Bali and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2023] AATA 1469
•13 April 2023
Bali and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 1469 (13 April 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/4677
Re:Parbodh Chander Bali
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
Date:13 April 2023
Place:Sydney
The Reviewable Decision dated 10 May 2022 is affirmed.
..................................[SGD]......................................
Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Special Benefit – whether decisions made by the Agency to pay lower rate of Special Benefit were correct – decisions to reduce Special Benefit due to employment period – whether earnings should have been attributed to a single instalment period – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
The Guide to Social Policy Law, Social Security Guide
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth)
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income and Reporting and Other Measures) Act 2020 (Cth)
CASES
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
13 April 2023
BACKGROUND
Mr Parbodh Chander Bali (‘the Applicant’) was born in 1954. He has received Special Benefit payments since 21 May 2020.[1]
[1] T-Documents, T1, 2; T14, 150.
In 2021, the Applicant undertook casual employment as a picker and packer.[2]
[2] Ibid, T2, 6.
On 8 July 2021, an amount of $399.50 was deposited into the Applicant’s bank account with the notation ‘Wages_14th-20th June’.[3] The Applicant did not receive a payslip for this payment.
[3] Ibid, T6, 40.
On 9 July 2021, Services Australia (‘the Agency’) attributed the Applicant’s earnings received on 8 July 2021 to the fortnightly instalment period of 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021. This had the effect of reducing the Applicant’s payment of Special Benefit in that fortnightly period. The Applicant was paid Special Benefit in the amount of $229.45 for this period.[4]
[4] Ibid, T15, 152.
On 14 July 2021, another amount of $500.00 was deposited into the Applicant’s bank account with the notation ‘Wages_21st-27th June’.[5] The Applicant did not receive a payslip for this payment.
[5] Ibid, T6, 40.
On 23 July 2021, the Agency attributed the Applicant’s earnings received on 14 July 2021 to the fortnightly instalment period of 10 July 2021 to 23 July 2021. This had the effect of reducing the Applicant’s payment of Special Benefit in that fortnightly period. The Applicant was paid Special Benefit in the amount of $128.95 for this period.[6]
[6] Ibid, T15, 152.
On 17 November 2021, the Applicant requested a review of the decisions to reduce his rate of Special Benefit.[7] He contended that the Agency should have attributed his earnings to the single instalment period in which they were earned, being the Special Benefit instalment period 12 June 2021 to 25 June 2021, and should not have affected his two payments of Special Benefit.[8]
[7] Ibid, T17, 171-172.
[8] Ibid, T13, 143.
On 24 November 2021, the Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’) affirmed the decisions under review.[9]
[9] Ibid, T7, 43-46.
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW
On 14 December 2021, the Applicant lodged an application with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT1’) for review of the ARO’s decision.[10]
[10] Ibid, T9, 47-57.
On 10 May 2022, the AAT1 affirmed the ARO’s decision (‘the Reviewable Decision’).[11]
[11] Ibid, T2, 5-8.
On 6 June 2022, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the Reviewable Decision with the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).[12]
[12] Ibid, T1, 1-4.
The review application was heard by the Tribunal at in Sydney on 20 January 2023. The Applicant appeared by video-link on the Microsoft Teams platform, gave oral evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing.
The following documents were before the Tribunal:
·Section 37 T-Documents, T1 – T17, pages 1 - 175;
·Applicant’s Statement dated 14 October 2022;
·Applicant’s Reply dated 19 December 2022;
·Annexure to Statement in Reply filed 19 December 2022;
·Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (‘RSFIC’) dated 12 December 2022; and
·Annexure to RSFIC filed 12 December 2022.
The Tribunal has reviewed the material before it and refers in its reasons to relevant information.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The relevant legislation and policy is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) (the ‘Administration Act’); and the Agency’s Guide to Social Security Law (the ‘Guide’).
Qualification for Special Benefit
A person qualifies for Special Benefit if the Secretary (‘the Respondent’) or his delegate determines that the person does not qualify for any other social security payment, is in financial hardship and unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves because of age, physical, or mental disability or domestic circumstances for any reason.
