Berry and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2006] AATA 281
•28 March 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 281
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2005/216, 337
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SETH MEADOWS BERRY Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop Date28 March 2006
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal:
Application No W2005/216
Sets aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) dated 11 May 2005 and, in substitution therefor, decides that the applicant:
· was subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 18 February 2004 to 18 May 2004 and that the appropriate reduction in the rate of his youth allowance for that period is 16%;
· was not subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004.
Application No W2005/337
Affirms the decision of the SSAT dated 2 September 2005.
...........(sgd S D Hotop)............
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - youth allowance - applicant failed to comply with requirement by Centrelink to attend interview with job network member - administrative breach rate reduction period imposed on applicant - applicant again failed to comply with requirement by Centrelink to attend interview with job network member - administrative breach rate reduction period thereby applied to applicant but applicant not notified of commencement of that period - applicant failed to comply with notice sent by Centrelink requiring return of Application for Payment form by specified date - no special circumstances - applicant's youth allowance cancelled - decision of Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) that applicant subject to both administrative breach rate reduction periods set aside - decision of SSAT that applicant's youth allowance cancelled affirmed
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 29
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 558A and s 558B
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 3, s 5, s 63, s 68, s 72 and s 95
REASONS FOR DECISION
28 March 2006 Deputy President S D Hotop Introduction
1. Seth Meadows Berry (“the applicant”) has applied to the Tribunal for review of 2 decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”), namely:
·a decision dated 11 May 2005 which affirmed a decision of a Centrelink officer made on 4 February 2004 that the applicant had incurred an “administrative breach penalty” resulting in a reduction of 16% in the rate of his youth allowance from 18 February 2004 to 18 May 2004, and which affirmed a decision of a Centrelink officer made on 22 March 2004 that the applicant had incurred a further administrative breach penalty resulting in a reduction of 16% in the rate of his youth allowance from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004; and
·a decision dated 2 September 2005 which affirmed a decision made by a Centrelink officer on 4 June 2004 that the applicant’s youth allowance be cancelled with effect from 7 May 2004.
2. At the request of the parties the Tribunal agreed, pursuant to s 34J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”), to review the abovementioned decisions of the SSAT “on the papers” – that is, by considering the material lodged with the Tribunal by the parties and without holding a hearing.
The Factual Background
3. The relevant background facts, as found by the Tribunal on the basis of the documents (T1-T151, pp 1- 524) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act, are as follows.
4. On 28 August 2003 the applicant claimed youth allowance under Pt 2.11 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”) and on the same date he entered into a “Preparing for Work Agreement” (“PFWA”). The PFWA form stated that “breach penalties may be imposed” if he, inter alia, “fail[ed] to attend an interview to negotiate an activity agreement” or “[did] not agree to requests from Centrelink to contact [his] Job Network Member”. (T4)
5. In connection with his claim for youth allowance the applicant informed Centrelink in writing that he was previously employed by “Green Corp” and that he had ceased that employment on 18 August 2003. (T5)
6. On 4 September 2003 a Centrelink officer made a decision that youth allowance be granted to the applicant. (T6)
7. By letter dated 17 September 2003 an employment consultant with “PVS Workfind” notified the applicant that he had been booked for an interview on 24 November 2003. The applicant was also informed by Centrelink, by letter dated 5 November 2003, that they had arranged an interview for him with PVS Workfind because he was eligible for “Intensive Support job search training”, and that the purpose of the interview was “to negotiate a Job Search Plan and to arrange for [him] to attend job search training”. The letter went on to inform the applicant that under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 he “must attend this interview” and that if he failed to do so his youth allowance “may be stopped or reduced for a period of time”. (T100, pp 274, 277)
8. By letter dated 21 November 2003 the applicant notified PVS Workfind that he was “unconvinced that [their] job search program [was] attuned to [his] best interests” and that he would not attend the program. (T7)
9. By letter dated 28 November 2003 to the applicant an officer of Centrelink noted that the applicant had failed to attend an interview with a “Job Network member”, requested that he contact Centrelink in order to discuss the matter, and informed him that if he did not do so by 5 December 2003 his youth allowance would be “stopped”. (T8)
10. On 5 December 2003 the applicant’s youth allowance was suspended because he had failed to contact Centrelink as requested. The applicant was so notified by letter from Centrelink of the same date. (T10, T10A)
11. Meanwhile, by letter dated 24 November 2003 PVS Workfind had notified the applicant that he was required to attend an Intensive Support Job Search Training interview on 8 December 2003. He had also been so notified by Centrelink by letter dated 25 November 2003. (T100, pp 281, 282)
12. By letter dated 9 December 2003 Centrelink notified the applicant that he was required to attend an Intensive Support job search training interview with PVS Workfind on 22 December 2003. (T100, p284)
13. By letter dated 23 December 2003 Centrelink notified the applicant that he was required to attend an Intensive Support job search training interview with PVS Workfind on 7 January 2004. The letter went on to state that if he did not attend this interview his youth allowance “may be stopped or reduced for a period of time”. (T15)
