Likely shape of the new Centrelink regulations

[zorro1]

Nov 29, 2011 13:29:47 GMT 7 latindancer said:

No can do. I want us to move back to Oz, after I somehow scrape together the $2,000 visa application fee. Gawd knows how we'll survive there though. But life here in Asia ain't great in many ways, particularly if we have a child.
What would be interesting is if I have to go back to Oz while she's still here. Would they pay me the full single rate again ?

LD I really sorry about your situation. Have been racking my brains but cant think of anything except if things get to tough in oz you could 'undo" your marriage due to financial stress and move back to Thailand on a single pension

[immiadvice]

I believe I have already explained to you how to legally claim the single rate of payment. Section 24 is mostly used in immigration cases.

[Banjo]

“Special reason”: applying “section 24”

Centrelink can decide to treat a legally married person or a person in a marriage-like relationship as not being a “member of a couple” where there is a “special reason” to do so. This discretion is created by section 24 of the Social Security Act.

Usually, Centrelink will not exercise this discretion unless the person is also suffering financial hardship as a result of the failure to have access to the financial resources (if any) of their partner.

Centrelink exercises this discretion in very limited circumstances and it is not possible to predict all the situations where the application of section 24 will arise. Centrelink may consider that unless the situation (such as the separation itself or the financial hardship) was beyond the control of either partner or was an unintended consequence of the partner’s actions, then the discretion should not be exercised. This interpretation of the discretion is probably too narrow. People adversely affected by decisions relating to the section 24 discretion should consider appealing (see Chapter 48).

Requests to be treated as not being a “member of a couple” are usually made where the couple is separated (eg one partner is overseas), although separation is not a pre-requisite for the exercise of this discretion. Section 24 can be considered so as to increase a person’s rate to the higher single rate where for any reason, the other member of the couple has no income and is ineligible for Social Security because of either being not residentially qualified or subject to a two year Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Period.

Examples of situations where a person may be treated as not being a “member of a couple” under section 24 include :

where there are legal restrictions on the transfer of funds from overseas or the overseas partner has only sufficient money to support himself or herself; and
where the continued separation is caused by reasons beyond the control of the person or was unintended, such as the overseas partner falling ill.

Centrelink may wish to be satisfied that, if one of the partners has the power to do so, that person is taking steps to rectify the situation.

An example of where there may not be separation is where one “member of a couple” loses access to the other member’s funds because of the appointment of a guardian (as a result of mental infirmity). In these circumstances the person may be prevented from having access to their partner’s funds and hence a section 24 application may be appropriate.

It is important to remember that where Centrelink decides that for a previous period a person was a “member of a couple” it is possible to have section 24 used retrospectively. This would mean, for example, that a person may be paid arrears, or where Centrelink decides a person was a “member of a couple” and intends to raise a debt, a retrospective application of section 24 may stop the debt being raised.

www.welfarerights.org.au/admindocs/isshmay08/default.htm

[latindancer]

I appreciate your support, folks. It really does make me feel more positive about the whole thing.
I've just re-read your original post, Immiadvice. I see what you're saying now.
Thanks for that info and link, Banjo.
I'll muse over the whole thing for a while.

[latindancer]

Well, I got a call from Centrelink International Services this morning.
I had sent an email yesterday once again asking details of the decision made automatically once I reported my marriage, to reduce my payment by 30% to half the married rate. The person I emailed had not replied for nine and a half working days and yesterday the stress got to me. So I fired off another email.
Anyway, this morning I was told I could get an Authorised Review Officer to look at that decision.
I was also told that as I was now married and had "set up house" in Thailand, that I was deemed to no longer be resident in Australia, and that in all likelihood my pension would be cut off as of the 1st January.
I told her that as I had stated previously, I was going to apply for a visa for my wife to go to Australia, but I have very little savings, and the $2,000 visa fee (which is non-refundable) would leave me with very little buffer for plane tickets and even small unforeseen expenses. And that my now reduced payment wasn't exactly helping things either.
I then pointed out that I had heard that single people would not be deemed non-resident till a much later time. She agreed and said if I was single it might be another year.
(Don't get all excited, guys....this was an off the cuff comment).
But it seems that if you're a sex tourist in Asia, or here for the cheap/easy drugs, you're fine for a while. Married ? Sorry....no.
So I'm far worse off being married. Great ! Penalised for being in love. We got married September 21 and now I have to go back to Oz and STAY there till I can wheedle a visa out of Immigration, after paying a rip-off $2,000 fee.
She said that Centrelink are obliged to interpret the new legislation correctly, but they can do it however they like. That's how it is with ambiguous wording.
Previously they had told me that overseas DSP recipients are assessed on a case by case basis. Bullsh*t.
They're making us wear the same crap no matter what our circumstances are, and causing stress, suffering and driving wedges between newly-married couples.
What a bunch of *&%#ed bureaucrats they are.