Section 729 of the Act outlines the qualification criteria for Special Benefit which relevantly states:
(1)A person is qualified for a special benefit for a period if the Secretary determines, in accordance with subsection (2), that a special benefit should be granted to the person for the period.
(2)The Secretary may, in his or her discretion, determine that a special benefit should be granted to a person for a period if:
(a) no social security pension is payable to the person during the period; and
(b) no other social security benefit is payable to the person for the period; and
…
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for the person and the person's dependants (if any) because of age, physical or mental disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason; and
(f) the person:
(i) is an Australian resident; or
…
(v) is the holder of a visa that is in a class of visas determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subparagraph; and
...
(h) an assurance of support does not apply to the person at any time during the period (see subsection (2C))”.
Rate of Special Benefit
Subsection 746(1) of the Act provides that the rate of a person’s Special Benefit is the fortnightly rate determined by the Respondent at his or her discretion.
However, subsection 746(2) of the Act provides that the rate of Special Benefit cannot exceed the rate at which youth allowance, austudy payment or jobseeker payment would be payable to the person if the person were qualified for such payments.
Topic 3.7.1.80 of the Guide provides the following in relation to determining the rate of Special Benefit (‘SpB’):
3.7.1.80 Determining the rate of SpB
How is the rate of SpB determined?
The following table explains the steps in determining the rate of SpB payable:
Step Description 1 Calculate the rate of JSP, YA or Austudy the person would otherwise receive. 2 Apply the direct deduction income test. 3 Deduct an amount for any in kind support the person receives on a continuing and indefinite basis. Policy reference: SS Guide 4.2.2 Benefits income test & limits
…
Direct deduction income test
A direct deduction income test applies to SpB. This means that all personal income, whether earned or unearned, reduces the SpB rate by that amount. There is no allowable income free area and no graduated taper. The income test for SpB is explained further in Part 4 of the SS Guide.
Note: Other departmental benefits, e.g. FTB, are not regarded as income under the SpB direct deduction income test.
…
Topic 4.2.6 of the Guide provides:
4.2.6 SpB income test & limits Summary
This section contains one topic covering a description of the direct deduction income test for SpB, sometimes referred to as the ‘dollar for dollar’ test.
Direct deduction income test
The direct deduction income test reduces the rate of SpB by the amount of ALL gross income. There is no allowable income free area and no taper. Payment to the partner (1.1.P.85) of an SpB recipient is assessed as if the SpB recipient received any other benefit or allowance.
Policy reference: SS Guide 4.2.1.10 Pensions income test, 4.2.2 Benefits income test & limits
Maximum rate of Special Benefit
The rate of jobseeker payment is determined by the application of the rate calculator in section 1068 of the Act, including an income test provided in Module G.
The operation of the income test is affected by a number of provisions of the Act, including the general provisions relating to the ordinary income test in Part 3.10. Part 3.10, Division 1AA of the Act contains employment income attribution rules, which include section 1073A (‘Attribution of employment income paid in respect of a particular period or periods’).
Section 1073A was introduced into the Act by the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income and Reporting and Other Measures) Act 2020 (Cth) (‘Amending Act’) and commenced on 7 December 2020. The application provisions, which may be found in Schedule 1, Part 1, Item 72 of the Amending Act, relevantly provide that section 1073A applied ‘in relation to an amount of employment income paid to or for the benefit of a person… on or after the commencement of this item’, subject to presently irrelevant exceptions.
Section 1073A is relevantly in the following terms:
1073A Attribution of employment income paid in respect of a particular period or periods
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a person is receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit; and
(b) the person’s rate of payment of the pension or benefit is worked out with regard to the income test module of a rate calculator in this Chapter; and
(c) one or more amounts of employment income, each of which is in respect of a particular period or periods (each period is an employment period), are paid in an instalment period of the person to or for the benefit of the person by the same employer.
…
(2) The person is taken to have received the employment income over a period (the assessment period) that consists of the number of days that is equal to the sum of the number of days in each employment period, where the assessment period begins on the first day of the instalment period in which the amounts of employment income are paid.
Example:On 3 June a person is paid $756 employment income for work the person performed in the period beginning on 9 May and ending at the end of 29 May. The number of days in the employment period is 21.