14. The applicant failed to attend the interview with PVS Workfind on 7 January 2004.
15. By letter dated 19 January 2004 to the applicant an officer of Centrelink noted that the applicant had failed to attend an interview with a “Job Network member”, requested that he contact Centrelink in order to discuss the matter, and informed him that if he did not do so by 26 January 2004 his youth allowance would be “stopped”. (T20)
16. On 27 January 2004 the applicant’s youth allowance was suspended because he had failed to contact Centrelink as requested. The applicant was so notified by letter from Centrelink dated 27 January 2004. (T22)
17. By letter dated 3 February 2004 the applicant wrote to Centrelink as follows:
“Between November 03 and January 04 Centrelink sent me several letters that I have found personally demeaning, contradictory and confusing.
On the 21/11/03 and 18/12/04 I hand delivered written responses to these letters at the Centrelink counter. On the 22/12/03, my mother, Elspeth Berry, wrote a letter to you on behalf of my brother and me as we are living together as a family and this was delivered likewise, however none of this correspondence has been acknowledged.
On the 29/1/04 I discovered that my Youth Allowance had been reduced by $40. No doubt you are by now aware that I have sought an exemption from the Activity Test as defined in Section 542(H) of the Social Security Act 1991, and this means that I need to discuss the nature of the proposed activity and (in my case), it’s merits.
You must appreciate that my religious and cultural background would preclude me from constructive participation in any course or series of lectures that is based on the manipulation of my personhood, or the creation of a ‘personal image’ to impress others. Quite frankly I feel convicted that image consultancy is a racket and an insult to the God in whom I believe, and it is clear to me that in this case it is simply being used as a distraction from an acute employment crisis”. (sic)
(T27)
18. A Centrelink file record notes that the applicant had failed to attend 5 appointments with PVS Workfind (namely, on 24 November 2003, 8 December 2003, 22 December 2003, 7 January 2004 and 28 January 2004) and records that the applicant had stated in an interview on 4 February 2004 that he had “issues with the cost of travelling to appointments” but that he also felt that he would not gain any help from interviews with PVS Workfind. It is also recorded that the applicant was informed of the “90 minute travelling rule” and the requirement that he attend appointments with Job Network members. (T9, T19)
19. By letter dated 4 February 2004 an officer of Centrelink informed the applicant that he had “incurred an administrative breach penalty because [he] did not attend an interview with a Job Network Member that was arranged for [him] on 7 January 2004” and that, accordingly, his payments of youth allowance would be “reduced by 16% from 18 February 2004 to 18 May 2004”. (T30)
20. By letter dated 15 February 2004 Cenrelink notified the applicant that he was required to attend an Intensive Support job search training interview with PVS Workfind on 27 February 2004. The letter went on to state that if he did not attend this interview his youth allowance “may be stopped or reduced for a period of time”. (T33)
21. A Centrelink file record dated 19 February 2004 notes that the applicant had submitted a letter “demanding that he be exempt from activity test…due to his family and religious beliefs”. By letter dated 19 February 2004 a Centrelink officer informed the applicant that his personal circumstances did not preclude the obligation that he fulfil the activity test requirement to attend Job Network interviews. (T34, T35)
