Quote:
Originally Posted by sil
......Much of the procedures are open to interpretation too, but with a bit of research you can find the relevant legislation document that governs them. This can help but also hinder, processes often take you in circles but where theres doubt in understanding things usually fall in favour of the government, NEVER your favour. .....
|
Back in the dim and distant past (early 80's) I worked for the DSS in the dole office (sorry USB). It's true that the Dept was governed by the Social Security Act but that didn't mean I could read the act and interpret as I saw fit. There was a second, much larger, document, the SS Manual (or something to that effect), which contained the Dept's interpretation of the Act. Staff were constrained to follow the procedures and interpretations in the manual. This continued right through all the internal appeal processes. However, if the case reached the Administrative Appeals Tribunal they were not bound to follow the Manual and could interpret the Act as they believed appropriate. When I was trained in the operation of the AAT we were shown plenty of cases where the AAT ruling was at odds with the Dept's Manual.
My own experience with the AAT involved my wife's claim for Ausstudy. The dept interpreted a clause about previous study in a certain way and denied her claim. Knowing what I do, we took it to the AAT. When the AAT panel convened in the Wollongong office I was pleased to see that they were a bunch of Sydney inner-city lefties. They apparently thought that anyone trying to better themselves deserved support and so found grounds to uphold her claim. [She completed a PhD and now works as a research assistant, thus justifying the panel's faith in her.]
Of course my information is quite old and may be out-of-date but that's how it used to be.