Assuming the instalment period begins on 1 June. The person is taken to have received the $756 over the period beginning on 1 June and ending at the end of 21 June (a period of 21 days).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), for each day in the assessment period, the person is taken to have received an amount of employment income worked out by dividing the total amount of the employment income covered by paragraph (1)(c) by the number of days in the assessment period.
Example:To continue the example in subsection (2), the person is taken to have received $36 ($756/21) on each of the days in the period beginning on 1 June and ending at the end of 21 June.
(4) If the person is taken, under subsection (3), to have received employment income (the attributed employment income) during a part, but not the whole, of a particular instalment period, the person is taken to receive on each day in that instalment period an amount of employment income worked out by dividing the total amount of the attributed employment income by the number of days in the instalment period.
Example:To continue the example in subsection (2), for the instalment period beginning on 15 June and ending at the end of 28 June the person is taken, under subsection (3), to have received employment income during a part of that instalment period (15 June to 21 June). The person is taken to have received $252 ($36 x 7).
Under subsection (4), the person is taken to receive on each day in that instalment period an amount of employment income of $18 ($252/14).
Interpretation
(5) This section applies in relation to an amount of employment income paid on a day in
an instalment period, whether or not the amount is received on that day.
(6) In applying subsection (2) in relation to one or more amounts of employment income paid by a particular employer in an instalment period, in working out the sum of the number of days in each employment period, if a day in an employment period overlaps with a day in another employment period, that day must only be counted once.
Topic 4.3.3.05 of the Guide covers the assessment of employment income. It states that employment income is assessed once it is ‘paid’ by an employer to the employee:
Summary
Employment income (1.1.E.102) is assessed once it is paid by an employer to their employee.
Employment income is typically considered paid at the point employers are required to collect taxation withholding (i.e. at the point the employment income is disbursed by the employer for the benefit of the employee).
Note: Only employment income for remunerative work undertaken by the person as an employee in an employer/employee relationship is assessed once paid. All other income, including income from self-employment, is generally assessed within the social security system when first earned, derived or received.
Act reference: SSAct section 1073A(5) Attribution of employment income paid in respect of a particular period or periods, section 1073B(7) Attribution of employment income paid monthly, section 1073BA(6) Attribution of employment income paid not in respect of a particular period
Policy reference: SS Guide 4.3.3 Income from employment
Employment income is assessable when it is paid
There can be a delay between when an employer pays their employee and the employee receives their employment income, for example, due to the time it takes to transfer funds between banks. In these situations employment income is still considered paid at the point the income is disbursed by the employer.
Assessing employment income when paid by an employer, rather than when received by the employee, prevents creating an incentive for employees to defer receipt (such as delaying providing bank details) or collection of their employment income.
Note: Where an employer delays the actual payment of their employee/s for reasons beyond the employee's control (e.g. does not disburse the funds because of a power outage) the income is not assessable until actually paid.
Topic 4.3.3.06 deals with employment periods. Employment income is paid in respect of a particular period which is known as the ‘employment period’:
Summary
Employment income is paid in respect of a particular period, even if in some situations this period is unclear. The period that employment income relates to is known as the 'employment period'
For wages and salaries, the employment period is typically the length of the employer's pay cycle or an income support payment entitlement period, whichever is longer. For other types of income, such as commissions or bonuses, the employment period will be the total period of time over which the amount was earned.
Determining an employment period
The employment period for wages and salaries is the period for which employees are paid. Where employment is ongoing, in most cases the employment period will be the employer's regular pay cycle. Each instalment of employment income can have a different length employment period if the length of the employer's pay cycle is irregular.
Where employment income is paid irregularly the employment period is usually the interval since the previous instalment of employment income. Where employment is one-off in nature (i.e. non-ongoing) the employment period is the total length of the period over which the work was or will be undertaken.
Note: The employment period is different to the number of days worked. An individual paid fortnightly who works for a single day within that fortnight will have an employment period of 2 weeks.