22. The applicant failed to attend the interview with PVS Workfind on 27 February 2004.
23. By letter dated 3 March 2004 to the applicant an officer of Centrelink noted that the applicant had failed to attend an interview with a Job Network member, and informed him that he may, as a result, “incur a breach penalty” and that his youth allowance “may be reduced or stopped temporarily for a period of time”. (T39)
24. A Centrelink file record dated 22 March 2004 states that the applicant had written to Centrelink explaining his reason for not attending job search training, namely, that he “already has the skills that are taught in job search training” and that he did not think he would benefit by attending. It is also recorded that a “breach applied from 22 March 2004”. (T38)
25. By letter dated 22 March 2004 an officer of Centrelink informed the applicant that the rate of his youth allowance had been reduced by 16% until 18 May 2004 because he had “incurred an administrative breach”. (T52)
26. By letter dated 4 May 2004 an officer of Centrelink informed the applicant that the rate of his youth allowance had been reduced by 16% until 4 July 2004 because he had “incurred an administrative breach”. (T63)
27. By letter dated 5 May 2004 to the applicant an officer of Centrelink noted that the applicant had not sent to Centrelink a signed PFWA form during the week commencing 12 April 2004 (as promised by him), and requested him to make an appointment with the officer within 7 days to discuss the matter. The letter went on to state that a failure by the applicant to respond may result in his youth allowance being “stopped” or “paid at a reduced rate”. (T67)
28. By letter dated 6 May 2004 Centrelink sent to the applicant a regular fortnightly “Application for Payment” form and informed him that he “must personally take this form to [his] local Centrelink office”. The letter also informed him that he must return his “Jobseeker Diary” with the form, otherwise his “payments may be stopped”. It was also stated in the letter that the due date for the return of the form was 20 May 2004, and that “payment will stop if this form is returned late”. It was further stated that the letter was “an information notice given under the social security law”. (T69)
29. On 17 May 2004 payment of the applicant’s youth allowance was suspended because he had “failed to attend an interview”. It was also noted in the relevant Centrelink file record that the applicant had failed to contact Centrelink in response to their letter requesting him to explain why he had not returned his signed PFWA form. The applicant was so notified by letter dated 17 May 2004. (T70, T71)
30. A Centrelink file record notes that the applicant did not lodge the abovementioned “Application for Payment” form. (T75)
31. By letter dated 4 June 2004 Centrelink notified the applicant that his youth allowance had been cancelled from 7 May 2004 (the date on which the last payment had been made to him), because Centrelink had not received his “Application for Payment” form. (T74)
The Issues, the Relevant Legislation and the Tribunal’s Findings
Was the applicant subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 18 February 2004 to 18 May 2004?
32. Section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the Administration Act”) relevantly provides:
“63(1) This section applies to a person if:
(a)either:
(i) the person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; or
(ii) the person is the holder of, or has made a claim for, a concession card; and
(b)the person is not a person to whom section 64 applies.
63(2)If the Secretary is of the opinion that a person to whom this section applies, other than a person to whom subsection (3) applies, should:
(a)attend an office of the Department; or
(b)contact the Department; or
(c)attend a particular place for a particular purpose; or
(d)give information to the Secretary;
the Secretary may give the person written notice that he or she is required, within a specified time, to:
(e)attend that office; or
(f)contact the Department; or
(g)attend that place for the purpose; or
(h)give that information;
as the case may be.
…
63(4) If:
(a)a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; and
(b)the Secretary gives the person a notice under subsection (2); and
(c)the requirement of the notice is reasonable; and
(d)the person does not comply with the requirement;
the following paragraphs have effect:
(e)if the person is receiving a youth allowance and is neither:
(i) subject to a requirement by the Secretary to participate in the PSP; nor
(ii) a party to a youth allowance activity agreement under which the person is required to participate in the PSP;
the allowance is not payable and if, at a later time, a youth allowance becomes payable to the person, an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person;
(f)in any other case, the payment that the person is receiving or has claimed is not payable.
