|
|
此文章由 jimple 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 jimple 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
Background - a residence-based system
The Australian income support system differs from those of most other developed countries, in that it is funded from general revenue, rather than from direct contributions by individuals and employers. Instead of reflecting the level and duration of contributions into a social insurance fund, Australian income support is based on residence and need.
In general, a person must be an "Australian resident", as defined in the Social Security Act 1991, in order to qualify for Australian social security payments. An Australian resident is a person who resides in Australia and has permission to remain permanently—either because they are: an Australian citizen; the holder of a permanent visa; or a protected Special Category visa holder (as described below).In deciding whether a person is residing in Australia, factors such as the person's domestic, financial and family ties to Australia are taken into account, as well as the frequency and duration of any absences from Australia and the reasons for such absences.
而移民局也有这些要求，不然是不会这么容易签到RRV的，5年未满两年的话，不想找了，还是有空的时候去趟好了，最好能找出这个3个月到底怎么来的，最起码有个CASE LAW 出来。The amendments to the Social Security Act effected from 1 July 1984 to incorporate the concept of absent resident, in our view, support the subjective approach that must be taken to ascertain the status and residence of applicants. Earlier authorities, such as Houchar's case 5 ALN 449 must now be approached with some caution in the light of these legislative amendments. In that case, however, Deputy President Thompson recognised, even under the old legislation, that the question whether a person's absence from Australia was temporary only, had to be ascertained by reference to the person's intentions from time to time, ascertained objectively from all the evidence available.
That a lengthy time interval can be consistent with a temporary absence was demonstrated in Alam's case 4 ALD 538. The applicant and her husband went to Lebanon for a six month holiday to see their respective aged and sick parents. They were unfortunate enough to be caught up in the warfare between Moslem and Christian groups at the time, and did not return to Australia until almost five years later. The Tribunal held that it could not be fairly said that the applicant had a settled or usual abode in Lebanon during that period. The insurgency and actual warfare was the principal element holding her there. The death of one parent and the demands of sentiment put further pressure on her to postpone her return. At no point did she intend to establish a residence outside Australia.
Similarly in Mengi's case 6 ALN N320, the applicant's wife, who was in Turkey for approximately nine years, was held nevertheless to be resident in Australia during that period. The Tribunal held that her initial absence from Australia had not deprived her of Australian residential status because that absence was intended to be temporary. Her continued absence could be construed as temporary because of her continuing efforts to return to this country.
As has been pointed out on a number of occasions (see for example recently Smith's case (N84/530, 22 May 1985)) subjective considerations are the golden threads that consistently run through the fabric of social security situations. Having regard to the nature of the questions that have to be answered, this is not surprising. Subjective considerations (like pain) are real and tangible and can be proved like any other fact. Where they depend upon the word of the person most closely affected, satisfactory proof usually involves corroboration by objective facts. The absence of those facts, however, does not necessarily mean that the subjective consideration has not been proved. It simply means that it has not been proved in a particular way. In cases like the present, where the only witnesses are the applicants, where the veracity of their evidence is not seriously challenged, where their demeanour and sincerity are apparent, the need for corroboration is not so great. As we said earlier, we have no reason to reject any of the evidence given by the applicants.
On the question of the "relationship to the country of some closeness", their evidence has been clear, consistent and repeated, not only before this Tribunal but before every other person and organisation concerned with their case. We find that at all relevant times they were domiciled in this country, they were usually resident, and they were temporarily absent. Both decisions under review, therefore, are set aside and the matters are remitted to the respondent with the following directions.
In the case of Mr Issa's application, the direction is that the invalid pension should be granted from the date of his application.
In the case of Mrs Issa's application, the direction is that the family allowance should be recalculated and be paid to her for the relevant period on the assumption that she has received value for those cheques that were forwarded and cashed between 1975 and 1980
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bi ... ecurity%20residence
我又不和他们打官司的，不过就像你说的，如果有这句话在：“如果期间你离开澳洲超过三个月，这个十年就往后顺延超出的部分。”我一定问清楚。
不过现在我该去睡觉了。呵呵，早睡早起，身体好....再说现在也不早了。
[ 本帖最后由 jimple 于 2012-2-24 00:10 编辑 ] |
|
我就是我的乘客 (2022-9-12) 铎邦 
楼主:robert_jj
发表于 2012-2-22 11:34
发表于 2012-2-23 18:20