Topic 4.3.3.07 covers ‘Assessment periods for employment income’. It provides:
Summary
'Assessment periods for employment income' refers to the period of time over which an amount is assessed. Employment income (1.1.E.102) is assessed for the same length of time as the employment period (4.3.3.06) associated with the amount. For example, employment income with an employment period of 2 weeks has an assessment period of 2 weeks (where employment income is attributed to part of a fortnight it will have an assessment period of 2 weeks). Employment income is attributed evenly across the number of days in the assessment period for the purposes of assessment.
Act reference: SS Act section 1073A(2) Attribution of employment income paid in respect of a particular period or periods, section 1073BA(4) Attribution of employment income paid not in respect of a particular period
Policy reference: SS Guide 4.3.3.06 Employment period, 4.3.3 Income from employment
Assessment period commencement & operation
Employment income is generally assessed from the first day of the entitlement period (1.1.E.125) in which the amount is paid, regardless of which day in the entitlement period the amount was paid. Assessing employment income from the first day in the entitlement period in which the amount is paid prevents individuals from being arbitrarily advantaged or disadvantaged as a result of the interaction between their entitlement period dates and their employer's pay cycle. Any income paid in an entitlement period will be assessed from the entitlement period start date forward for the number of days to which it relates.
The employment income assessment period determines what proportion of the income in question should be assigned to each entitlement period, that is, whether employment income should be assessed in a single entitlement period or across several.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the decisions made by the Agency on 9 July 2021 and 23 July 2021 to pay the Applicant a lower rate of Special Benefit due to the employment income paid to him on 8 and 14 July 2021 were correct.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he worked as a picker and packer at a factory for seven days on 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 25 June 2021.[13] He was employed by SC Labour Hire and assigned to work at DJ&A located at Hale Street, Botany (‘the factory’).[14] He learned about the employment opportunity on Facebook,[15] and applied for a position via an application which he sent using his mobile phone. He was sent a roster for the week of 14 to 20 June 2021 and the location of the factory.[16] He advised the sender of the email that he was unable to work on 15 June 2021.[17]
[13] Transcript of proceedings, 20 January 2023, 27.
[14] Ibid, 10.
[15] Ibid, 11.
[16] Ibid, 12; Annexure to Applicant’s Statement in Reply.
[17] Ibid; Annexure to Applicant’s Statement in Reply.
At the hearing, the Applicant referred the Tribunal to photographs that he secretly took of his attendance sheets at the factory which recorded his start and finish times as 3pm and 10pm respectively on 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24 June 2021.[18]
[18] Ibid, 14-15; Annexure to Applicant’s Statement in Reply.
The Applicant confirmed that he was paid for 35 hours over one fortnight from 12 to 25 June 2021. He received payment in two instalments: on 8 and 14 July 2021.[19] These two payments were paid in two different instalment periods.[20] The Applicant’s wife reported his work days and hours to Centrelink.[21]
CONTENTIONS
[19] Transcript of proceedings, 20 January 2023, 17.
[20] Ibid, 27.
[21] Ibid, 17.
Applicant
The Applicant contends that his earnings reported on 9 July 2021 and 23 July 2021 should have been attributed to a single instalment period in which they were earned (from 12 June 2021 to 25 June 2021) and not when they were paid. He contends that he should not be penalised for working one week and having his Special Benefit reduced over two instalment periods. He contends that he should be paid the full amount of Special Benefit for the week or fortnight in which he had worked but had not been paid. When he was paid for his work, the Agency should have deducted the income in the entitlement period in which he received the payment.[22]
[22] Ibid, 27-28 and 30.
The Applicant relies on 4.3.3.07 of the Guide which covers Assessment periods for employment income. He contends that his employment was for a period of only seven days within one specific employment period. However, his employer paid his income in two different periods and accordingly this income was deducted by the Agency in two different instalment periods. This resulted in a disadvantage to him which he would not have incurred had his employer paid him within the one instalment period.[23]
[23] Ibid, 38.
Respondent
The Respondent contends that the decisions to reduce the Applicant’s rate of Special Benefit was done in accordance with the Act and policy in relation to Special Benefit.[24]
[24] RSFIC, [18].
The Applicant’s rate of Special Benefit was reduced on 9 July 2021 and 23 July 2021 due to his income from employment, which reduced his income as a direct deduction (i.e. on a dollar for dollar basis) in line with relevant policy.[25]
[25] RSFIC, [19].
