|
Post by rodcourt49 on Oct 26, 2011 6:45:53 GMT 7
(I apologize if i have duplicated this thread). The much dreaded thunderbolt arrived last week in the form of official letter entitled "Changes to Disability Support Pensions". I was given 28 days to contact Inter. Services from date of letter. I sent two emails, and on not hearing from them, called this morning. As you all are no doubt aware, as result of recent amendments to the 'residency' definition, as of January 1, 2012 the DSP will cease. I was advised too that sometime in December i would be interviewed by Inter. Services regarding my circumstances ie. ties, assets etc in both countries! (I got the distinct impression this will be a battle in itself to convince them I still qualify). So, fellow centurions, check your armour and your blade, the line has been drawn in the sand. ROD.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 26, 2011 7:03:16 GMT 7
Well they won't be interviewing me in December.
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Oct 26, 2011 8:48:19 GMT 7
"as of January 1, 2012 the DSP will cease"
doesn't sound to encouraging, What do they mean by the above, how can the DSP cease to exist ?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 26, 2011 9:57:56 GMT 7
I'm not sure Zorro, these letters are going around, I got something similar about residency when I was back in Australia myself. Personally I refuse to worry about it, the Act hasn't changed so any new dodgy rules they make up aren't going to stand up under appeal. I think they will hassle people who they consider can go back to work, but Minister Macklin has promised us unemployable layabouts unlimited portability after 30th June next year so why should they waste their resources on us now?
Yeah, yeah, I know, because they can.
Bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Oct 26, 2011 10:24:42 GMT 7
I'm not sure Zorro, these letters are going around, I got something similar about residency when I was back in Australia myself. Personally I refuse to worry about it, the Act hasn't changed so any new dodgy rules they make up aren't going to stand up under appeal.I think they will hassle people who they consider can go back to work, but Minister Macklin has promised us unemployable layabouts unlimited portability after 30th June next year so why should they waste their resources on us now? Yeah, yeah, I know, because they can. Bring it on. Banjo, the Act did change. I posted on the actual changes a few months ago in some detail. There were no changes to the portability period - 13 weeks is still in. Whereas previously it was a requirement that one only needed to be a resident to qualify for the DSP at time of application, there is now a continuing requirement that one must remain a resident whilst they receive the DSP. Note too - the definition of 'residency' has not changed, just the ongoing requirement. What I posted a few months ago: IMPORTANT NOTICE Further to my last post, I have gone through the amendments that were passed by both houses (attached PDF). My observations are as follows: 1. The amendments received Royal Assent last week on the 25/05/2011 (Fred - thanks for pointing me in the right direction). 2. The commencement date for the amendments is the 1st of July 2011. 3. There have been NO amendments to the statutory definition of an Australian Resident - Section 7 of the SSA: Section 7 SSA In deciding for the purposes of this Act whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to: (a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia; and (b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia; and (c) the nature and extent of the person's employment, business or financial ties with Australia; and (d) the nature and extent of the person's assets located in Australia; and (e) the frequency and duration of the person's travel outside Australia; and (f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia. Therefore, not only has Section 7 not been changed, but ALL case law is still very much applicable. 4. There have been NO amendments to the 13 week portability period. 5. The amendments that have been made relate to Section 94 of the SSA. Whereas it has only been a requirement before the amendments come into effect that the DSP recipient only needs to have been an Australian Resident at time of applying and being granted the DSP. There have been no ongoing requirements that they in fact remain an Australian Resident. This has been changed by the Section 94 amendments that provide now that "the person is an Australian resident"
|
|
|
Post by zorro1 on Oct 26, 2011 12:37:03 GMT 7
"as of January 1, 2012 the DSP will cease" doesn't sound to encouraging, What do they mean by the above, how can the DSP cease to exist ? Think that was a typo. Well it certainly looks like they are going after the frequent flyers first especially if they dont have family or any of the other points on that list.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 26, 2011 15:27:40 GMT 7
"as of January 1, 2012 the DSP will cease" doesn't sound to encouraging, What do they mean by the above, how can the DSP cease to exist ? Think that was a typo. Well it certainly looks like they are going after the frequent flyers first especially if they dont have family or any of the other points on that list. So it all comes down to residency, they told me I was a non resident and it failed in the SSAT, they told ruddthedudd he was a non-resident and it failed at ARO level. Section 7 hasn't changed, what do you mean by case law? I'm a former truck driver and these complex legal terms are beyond me. The cases I have read that Centrelink has won on residency have involved people with houses and families overseas.
|
|
|
Post by rodcourt49 on Oct 27, 2011 15:35:30 GMT 7
...Case Law is a term used when the law has been tested as to its legality when applied to a charge. Once a magistrate or judge makes a decision on that law then that particular case is documented and can be referred to in any future proceeding..for eg. forced entry into a motor vehicle where the driver has locked himself in with the windows up, deemed he has failed to comply with the officers request to comply for a breathayzer test...so any further incidents under that States' legislation can be applied, without having to go so far to prove it. It gives added value to the evidence when it comes to 'points of proof' for an Acts' sections or regulations. You hear lawyers referring for example "The Crown V Brown".
|
|
|
Post by rodcourt49 on Oct 27, 2011 15:40:04 GMT 7
"as of January 1, 2012 the DSP will cease" doesn't sound to encouraging, What do they mean by the above, how can the DSP cease to exist ? ..sorry zorro..'cease' as in Centrelink will stop paying it to DSPers who in their opinion do not meet the 'residency' definition, as of January 1, 2012..unless you pass the Interview which they told me would be held sometime in December 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 27, 2011 18:16:07 GMT 7
I can see you need some in depth reassurance Rod, can't get down next week but hopefully we can catch up the week after.
