overseas and though they have no material contribution to the relationship is ignored! Has any member actually received a Section 24 decision in their favour?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 13, 2014 9:05:34 GMT 7
I'm not sure what you mean by the Act not recognising the legality of a relationship outside of Australia. If you mean that the partner is not entitled to benefits under the Act this has more to do with residency than legality. The knee jerk reaction to only pay the pensioner half the partner rate is definitely unfair but seems to have been tested unsuccessfully by complainants in the courts.
The key section of the Guide is 2.2.5.50 Discretion to Treat a Person as Not Being a Member of a Couple for a Special Reason.
Discretion means they can do what they please without explanation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 12:37:47 GMT 7
i could never understand the section 24 thing, because if you apply for a pmv as my fiance will be doing, i as a sponger have to prove i can provide for her for two years, other wise some on has to go guarantee for her, so i have to prove i can financial support her or she cant come, that's my understanding. they say the aos has gone but you still have to show you have money of some sort, or a job.and i think i read some where if she does get some sort of gov support then she has to pay it back at some stage.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Feb 6, 2014 12:56:12 GMT 7
I think LatinDancer said that part about support had changed this year. Have a hunt through his posts and see if you can find it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 15:01:46 GMT 7
yes banjo, the assurance of support has been drooped,i think its a double meaning, that has been doped but the Spencer still has to show he can support her. like you have to show pay packet slips,but they will let some one on the dsp sponger his partner, AS long as he can look after her. like have a house,stat decks of how you will support her things like that, be leave me they have not made it any easier. the best place to find out things like that is look as a guest on the (living and working in Australia forum) just search what you want to know its all there.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Feb 6, 2014 16:10:45 GMT 7
I didn't have to show that I could support my wife. No statutory declaration....nothing. It was quite odd. Though you never know....things may be different for partners from the Philippines, when applying in the Phils. Why not ask the Oz embassy there ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 17:03:56 GMT 7
yes its all over the shop , from what i understand is from all the forms and information that you supply to immi, if for some reason they dont think you as a sponsor cant hold up your part of the sponsor's agreement , then they will ask for an aos, thats how i think it works, but i may be wrong. and it may be different if your married, there is an australian immigration booklet you can down load people need to read it ,all of it. every thing is in there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 17:11:29 GMT 7
just one other quick thing, if you are in any sort of relationship with an os partner and you want to bring her to aus, you have to PROVE that relationship, with lots of proof, not just say you are but prove it, that is the main criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Feb 6, 2014 17:28:59 GMT 7
I remember a mate of mine saved virtually every household bill from their place in the Philippines along with photos etc to prove this.
|
|
|
Post by frustated on Jul 13, 2014 13:18:30 GMT 7
I too have had this problem which I have explained elsewhere. Section 24 only covers partners who are both of pensionable age. I have been penalised by the dept recently by dropping my pension $200 a fortnight even though my partner is not of pensionable age and I support her 100%. The Dept keeps telling me it is the law but cannot tell me where this law is written down.
These morons at CL are playing with peoples lives. How can we plan for the future, what's left of it, if I live in fear of not knowing what the govt is going to come up next to save them money.
|
|
|
Post by immiadvice on Jul 13, 2014 16:19:33 GMT 7
Years ago I was classed as single under section 24. That decision was upheld until me (ex) partner was granted payments in Australia.
I do not know why it was granted for me but not for others in almost identical situations. The best solution is to remain only friends (with benefits) with your significant other.
As for sponsoring a partner on a visa. They are not asset tested nor is there any assurance of support anymore.
You must still provide income details but this seems purely for red tape.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jul 13, 2014 16:29:41 GMT 7
There is no doubt in my mind that, generally, CLink have a bias against anyone or anything related to The Centrelink SEAsian Triangle.
From my reading of CLink interpretation of Section 24 a pensioner, whether DSP or OAP, will only be paid the single rate of pension when they are in a relationship if, they are resident in Australia AND their partner resides overseas AND their partner has no income nor assets outside the relationship.
|
|
|
Post by immiadvice on Jul 13, 2014 16:59:08 GMT 7
Like most Centrelink legislation the law is quite vague and open to considerable interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jul 13, 2014 17:12:24 GMT 7
Like most Centrelink legislation the law is quite vague and open to considerable interpretation. So they can use it against us. A wise man on this board once said... we are all too young to get married.
|
|
|
Post by immiadvice on Jul 13, 2014 17:41:23 GMT 7
Exactly... On both points.
|
|