Beasley and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 252

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 252

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/308

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		SEAN- LEE BEASLEY

Applicant

And  REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  Senior Member McCabe

Date 24 March 2004

Place Brisbane

Decision  The decision under review is affirmed.

..................[Sgd].......................

Senior Member B J McCabe

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veteran’s Entitlements – application for special rate pension – applicant unable to satisfy the “alone” test – decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss24, 119

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1; (1997) 26 AAR 93; BC9705934

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member B J McCabe

24 March 2005

Introduction

1.      Mr Sean-Lee Beasley applied for a disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) on 16 August 2002. He was awarded a pension paid at 100% of the general rate. He says he should be paid at the special rate. The respondent disagreed and the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that decision on 19 January 2004. Mr Beasley has now asked the Tribunal to consider his claim.

2.      Applicants for a pension paid at the special rate must satisfy the criteria set out in s 24 of the Act. In this case, the respondent conceded Mr Beasley satisfies ss 24(1)(a) and (b). The applicant conceded that the ameliorating provision in s 24(2) was not available to him because he did not seek work as required in that provision. The only issue is whether Mr Beasley satisfies the “alone” test in s 24(1)(c).

3.      Mr Beasley does not satisfy the requirements of s 24(1)(c). I have explained the reasons for my conclusion below.

The material before the Tribunal

4. The Tribunal was provided with the documents required under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The following documents were also tendered in evidence:

·        Statement of Mr Beasley dated January 2005;

·        Veterans’ Review Board Transcript dated 19 January 2004; and

·        Report of Dr McEvoy dated 22 July 2004.

5.      Mr Beasley gave evidence. So did Mr Thomas, the manager of Mansell Mining and Shortcrete Services. Mansell was the applicant’s last employer.

6.      Mr Beasley was represented by Mr Honchin of counsel. Mr Stoner represented the respondent.

The background facts

7.      The applicant worked for Mount Isa Mines Ltd for about 25 years. He was an underground miner. Mr Thomas said Mr Beasley was highly regarded. In the latter part of his time with MIM, the applicant worked as an instructor. He trained and certified miners in various aspects of the mines’ operations.

8.      The applicant was made redundant in mid-2002, apparently as a result of a reorganisation at MIM. He obtained a position with Mansell shortly thereafter. Mansell was a contractor that dealt with MIM and performed work in MIM’s underground mines.

9.      The applicant was required to pass a medical examination and attend induction training when he joined Mansell. He satisfied both requirements and commenced employment underground on the MIM lease. Approximately…