David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This article argues that the cohabitation rule in Australian social security law is uncertain and has, as a consequence, given rise to an oppressive administrative regime. It tracks the indeterminate nature of the rule as a constant feature throughout its history and argues that this imprecision remains within its current formulation in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Drawing upon basic ideas about the functionality of rules, it is suggested that the administration of an undefined rule should be attended by resistance and challenge. However, the social security regime and the cohabitation rule appear to have been accepted by the community. This acceptance is explained as being the result of the oppressiveness of the current administration. Drawing upon analysis of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions and interviews conducted with Centrelink clients, this article argues that the cohabitation rule unfairly targets vulnerable clients, is implemented through the use of invasive surveillance and provides opportunities for intimidation by Centrelink officers.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kieran Tranter (2013). The Car as Avatar in Australian Social Security Decisions. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique:1-22.
Similar books and articles
Wes Sharrock & Graham Button (1999). Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following. Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
Andrea M. Matwyshyn (2009). CSR and the Corporate Cyborg: Ethical Corporate Information Security Practices. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):579 - 594.
Amos Witztum (2008). Corporate Rules, Distributive Justice, and Efficiency. Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (1):85-116.
Karsten R. Stueber (2005). How to Think About Rules and Rule Following. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (3):307-323.
S. P. I. Agi Richard Ushie Ukuke Ingwe, Joseph John Adams, Judith K. Ukwayi & E. Otu, Incivility and (Un)Constitutional Destruction of Lives and Property by Security Agencies and Political Gladiators in Nigeria: An Analysis.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-04-30
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?