|
|
| Author |
Message |
Gurugirl
Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 24
Location: QLD
Reputation: 64.5
|
 Posted: Feb 15, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Centrelink payment for pre-op transgender living with female
|
 |
|
You may recall some time ago, we asked questions in relations to centrelink, about living with a female (when your pre-op). We have fought this issue with Centrelink (at considerable expense) - and have now won at the SSAT and AAT levels..
The case was heard by a full bench of the AAT, which included a Justice from the full bench!
Here is the AAT'S response
Hope it is of benefit for all transgender people..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2008/104.html
Regards
Samantha
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vampirella
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 219
Location: WA
Reputation: 284.7
Votes: 18
|
| Posted: Feb 16, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| I hope this works and goes well, hearing of this news while you had been the chat room has given me hope, knowing how well the egal monster moves in Australia 2 and a half years, congrats on this victory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ella_1
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 107
Location: NSW
Reputation: 114.5
Votes: 3
|
| Posted: Feb 16, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
You mean to say that Centrelink decided that you were a Defacto Lesbian couple, however, there is no law Commonwealth or state that allows such?
I just wonder if you have done a service or dis-service to the TG community? And the Gay and Lesbian types?
Lets look at it from the argumentative point that Centrelink is a federal government body, which ascribes to the laws made by parliament. THey can't of course just make up a rule that says two of the same sex are in a defacto or marital relationship, cause this contravenes all the laws set by parliament, even in the states.
However, the Gay, Lesbian and Trans community has been fighting for years to have such relationships recognised as Marital, say sex marriages, same sex defacto etc. If one partner dies, the other gets nothing under law, this is NOT good.
However, if you had a governments authority that was declaring people as married, under one of the highest statute authorities available, next to the Tax commissioner, then haven't you won the Marital Argument?
Doesn't such a declaration have benefits - that one government agency is treating you as one thing when another perhaps is not? This creates a rift in the law and it would have been easy to establish case law thereupon for a same sex marriage.
I find it interesting that the decision defines the relationship as a "lives in a lesbian relationship" - which means as a couple, and the SSA defines a couple fairly clearly, beyond that of marriage or defacto.
Interesting to say the least. So on one hand it is a win, on the other hand it could well be a set back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ella_1
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 107
Location: NSW
Reputation: 114.5
Votes: 3
|
| Posted: Feb 16, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Hehe after reading that more, I'm so glad the definition of human isn't:
2 arms
2 legs
1 torso
1 head
2 working ears
2 working eyes
shall I continue?
What a joke. Seems a lot more needs to be done yet to bring about the realisation that the courts are now opposite to law where gender is concerned.
I wonder what Mr Bobbit has to say about this? His Penis was bit off by his wife! Is he a woman now?
(smile)
I'm sure there are far more detailed examples of "men' who have deformed, non existent, or removed penis (penis cancer patients for example?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gurugirl
Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 24
Location: QLD
Reputation: 64.5
|
| Posted: Feb 16, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Ella wrote: | You mean to say that Centrelink decided that you were a Defacto Lesbian couple, however, there is no law Commonwealth or state that allows such?
I just wonder if you have done a service or dis-service to the TG community? And the Gay and Lesbian types?
Lets look at it from the argumentative point that Centrelink is a federal government body, which ascribes to the laws made by parliament. THey can't of course just make up a rule that says two of the same sex are in a defacto or marital relationship, cause this contravenes all the laws set by parliament, even in the states.
However, the Gay, Lesbian and Trans community has been fighting for years to have such relationships recognised as Marital, say sex marriages, same sex defacto etc. If one partner dies, the other gets nothing under law, this is NOT good.
However, if you had a governments authority that was declaring people as married, under one of the highest statute authorities available, next to the Tax commissioner, then haven't you won the Marital Argument?
Doesn't such a declaration have benefits - that one government agency is treating you as one thing when another perhaps is not? This creates a rift in the law and it would have been easy to establish case law thereupon for a same sex marriage.
I find it interesting that the decision defines the relationship as a "lives in a lesbian relationship" - which means as a couple, and the SSA defines a couple fairly clearly, beyond that of marriage or defacto.
Interesting to say the least. So on one hand it is a win, on the other hand it could well be a set back. |
You have missed the point and there is more to it....
We where separated back in 2000
(I am living with a female)
then the centrelink business intrigrity unit 2005 said no and classified us as a male and female couple. So we took it back to them and appealed.
SSAT Agreed with us, and centrelink appealed it
During the AAT hearing, the Judge from the High court repeatidly asked the Centrelink COunsel, if they agreed that I couldnt go any further in transitioning without putting my life on the line....
They replied "Yes" but argued that it still wasnt good enough
But they have ruled in this that an orchidectomy is suffucient for a SRS, contray to Centrelink and there anal way of thinking...
I can appreciate your comments about marriage and so on, but this was not the case... It was soley that Centrelink stated we where in a male / female realionship.. All centrelinks arguements was
Mr Samantha and so on...
Personally I think it was worth the fight, now it is in black and white what SRS is.
Samantha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ella_1
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 107
Location: NSW
Reputation: 114.5
Votes: 3
|
| Posted: Feb 16, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I can SO relate to Mr Ella 
Although I see your point, the judgment itself is based around the definition of a relationship, not who is part of it, beyond that of the question of the parties gender.
The Tribunal did not want to sanction a Same Sex relationship - oooh la la!
Hanging your medical and biological all over the judgment in my view is nothing more than to embarrass you for embarrassing the government - but I know you from my past life and your past life
Hehehe
Look the judgment is good in many a sense, but all things have an opposite reaction and whether the tribunal has "stuck with" status quo or tried to nub centerlink I'm not sure.
Time will tell.
For now, you have won what you fought for and had to keep defending. That's great |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kitty
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Location: WA
Reputation: 1
|
| Posted: Apr 20, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Gurugirl wrote: | During the AAT hearing, the Judge from the High court repeatidly asked the Centrelink COunsel, if they agreed that I couldnt go any further in transitioning without putting my life on the line....
They replied "Yes" but argued that it still wasnt good enough
But they have ruled in this that an orchidectomy is suffucient for a SRS, contray to Centrelink and there anal way of thinking...
|
Hi Samantha, congratulations on the result!
I was wondering if you could clarify how orchidectomy is now seen as sufficient for SRS, as I can't see this anywhere in the judgement.
If this is true, it would be a great result for trans women! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
