|
|
Post by Banjo on May 9, 2012 7:32:39 GMT 7
We currently have three SSAT appeals being prepared by members.
Because of the sensitivity and personal nature of some of their details we're dealing with them behind the scenes but consider this a heads up that the fight against Centrelink is being carried too them more than ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisnouy on May 11, 2012 10:08:25 GMT 7
I posted earlier on my fight with centrelink
It has now gone to an ARO
however i read up on federal court descisions and Cocks vs centrelink 2000 makes interesting reading
They ruled in favour of mR cocks and made it clear that where one partner cannot bring any income to the supposed pooling of resources there is no benefit This applied equally when he was living with his wife overseas
Are you fasmiliar with this
|
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on May 11, 2012 10:49:08 GMT 7
By coincidence I had my SSAT hearing this morning and this was the prime case that I quoted. I was surprised that the legal person who constituted the "tribunal" was familiar with the case of Cocks V Centrelink. My own case is virtually identical....though my wife earns slightly less than the average wage in a different Asian country, whereas Cocks' wife apparently had no earnings at all.
I shall have the result of my hearing within 14 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on May 11, 2012 10:51:46 GMT 7
Well done LD. Fingers crossed that they make the right decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on May 11, 2012 15:13:05 GMT 7
to LD ,our thoughts are with ya mate!!
|
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on May 16, 2012 6:24:00 GMT 7
Well, I received a letter yesterday, and I lost the SSAT appeal.
I got there early and by some odd chance the person I would have seen was not there and someone else had been rostered. He is a lawyer. Warning bells should have rung then. They certainly did ring when he spoke interminably and hardly let me say much at all, until I told him I needed space in which to speak. Even then he looked through papers while I was speaking.
I stated to him that although my pension was reduced by $120 per week, my only real saving was paying half rent (as a result of living together with my wife), amounting to a saving of $12.50 per week. He agreed that food etc would cost the same.
His reasons for the decision were:
1) Any disadvantage to me of a reduced pension following my marriage is significantly outweighed by the cost of living differential whilst O/S.
2) My asserted financial difficulties boil down to the fact that I needed to put money aside to pay for my airfares. He stated that although the costs of paying airfares to maintain my pension entitlement were a relevant consideration, I could do this and budget my living costs without incurring debt whilst O/S.
Actually I did not ever say anything about how frugally I had to live during the last 13 weeks there, and he DID NOT ASK.
I find his decision presumptuous, outrageous, infuriatingly lacking in empathy for my position. Currently I have NOTHING....no assets, no savings. I told him this. I feel like going back and shouting a few choice facts at him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 16, 2012 7:36:34 GMT 7
That is most unfortunate.
Do you feel like taking it to the AAT?
If you're staying here you may like to consider this.
He definitely seemed to set his own ground rules, the whole idea of an appeal is to let the appellant state his case.
Have you thought about a lawyer?
Legal Aid may not be interested but you can see a community lawyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on May 16, 2012 9:43:51 GMT 7
Hi LD. Sorry to hear that the SSAT did not see reason.
However, they are just older and more senior centrelink employees, with no compassion, the ability to rephrase everything to suit their aim, and no real understanding of what it is like to be sick, or on welfare.
I know you won't feel like it yet, but lodge an appeal at the AAT. Sometimes C/L cave in and settle before it reaches that tribunal.
If they don't, then at least your case, and what they did to you, will become public knowledge, via their own website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 16, 2012 11:04:52 GMT 7
Commonsense would dictate they settle with him before he went to the AAT, the amount he's claiming is minuscule compared with what their costs would be in the higher courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on May 16, 2012 11:11:10 GMT 7
I will absolutely and definitely be taking it to the AAT.
He didn't really set his own rules. He did let me speak eventually. It's just that when someone is like that (speaking AT me rather than TO me), I suspect they may have a touch of Aspergers Disorder, and have no real empathy for other people. And one of my pet hates is people who talk straight over the top of me, often cutting in when I'm mid-sentence. It's effect is belittling. And unfortunately a lot of government workers seem to do it these days. I think it's because they're overworked and can not afford too much time to hear people babble on (the way many people do). The problem is that I am very succinct and address the point when I'm speaking. So it irritates me when someone speaks over the top of me, mid-sentence. Yes, it is my pet hate.....because it is so mannerless, belittling and disempowering.
A certain amount of this happens in normal everyday conversation, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people butting in repeatedly and steamrollering right over me, verbally. That's what he did and what some people in Centrelink International did. I used to dread calls to them.
As far as I know, people in an SSAT tribunal can be / are from other government departments....not Centrelink.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on May 16, 2012 14:10:25 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on May 16, 2012 15:30:42 GMT 7
People at the SSAT are usually long term public servants, promoted to that office, to receive a higher salary. If they did not work for Centrelink, they were employed by a Department which gave them a good knowledge of social security laws and its processes.
Which means, that when we take a case to the SSAT to argue the decision of some Centrelink worker and an ARO officer, the chances are that are some time those people have worked together, and have a friendship. If not, someone who is friends with both parties, will organise for the SSAT to protect their friend's job.
While I do advise people to pursue matters to the AAT, I have to state that I did stumble across a website last year, who's creator claims that the AAT tribunal members are ex-magistrates and judges, who have disgraced themselves and had to be removed from the bench. So our wonderful government, gives them a place on the bench at the AAT, with an impressive salary.
None of these places are above corruption, nor above employing corrupt staff. It is only the public release of the SSAT cases, which provides some form of protection for us, against them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on May 16, 2012 15:38:43 GMT 7
One of the statements I had made to the SSAT, was that I had become homeless since being placed on the dole, while too sick to work. That I had had to send my daughter to live with someone else, so she could attend her school, and that my sick son and myself were currently staying with various people, while waiting for his surgery. I stated that I wanted to be granted the DSP, so I could rent a new house and get my family back together.
The SSAT's decision against me, states that I said I wanted DSP because I wanted to rent a new house. Full stop.
It is probably because they were aware that you are a good orator, LD, that they deliberately tried to make sure you didn't get the chance to speak.
|
|