The Applicant’s bank statements show he received two payments of employment income on different days, which fell within two instalment periods, and it is appropriate to assess those payments when they were received.[26]
[26] RSFIC, [20].
There is no provision in the Act to disregard the Applicant’s employment when calculating his rate of Special Benefit.[27]
[27] RSFIC, [21].
CONSIDERATION AND REASONS
It is not disputed that the Applicant qualified for Special Benefit during June and July 2021.[28] The issue is whether his Special Benefit was properly reduced in two fortnightly instalment periods being 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021 and 10 July to 23 July 2021.
[28] RSFIC, [24].
Unlike most other social security payments, the Guide provides that a direct deduction income test applies to Special Benefit. This means that all personal income, whether earned or unearned, reduces the rate payable by a dollar-for-dollar amount. Unlike most other payments, there is no allowable income-free area and no taper: the Guide at 4.2.6. The Respondent contends that there is no reason for the Tribunal to depart from the Guide as it applies to the direct deduction income test for Special Benefit in this case.
The Guide is government policy. It is well-settled that the Tribunal should apply government policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so. It may be a cogent reason if an injustice were to result. In Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2),[29] the Tribunal identified the factors that support the application of departmental policy:
‘It can serve to focus attention on the purpose which the exercise of the discretion is calculated to achieve, and thereby to assist the Minister and others to see more clearly, in each case, the desirability of exercising the power in one way or another. Decision-making is facilitated by the guidance given by an adopted policy, and the integrity of decision-making in particular cases is the better assured if decisions can be tested against such a policy. By diminishing the importance of individual predilection, an adopted policy can diminish the inconsistences which might otherwise appear in a series of decisions, and enhance the sense of satisfaction with the fairness and continuity of the administrative process.’
[29] (1979) ALD 634 at 640.
Having regard to these considerations, the Tribunal finds that the policy contained in the Guide should be applied. If the direct deduction income test is not applied in each of the two instalment periods in which the income was received by the Applicant, this would result in unfairness for other recipients of Special Benefit who have been assessed in accordance with the policy guidance contained in the Guide. Furthermore, as is outlined below, if the Applicant’s employment income was taken into account when it was earned rather than when it was paid, his rate of Special Benefit would have been reduced before he received his earnings, potentially resulting in hardship.[30]
[30] RSFIC, [33].
The Applicant’s bank statements show that he received two payments of employment income on 8 and 14 July 2021. These days fell within two fortnightly instalment periods being 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021 and 10 July to 23 July 2021. In accordance with the policy guidance, it is appropriate to apply the direct deduction income test in each of the two instalment periods in which this income was received. This results in a reduction to the Applicant’s rate of Special Benefit at a time when he had the benefit of those funds.
The Applicant received a gross payment of Special Benefit of $628.99 without any reduction for income in respect of the Special Benefit instalment period 12 June 2021 to 25 June 2021. If the Applicant’s employment income had been taken into account when it was earned, being the instalment period from 12 to 25 June 2021, his rate of Special Benefit would have been reduced before he had received his earnings, which were not paid until 8 and 14 July 2021. If his earnings had been assessed in this earlier and single instalment period, the Applicant would have incurred an overpayment of Special Benefit resulting in a debt, for reason that he would not have been eligible for the Special Benefit payment of the $628.99 that he received in the 12 to 25 June 2021 instalment period.[31] Furthermore, if the Applicant’s earnings had been taken into account in a single instalment period, his rate of Special Benefit would have been nil in this instalment period. This would have resulted in the Applicant’s payment being cancelled because an employment nil rate period does not apply to Special Benefit. To receive subsequent payments, the Applicant would have had to again claim Special Benefit.[32]
[31] RSFIC, [34].
[32] RSFIC, [35].
The Tribunal therefore finds that the payment made to the Applicant in respect of the Special Benefit instalment period 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021 was correct. That is, the maximum components of Special Benefit totalling $628.95 were reduced by deducting employment income of $399.50 paid on 8 July 2021, resulting in a gross payment of $229.45 to the Applicant.
