- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 315
- Media
- 169
- Likes
- 376
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Melbourne (Victoria, Australia)
- Sexuality
- 60% Straight, 40% Gay
- Gender
- Male
A tribunal has ruled welfare recipients can be "friends with benefits" without losing their Centrelink benefits, The Canberra Times reports.
The ruling came after a Queensland woman carer's allowance was challenged because she occasionally had sex with her housemate- a factor they argued would make him her de facto partner. :biggrin1:
When filling out an application for a carer's allowance in 2012 the woman, referred to as Mrs T, found it difficult to classify the difference between a de facto couple and 'friends with benefits'. :wink:
Centrelink officials declined the request on the grounds that her relationship with a man known as Mr D was in fact her live-in lover.
In her appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the 46-year-old said her relationship with Mr D was not exclusive and was purely based on a "physical companionship".
Although she shared a house with Mr D, they had separate rooms and he did not support her financially in any way.
Centrelink's case that Mrs T was in a de facto couple was based on the occasional intimacy between Mrs T and Mr D.
Despite this, Tribunal Member Peter Wulf said there is more to a relationship than sex. :3some:
"From the evidence of both Ms T and Mr D, it would appear that the relationship is not in any way monogamous, in fact, it is quite the opposite," Mr Wulf noted. :laugh:
"When considering a normal de facto relationship it would be unusual, in the tribunal's opinion, for such actions to occur with such regularity. :spankme:
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal overruled the case during a hearing in Brisbane yesterday, finding that the pair were not a de facto couple. :fest30:
The ruling came after a Queensland woman carer's allowance was challenged because she occasionally had sex with her housemate- a factor they argued would make him her de facto partner. :biggrin1:
When filling out an application for a carer's allowance in 2012 the woman, referred to as Mrs T, found it difficult to classify the difference between a de facto couple and 'friends with benefits'. :wink:
Centrelink officials declined the request on the grounds that her relationship with a man known as Mr D was in fact her live-in lover.
In her appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the 46-year-old said her relationship with Mr D was not exclusive and was purely based on a "physical companionship".
Although she shared a house with Mr D, they had separate rooms and he did not support her financially in any way.
Centrelink's case that Mrs T was in a de facto couple was based on the occasional intimacy between Mrs T and Mr D.
Despite this, Tribunal Member Peter Wulf said there is more to a relationship than sex. :3some:
"From the evidence of both Ms T and Mr D, it would appear that the relationship is not in any way monogamous, in fact, it is quite the opposite," Mr Wulf noted. :laugh:
"When considering a normal de facto relationship it would be unusual, in the tribunal's opinion, for such actions to occur with such regularity. :spankme:
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal overruled the case during a hearing in Brisbane yesterday, finding that the pair were not a de facto couple. :fest30: