return to menu

THE AMANDA PROBLEM

I have identified that some 236,000 blokes are now on the dole/disability payment as a result of CSA brutality (the "can't get blood out of a stone, no matter how much you COAT it" principle), costing some $2.3 billion per annum (quite apart from say $4 billion in lost tax receipts).

Now we are only just out of an election so we have the normal scenario where government transferred heaps of blokes from dole to disability to make employment figures look good, but now comes the time to axe them off the disability but hopefully not back on the dole. This is not a jibe at Amanda, both parties have done that since Adam was a boy. It's a political given. Amanda's spin is 2 part. Firstly she is talking of reducing the disabled pension for all but the runt in Life of Brian with arms and legs chopped off. Secondly she is trying to reduce the subsidy on Panadols for the grannies (who incidentally are not allowed to kill themselves to relieve their pain).

Of course none of that changes the 236,000 CSA blokes on $5 per week, nor the Centrelink clawback (of zero), so the plan to save a few lousy million only affects the grannies (who will now all be off to see Dr Death). BUT here lies the plan. What if the dole was partially or even fully paid by others rather than the taxpayer? Sounds fanciful? Well you may all be surprised to know that such facility is already in the FLAct and SSAct

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Institution of proceedings

S 44(4) The court shall not grant leave under subsection (3) or (3A) unless it is satisfied:

(b) in the case of proceedings in relation to the maintenance of a party to a marriage—that, at the end of the period within which the proceedings could have been instituted without the leave of the court, the circumstances of the applicant were such that the applicant would have been unable to support himself or herself without an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.

Yes indeed, S 44(4)(b) was inserted back in 1987 along with all the other measures to save the taxpayer supporting children AND spouses once people become victims of the FLIndustry. But like s 77A for example the FLIndustry has ignored these sections because it is bad for future business to have Buttercup's Divorce Investment Portfolio (herein DIP) diminished in any way by Maintenance Income Testing. Like Buttercups will not sell DIPs to their friends as well if they say "my lawyer got me the BMW as a S 75(2) matter BUT Centrelink have apportioned it under S 1116 and I lose $50 a week from my Little Ozzie Pension".

The genius of the FLAct is shown by the inclusion, inter alia, of S 44(4)(b), albeit there is no case law at all to be found, so it is what I term Virgin Law. To prove my point, the most money hungry Legal Aid firm in my town went white with shock when I suggested they argue it for me, and when I applied on my own the matter is still on the pending list in FCA nearly 5 years later. Nuf said!!

How does it work? Well it says that normally a spouse can only apply for spouse maintenance within a year of the decree nasty (divorce), unless certain other things apply. This section says that one of those things is that bloke is on dole, meaning the court is "seized with power" to order Buttercup to pay him maintenance, ironically to the self same S 75(2) factors which got mum the Beamer in the first place.

I will pause here for the funeral of Germaine Greer who just died from shock and horror disbelief that the best laid plans of women and mice could go so wrong - Dominus Wobiscuits!!!

THEN the SSAct picks up via the income testing of the dole, which is not too dissimilar to the testing of the Buttercup goodies at 50 cents in the dollar with a slush zone at both ends.

The source of the money is via an investigation of the good old S 75(2) factors, but NOW with bloke having lost the shirt off his back in the DIP and Buttercup rolling in property, perhaps now married to a new wealthy sucker. Perhaps she has done a Peacock, Sangster, Renouf and has amassed millions from several suckers?

So all this is possible under present legislation. The saving, even if only half of the dole was clawed back would be over a billion per annum - AND the grannies could continue to chew their free Panadols. Everybody would be happy. But who would put this wondrous plan into action? Well you can dear bloke, you can.

But there's more! I can see here a wonderful opportunity for parasites (aka lawyers) to get in on the bandwagon, once having returned from the funeral of Greer. The mail is that parasite business is not all that good at present. Because they did such a good job cementing what they call House & Garden settlements (I call DIPs) at $20 grand a pop, smart Buttercups are now saving even that by simply using the Internet to do their own House & Garden, leaving FL parasites out in the backyard so as to speak.

Then we all know how things have gone South for ambulance chasing lawyers with the current medical etc outrage by the public/parliament. Then not even boat chasing offers respite. The AG's Pacific Solution (combined with good old Mr Bennett's defeat of Vadarlis and Co in the Tampa case) has even shrunk that avenue. So what we have here is a bloke led recovery but by the very parasites that DIPed them originally. Or you might say "what goes around comes around".

However the main impetus would be a mandatory requirement by a Maintenance Income Test (MIT) to "make reasonable attempt to obtain maintenance" before getting the Centrelink benefit, be it dole or whatever. I can't quite recall the wording of the present MIT for Buttercups (which may be OK at present), but it would be a simple matter for Amanda to add a section to the SSAct.

Who is the first to apply? You can get the Form 12 direct from the FCA web site. Just do it!!! Amanda for PM!!!

return to menu