The Tribunal also finds that the payment made to the Applicant in respect of the Special Benefit instalment period 10 July 2021 to 23 July 2021 was correct. That is, the maximum components of Special Benefit totalling $628.95 were reduced by deducting employment income of $500.00 paid on 14 July 2021, resulting in a gross payment of $128.95 to the Applicant.
In making this finding the Tribunal has taken into account subsection 746(2) of the Act which requires that the maximum rate of Special Benefit payable to a person in the two instalment periods 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021 and 10 July 2021 to 23 July 2021 cannot exceed the rate of jobseeker payment that would otherwise be payable to them. Section 1073A of the Act sets out how to temporally attribute earnings for the purpose of calculating rates of payment. Subsection 1073A(2) requires that a person’s employment income be attributed to the instalment period in which it is paid, rather than the instalment period in which it was earned. This requires that:
·$399.50 received by the Applicant on 8 July 2021 is assessed in the instalment period 26 June 2021 to 9 July 2021; and
·$500.00 received by the Applicant on 14 July 2021 is assessed in the instalment period 10 July 2021 to 23 July 2021.
The Applicant’s employment income payments were for two “particular periods” of seven days for the purposes of section 1073A(1)(c) of the Act. His employer used weekly pay cycles as indicated in the notations which accompany the transfers to his bank account – see paragraphs [3] and [5] above. The Applicant worked in two of these pay cycles: 14-20 June and 21-27 June 2021, and he was paid income on two dates: 8 and 14 July 2021.
In accordance with section 1073A(2):
·Each of the payments must be attributed to the instalment period in which they were received;
·Each payment must be converted to a daily amount by dividing it by the number of days in the employment period (in this case, seven days); and
·These daily amounts are deemed to have been received from the first day of the instalment period in which the income was received.
This is illustrated by the following table:
First Instalment Period Second Instalment Period Amount received by Applicant Calculation Daily rate 26/6/2021 $57.07 27/6/2021 $57.07 28/6/2021 $57.07 29/6/2021 $57.07 30/6/2021 $57.07 1/7/2021 $57.07 2/7/2021 $57.07 3/7/2021 4/7/2021 5/7/2021 6/7/2021 7/7/2021 8/7/2021 $399.50 $399.50 / 7 =
$57.07
9/7/2021 10/7/2021 $71.43 11/7/2021 $71.43 12/7/2021 $71.43 13/7/2021 $71.43 14/7/2021 $500.00 $500.00 / 7 =
$71.43
$71.43 15/7/2021 $71.43 16/7/2021 $71.43 17/7/2021 18/7/2021 19/7/2021 20/7/2021 21/7/2021 22/7/2021 23/7/2021
To support his contention that his income should have only been deducted in a single instalment period, the Applicant referred to the House of Representatives Second Reading Speech on 6 February 2020 for the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020,[33] made by the Hon. Mr Alan Tudge MP:
‘Income paid every two weeks will affect a single support payment because entitlements are calculated fortnightly. A recipient who is paid by their employer every 30 days will have their income assessed over the next 30 days’.[34]
[33] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 6 February 2020 (Alan Tudge).
[34] Ibid, 445.
Mr Tudge however did also observe that employment income is assessed when it is paid, not when it is earned:
“Assessing employment income when it is paid means that a person can start work and continue to get income support for the short time before they receive their first pay. This will also mean that any perceived barrier to employment as a result of a short time without any income will be removed.
Assessing employment income when paid will make it easier for individuals to understand the ways in which the social support system interacts with paid employment, delivering a simpler system that rewards work.”[35]
(emphasis added)
[35] Ibid.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent should have attributed his employment income payments to a single and earlier instalment period in which they were earned (12 to 25 June 2021) is inconsistent with subsection 1073A(2) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s rate of Special Benefit was properly reduced with reference to the direct deduction income test set out in the Guide, and by assessing each of his employment income payments in the instalment period in which they were received.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision dated 10 May 2022 is affirmed.
56. I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 13 April 2023
Dates of hearing: 20 January 2023 Applicant: In person Solicitor for the Respondent:
M. Gauci, Secretary, Department of Social Services
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
0
0
0