Australia's Social Security Department (Centrelink) Accepts 'Friends with Benefits'

[WatchStr8Sex]

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:

 

[patro78]

Thanks for pointing this case out.

Not sure if it is authority for the positive proposition that the social security system "accepts" FWBs. Rather, the ruling appears to hold that occassional sexual intercourse between people who reside in the same premises does not, without anything more, satisfy the criteria for a de facto relationship as recognised under various statutes. That is pretty unremarkable. Because the relationship was not a de facto one, the woman cannot be denied a carer's allowance (assuming the qualifies for it in all other respects) on the exclusionary ground of de facto status.