|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 3, 2011 11:40:36 GMT 7
I know of a number of cases where people have ended up with substantial debts to repay in relationship to overstaying and residency.
In every case they have been assured that Centrelink have "no intentions of preferring criminal charges" for fraudulently receiving benefits.
This is a point of considerable interest, a supporting mother who lives with a guy who's working often goes to jail if caught, as do NewStart recipients caught working.
Why is this so? Is the "law" in black and white in these cases while Centrelink fears the overstayers and non-residents may beat the charges in court?
Has the government ordered them not to prosecute these people because of potential bad publicity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 3, 2011 12:55:03 GMT 7
Up to you, you have the administrator permissions in place.
If you think they haven't thought about it and discussed the repercussions then you have a lesser opinion of what they are capable of then me.
Edit: Do you think they heven't ran it past the Commonwealth Attorney General?
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 3, 2011 13:06:38 GMT 7
Indeed.
They have openly admitted to members that they have erred in considering them residents a few years back and have now decided they are not even though the member's circumstances and the Social Security Act are unchanged.
What's wrong with jail anyway?
At least they have to feed you and you have access to medication and social workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Apr 3, 2011 18:41:14 GMT 7
I know of a number of cases where people have ended up with substantial debts to repay in relationship to overstaying and residency. In every case they have been assured that Centrelink have "no intentions of preferring criminal charges" for fraudulently receiving benefits. This is a point of considerable interest, a supporting mother who lives with a guy who's working often goes to jail if caught, as do NewStart recipients caught working. Why is this so? Is the "law" in black and white in these cases while Centrelink fears the overstayers and non-residents may beat the charges in court? Has the government ordered them not to prosecute these people because of potential bad publicity? Banjo, I can see where your coming from. IMO: If C/L thought for one minute they could win in court they would do it, I think they have been advised against it. Very bad publicity putting old or disabled people in jail for mistakes that C/L had made. |
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Apr 17, 2011 7:38:50 GMT 7
One of our members who has lost his pension on residency grounds has applied to Centrelink to have his debt erased under the Social Security Act because of inability to pay. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/s1236.htmlHe is currently being informed that the term "write off" doesn't mean permanent erasure, only the offer of temporary relief from payments. Now that's not what write off meant when I went to school... |
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Apr 17, 2011 13:36:16 GMT 7
One of our members who has lost his pension on residency grounds has applied to Centrelink to have his debt erased under the Social Security Act because of inability to pay. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/s1236.htmlHe is currently being informed that the term "write off" doesn't mean permanent erasure, only the offer of temporary relief from payments. Now that's not what write off meant when I went to school...
The way it reads is that they can recover the debt at a later time......perhaps after said person is granted the OAP. Open for discussion by our members. |
|
