Adkins and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services
[2005] AATA 714
•28 July 2005
|
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 714
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL N° V2004/1015
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Re: CHRISTOPHER CHARLES ADKINS
Applicant
And:SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal: G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date: 28 July 2005
Place: Melbourne
Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) G.D. Friedman
Senior Member
SOCIAL SECURITY ‑ youth allowance ‑ interest in proprietary company ‑ family actual means test form ‑ failure to provide information
Social Security Act 1991 ss 10B(3), 37(1), 1067G, 1067 G-G2(c)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 ss 37(1), 192
REASONS FOR DECISION
28 July 2005 G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
This is an application by Christopher Charles Adkins (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) dated 6 August 2004. The SSAT affirmed a decision of an authorised review officer of Centrelink dated 18 June 2004 to refuse the applicant’s claim for youth allowance.
At the hearing on 5 July 2005 in Bendigo, Mr C. Adkins, the applicant’s father, represented the applicant. Ms K. Paul, an advocate with Centrelink, represented the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services (the respondent).
The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1‑T14), plus one exhibit (Exhibit A1) lodged by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
On 23 March 2004 the applicant, a Year 11 student at Daylesford Secondary College, lodged a claim for youth allowance, as he was turning 16 years old on 29 March 2004. On 5 April 2004 a Family Actual Means Test form (the FAMT form) was lodged in support of the claim, after the applicant disclosed that his parents had an interest in a trust, private company or unlisted public company.
On 14 April 2004 Centrelink refused the claim because the applicant had not provided details of his family’s spending for the financial year ended 31 June 2003, as required by the FAMT form. On 18 June 2004 an authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
On 23 June 2004 the applicant sought review by the SSAT. Following the SSAT decision, the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal on 1 September 2004 seeking review of the decision.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant’s failure to provide information sought by Centrelink should be a reason to refuse his claim for youth allowance.
EVIDENCE
In oral evidence Mr Adkins said that more than 10 years ago he and his wife set up Cubemore Pty Ltd (the company), a holding company on the advice of his accountant. The company was to facilitate the purchase of equipment and tools for his earth‑moving business. The business ceased trading in about 1999 or 2000. Mr Adkins told the Tribunal that he has provided information to Centrelink about the company on several occasions. That is why he refused to respond to additional requests for information.
Mr Adkins said that he also objected to questions on the FAMT form about his family’s spending habits, as an invasion of his family’s privacy and as irrelevant to the eligibility criteria for youth allowance. He described some of the questions as onerous. He said that these questions required an unreasonable level of detail about his finances. Mr Adkins explained that in discussions with Centrelink he became aware that Centrelink was prepared to accept estimates of the family’s financial situation, rather than actual data. This was confirmed by some of the Centrelink forms. He said that this was unacceptable, because information sought by Centrelink consists of data or factual material, not estimates. Therefore, he refused to provide estimates.
For these reasons, Mr Adkins remained adamant that he would not provide the information requested in the FAMT form, and that N/A (not assessable or not available) was the appropriate answer to various questions contained in the FAMT form. He maintained that if Centrelink wanted answers to questions, its forms must contain specific questions, to which factual answers can be given.
Mr Adkins maintained that Centrelink had all the information necessary to make a decision on his son’s application for youth allowance.
After the hearing Mr Adkins produced a copy of a Centrelink document Information you need to know… (Exhibit A1) concerning the FAMT (Base Tax Year and Current Tax Year). In the guide to details of spending required for assessment the document states:
If you are unable to provide the exact figures, a best estimate will suffice.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
The rate of youth allowance payable is determined by the rate calculator in s 1067G of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). Under s 1067 G‑G2(c) of the Act the family actual means test applies to a person who has a designated parent. Under s 10B(3) of the Act a designated parent is defined as follows:
10B.(3) A parent of a person (the person concerned) is a designated parent for a youth allowance payment period if:
…
(c)in the base tax year, the parent had an interest in:
(i)a proprietary company; or
(ii)an unlisted public company; or
(iii)a trust…
Under s 192 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act):
192. The Secretary may require a person to give information, or produce a document that is in the person’s custody or under the person’s control, to the Department if the Secretary considers that the information or document may be relevant to one or more of the following:
…
(d) the rate of social security payment that is or was applicable to a person…
The Tribunal reached its decision taking into account the oral and written evidence and submissions made at the hearing.
Mr Adkins has an interest in a proprietary company. Therefore, he is a designated parent for the purposes of the Act. It follows that the applicant’s entitlement to youth allowance must be calculated in accordance with module G (family actual means test) of the youth allowance calculator (s 1067G of the Act).
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Adkins believes strongly that his refusal to answer all the questions in the FAMT form was justified. The Tribunal also accepts that he believes strongly that Centrelink already had sufficient material to determine that the applicant qualifies for youth allowance. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that s 192 of the Administration Act gives Centrelink the power to require Mr Adkins, as a designated parent, to provide the data sought in the FAMT form. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the completion of the form is necessary for Centrelink to determine whether the applicant is eligible to receive youth allowance.
The Tribunal agrees with Mr Adkins that information consists of facts or data. The Tribunal accepts that the completion of the FAMT form may be time‑consuming, as it seeks data on a number of aspects of the family’s financial affairs. However, the Tribunal acknowledges that, in some circumstances, provision of exact figures is not possible. The Tribunal does not accept Mr Adkins’ submission that this willingness by Centrelink to accept a best estimate, where the provision of exact data is not possible or feasible, relieves a person of the responsibility to complete the form to the best of that person’s ability, and to provide factual material where possible. Similarly, the Tribunal does not accept that a request for such information breaches privacy legislation or principles. Although some of the material sought might be held by Centrelink in similar form in relation to other claims or other benefits, the Tribunal does not accept Mr Adkins’ submission that this entitles him to refuse to provide the information sought by Centrelink.
The Tribunal finds that the FAMT form was not completed by Mr Adkins or his wife, and that as a consequence Centrelink had insufficient information to make a determination in accordance with s 37(1) of the Administration Act, that the applicant was able to receive youth allowance.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the twenty [20] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of:
G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
(sgd) Catherine Thomas
Clerk
Date of hearing: 5 July 2005
Date of decision: 28 July 2005
Advocate for the applicant: Mr C. Adkins
Advocate for the respondent: Ms K. Paul, Centrelink
0
0
0