If I could get to Hobart easily I'd go into their office and start screaming at them. Pr*%ks.

[Banjo]

I think they are going to give a few people a hard time next year, I'm certainly making contingency plans for all eventualities.

Did you ask to speak to her supervisor so you could tell them you want the decision reviewed?

[latindancer]

If you mean the decision to reduce my payment, she offered to kick that off and I'll apparently get a phone call from an ARO soon.

If you mean the decision to deem me non-resident...no I didn't.
I'm not sure if I am yet deemed that or if it'll kick in, in January.
I really feel disempowered, like the rug has been pulled from under my feet.
"We assess people on a case by case basis" they said. What nonsense.
Or perhaps they do, but after driving you to the wall first.

BTW, has anyone ever heard of the Immigration department waiving or part-waiving Partner Visa Application fees ?
The reason I ask is that when I fought a Civil court case a few years ago, I eventually made an application to the High Court.
On the offchance, I asked if they'd waive the fee (something like $350, I think) for recipients of DSP, and they said YES !
Of course the High Court didn't want to hear the case, but it was worth trying, and it would have cost me otherwise.

[zorro1]

LD you must have killed a chinaman in your previous life , Its seriously bad luck to have to deal with C/L AND immigration at the same time

I cant say for sure but very much doubt it can be waived. They might not look favourably on your application if you cant raise the 2k between the both of you.

Just a word of caution, there are special "ways" to fill out the Visa forms. It would be a good idea to hop on the Asian expat forums and ask what needs to be "created' to assure an approval

"If I could get to Hobart easily I'd go into their office and start screaming at them. Pr*%ks."

Sooner or later someone will walk into their local C/L office and do more than just scream, its just a matter of time.

[latindancer]

Thanks for the "heads up" on that Zorro. Will do.

I think a lot of Centrelink personnel have been physically assaulted over the years. Customers who have been driven to the wall and feel like they're fighting for their very survival, and/or who have mental disorders, or substance abuse problems....break out into physical expression of their frustration. Centrelink has put many people into intolerable "Catch-22"- type life situations.
Now I understand why people snap, though I myself would never physically assault staff. I would however, get satisfaction from screaming.....not abuse.....but clear, concise things about their apparent sociopathic lack of empathy with their customers and stupid, mean-spirited bureaucratic mentality.
I hope one of their spies is reading this now, though if they are I'm sure it will bounce straight off their thick bovine skin.

[latindancer]

Last year before I came here to Thailand, CL employees assured me during two different phone calls that CL would be assessing overseas recipients of DSP on a case-by-case basis. However it seems as if this has not happened. I have automatically had my payment reduced by 30% following my marriage; now I am now being told I will be deemed non-resident in Australia when January comes....."due to being married, and setting up house overseas". It seems that these are decisions being made either automatically, or with little consideration of my particular case details. Centrelink assured me that I would be assessed individually. Automatically making this decision is contradictory to Centrelink's statement that "We are committed to providing consistent and accurate information".
Specifically, no consideration has been given to my particular condition.
It really seems as if I'm getting processed through a large impersonal government system which is taking into account only the most superficial of details regarding my case, despite assurances to the contrary.
I regard it as an outrageous intrusion into my private and personal life to be told how I should or should not live here in Asia on a day by day basis. It seems that being a single male here, and indulging in the alcohol and sex nightclub/bargirl scene is ok, but being married is not.
Being forced by Centrelink to separate from my wife after having only been married in late September shows me that they have NOT assessed me on a case-by-case basis but have instead just processed me through as they do everyone else. I think this "one size fits all" kind of policy reeks of bureaucratic inflexibility and lack of any real duty of care. And as a government organization looking after Disability pensioners, Centrelink and it's officers do very much have a duty of care. Being obliged to return to Australia and be without my wife is causing me a lot of stress. I clearly stated to Centrelink that we were planning on soon applying for a Partner Visa to return together. However being forced back by myself is contrary to my plans. Centrelink has failed in it's duty of care to me and neglected to assess my individual case.
Centrelink's website has a page entitled "What you can expect from us".
On this page it is stated that "Our business improvement priorities for 2011-14 are :

.....To provide a service that takes people’s individual circumstances into account"
..... "to deliver services and support in a way that meets the needs of individuals and the community".
...."to work with you to understand your personal circumstances".
(Please note how essentially the same thing is said 3 separate times).

........."We will be accountable for our actions"

These have not happened so far in my case.