Edit: Rowdy was going to ring you... did he get around to it? Give sceadugenga an email if you want his number.
|
|
|
Post by rowdy on Oct 27, 2011 19:38:29 GMT 7
I can see you need some in depth reassurance Rod, can't get down next week but hopefully we can catch up the week after. Edit: Rowdy was going to ring you... did he get around to it? Give sceadugenga an email if you want his number. Banjo... you need to get a better internet connection I can never hear you. Spoke to Rod and we are going to discuss strategies over a beer at a secret location over the weekend. Banjo call me when you have a good connection/signal. Rowdy.....
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 28, 2011 5:40:11 GMT 7
Good luck Rod!
On a side note: My landlord, who has been on DSP for many years, received a letter from his GP's medical centre telling him that he must come in for an appointment. His injuries can't be treated, so he doesn't go to the GP and buys strong nuerophen from Coles.
I asked him to show me the letter, but he wouldn't look for it. He is outraged that the doctor's office have demanded an appearance by him. I suspect that Centrelink is behind it.
I wonder if that is another reason that they want you guys back here, so that they can monitor how often one sees a GP and what treatments we are offered. Now that they have the 'power' to go through our medical records, behind our backs, I wonder how many pensions they will go on to challenge, if a person is not continually attending their GP.
I would include all of your medical records from overseas in your appeal against being denied DSP. You will have to show that you are receiving medical care over there, to qualify. 'Not trying to get well', is considered to be a good enough reason to deny one DSP.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 28, 2011 7:00:04 GMT 7
I doubt my doctor would show them my records without a court order, he's very good like that. I certainly hear about it if Centrelink asked to see them anyway. Banjo has spies everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 28, 2011 8:40:49 GMT 7
Different culture these days. Medicare, and therefore public servants, pay so much of their their bills and salaries, that they bow down to them.
I think GP's have also been made aware that Centrelink will declare war on anyone supporting DSP applications, without good reason. If too many GP's continue to support the sick and infirm through their income support needs, C/L will eventually take the power away from them completely.
We have no real rights of privacy in this country. They have admitted that recently. However, they also wanted our GP's to upload all of our records to the net, a couple of years ago. Under the guise of portability and convenience, it would have also given their staff easy access to all it.
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Oct 28, 2011 10:40:43 GMT 7
Banjo, the Act did change. I posted on the actual changes a few months ago in some detail. There were no changes to the portability period - 13 weeks is still in. Whereas previously it was a requirement that one only needed to be a resident to qualify for the DSP at time of application, there is now a continuing requirement that one must remain a resident whilst they receive the DSP. Note too - the definition of 'residency' has not changed, just the ongoing requirement. What I posted a few months ago: IMPORTANT NOTICE Further to my last post, I have gone through the amendments that were passed by both houses (attached PDF). My observations are as follows: 1. The amendments received Royal Assent last week on the 25/05/2011 (Fred - thanks for pointing me in the right direction). 2. The commencement date for the amendments is the 1st of July 2011. 3. There have been NO amendments to the statutory definition of an Australian Resident - Section 7 of the SSA: Section 7 SSA In deciding for the purposes of this Act whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to: (a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia; and (b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia; and (c) the nature and extent of the person's employment, business or financial ties with Australia; and (d) the nature and extent of the person's assets located in Australia; and (e) the frequency and duration of the person's travel outside Australia; and (f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia. Therefore, not only has Section 7 not been changed, but ALL case law is still very much applicable. 4. There have been NO amendments to the 13 week portability period. 5. The amendments that have been made relate to Section 94 of the SSA. Whereas it has only been a requirement before the amendments come into effect that the DSP recipient only needs to have been an Australian Resident at time of applying and being granted the DSP. There have been no ongoing requirements that they in fact remain an Australian Resident. This has been changed by the Section 94 amendments that provide now that "the person is an Australian resident" This whole business is driving me nuts......it all seems to revolve around the difference in the interpretation of the word "resident": ..... "resident IN Australia" versus "resident OF Australia". Logic dictates that a person shall be a resident OF Australia, and probably resident IN Australia when applying for DSP, but it is utterly frustrating for there to be no clear description of whether the word "resident", when applied to a person already receiving DSP and outside Australia, refers to whether they are "A resident OF".....ie a citizen of Australia........or whether they are "resident IN Australia".....ie. currently physically residing there. Also, saying that "regard must be had to" points (a) through to (f) quoted above still leaves everything there open to whatever interpretation Centrelink (or some bureaucrat therein) wishes to give them. The act does not say how much weight must be given to any of these points. They don't really mean that much !
|
|