When an individual's circumstances change, Centrelink's default mode seems to be to take money or entitlements AWAY, and then let the individual fight to regain them. The effect is that of bullying, and at the very least, this places stress and inconvenience on some of society's most vulnerable members. Disability Support Pension recipients are very much in this category......people who are sometimes with their backs right up against the wall.
It is simply not good enough to say that I can appeal. This often takes a long time; my money is running low and stress levels high. I have been paid $564 a fortnight since my marriage on September 21.....30% less than previously, so my finances are strained. That's only $282 a week. As I want my wife to join me in Australia (and I now have no choice about whether to live with her in Thailand or Australia) I need to pay a visa application fee of $2,000 (non-refundable). There are a number of things I have to pay soon, such as the registration of my car (I keep it registered in Australia), car repairs, plane ticket back, etc. I currently have no financial buffer above this, so my finances will soon be severely strained.
As I pointed out, all this takes it's toll psychologically.
On December 3, 2011 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, and The Hon Jenny Macklin MP announced a new agency will be established to lead the Commonwealth’s work to design the launch of a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Although this agency has not yet been created, in the media release, amongst other things they stated that :
"The Australian Government wants to see improvements to disability care and support as quickly as possible".
I'd like to see Centrelink put this public statement from our leaders into practice.

[zorro1]

"The Australian Government wants to see improvements to disability care and support as quickly as possible".
I'd like to see Centrelink put this public statement from our leaders into practice."

Im a member of a chronic pain forum based in the USA and by default I have learn t the in and outs of their DSP system. It matters not That you may be chronically ill and can no longer afford medicine and your living on the streets or a mattress on the floor somewhere , there version of C/L automatically rejects nearly all new applicants . These same applicants are then approved on the 2nd or 3rd attempt usually when a lawyer is appointed who then takes 50% of back payments.

A point was made by I think banjo who said that we are making the mistake of thinking that c/l "care".
They dont and like their American counterparts they will make the decision that is in their best interest and not yours... AUTOMATICALLY

So LD the ball is now in your court whether to appeal or not. A lot of people would not appeal nor would they know they even can ,so its a win for c/l

[Banker]

LD, I feel for you and others that are in the same boat. Many of the things you mention are the reason why this forum was started and also our web site.

[blacktulipvampire]

LD, It is quite clear from this board that there have been as many different answers provided by the Govt and CLink as there have been questions.
It's been, what ? a year and 9 months since the first media release, and still completely contradictory statements being made.

I think the duty of care aspect is an important one. I feel particularly strongly about people being told rules to follow, then after doing so, changing the rules.
I feel that in principle, but especially so in cases like yourself where there are spouses or children etc involved.

Well, they did do it by changing the legislation.

But to have ongoing assurances that your individual circumstances will be considered ( and possibly every assurance that those are very valid ) and then seem to face an automatic "one size fits all" is just not right.

They (Clink) not only have a duty of care, but also must have an absence of bias. That is something that seems also to be lacking.
Certainly, if you have not had your case assessed properly, and yet are being told you will likely be cut off, does suggest bias. Something that may not make an iota of difference to an ARO review, but may make a big difference at SSAT level. Especially if most of the factors to be considered, as listed in the legislation, are not even discussed.

I suspect part of the attitude problem is people (not just Clink) have bought the propaganda from the Govt that this was a loophole and not intended. Therefore, no sympathy nor compassion to be found.
Also, as previously expressed on this board ( and to me in my personal life, including an MP ) - a perception that DSPers O/S are galavanting around the world ( nice for some, wish I could afford it attitude ) , or living in Asia like kings getting up to God knows what ( the tone made it quite clear what activities that might include ).

It also didnt help that some of the newspapers added things like, "it's not known how many of them are working overseas" only adding to a popular belief that people on DSP are welfare cheats.
There is also the ever popular belief - if you can manage that (travel) you cant be too sick / injured.

Regards,
BTV

[Banjo]

The only answer to the last statement is that the Disability Support Pension is handed out by Centrelink, they make the final decision on who qualifies.
Any comments on who or who or who not is entitled to it need to be referred back to them.

[latindancer]

Dec 6, 2011 17:00:03 GMT 7 blacktulipvampire said:

I suspect part of the attitude problem is people (not just Clink) have bought the propaganda from the Govt that this was a loophole and not intended. Therefore, no sympathy nor compassion to be found.

Unfortunately I think you're right. And although various individuals in Centrelink could do something to help us, they too have been indoctrinated with the government/media propaganda.
The crazy thing is that the highest levels of government are saying
""The Australian Government wants to see improvements to disability care and support as quickly as possible".

I'm going to rub this statement into Centrelink's collective face as much and as often as I can.