...
63(7)The Secretary may give a person a notice under subsection (2) by sending the notice by prepaid post addressed to the person at the postal address of the person last known to the Secretary. This subsection does not prevent the Secretary from giving the person notice in any other way.
…
63(9) The Secretary may determine:
(a)that a social security payment that was not payable because of paragraph (4)(f) or subsection (5) is payable to a person; or
(b)that an administrative breach rate reduction period does not apply to a person under paragraph 4(e) or subsection (5);
if the Secretary is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be.
…
63(11)A notice under subsection (2) or a notification under subsection (3) must inform the person to whom it is given of the effect of this section.”
33. The Administration Act also relevantly provides:
“3(1) Unless a contrary intention appears, an expression that is defined in Schedule 1 has in this Act the meaning given in that Schedule.
3(2)Unless a contrary intention appears, an expression that is used in the 1991 Act has the same meaning, when used in this Act, as in the 1991 Act.
3(3)A reference in this Act to the social security law (other than the reference in section 4) is a reference to this Act, the 1991 Act and any other Act that is expressed to form part of the social security law.
3(4)A reference in this Act to a provision of the social security law is a reference to a provision of this Act, the 1991 Act or any other Act that is expressed to form part of the social security law.
…
4This Act forms part of the social security law.
5(1)If a provision of the social security law requires that a written notice be given to a person, it is sufficient compliance with that provision if the notice is given in a manner approved by the Secretary.
5(2)Nothing in subsection (1) prevents a notice being given in accordance with section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.”
In cl 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Administration Act, the phrase “1991 Act” is defined to mean “the Social Security Act 1991”.
34. As regards the application of s 63 of the Administration Act, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence before it, makes the following findings:
·at all material times the applicant was receiving a “social security payment”, namely, youth allowance (see s 23(1) of the Act), s 64 of the Administration Act (requirement to undergo a medical examination) was not applicable to him, and, accordingly, s 63 of the Administration Act applied to him;
·Centrelink (as a delegate of the respondent Secretary) gave the applicant written notice, by letter dated 23 December 2003, that he was required to attend an Intensive Support job search training interview with PVS Workfind (a Job Network member) on 7 January 2004, and that notice constituted a written notice within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(2) of the Administration Act;
·given that the applicant had entered into a PFWA on 28 August 2003 and had subsequently been granted youth allowance but had failed to attend scheduled appointments with PVS Workfind on 24 November 2003, 8 December 2003 and 22 December 2003, the requirement specified in the abovementioned notice which was given to the applicant by letter dated 23 December 2003 – namely, that he attend an interview with PVS Workfind on 7 January 2004 – was reasonable within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(4)(c) of the Administration Act;
·the applicant failed to comply with that requirement;
·the abovementioned notice was sent by prepaid post addressed to the applicant at the postal address of the applicant last known to Centrelink;
·the applicant’s excuse for not complying with the abovementioned requirement under s 63(2) of the Administration Act – as stated in his letter dated 3 February 2004 to Centrelink (see paragraph 17 above) and as summarised in Centrelink file records (see paragraphs 18, 21 and 24 above) – was not a reasonable excuse, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(9) of the Administration Act;
·the abovementioned notice under s 63(2) of the Administration Act complied with s 63(11) of that Act.
35. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that, by reason of s 63(4)(e) of the Administration Act, an administrative breach rate reduction period applied to the applicant.
36. The Tribunal further finds, pursuant to ss 558A and 558B of the Act, that the applicant was subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period of 13 weeks commencing on 18 February 2004 (being the fourteenth day after the notice of 4 February 2004 referred to in paragraph 19 above) and ending on or about 18 May 2004, and that the appropriate reduction in the rate of the applicant’s youth allowance for that period is 16%.
Was the applicant subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004?
37. In addition to the relevant findings set out in paragraph 34 above, the Tribunal makes the following findings:
·Centrelink (as a delegate of the respondent Secretary) gave the applicant written notice, by letter dated 15 February 2004, that he was required to attend an Intensive Support job search training interview with PVS Workfind on 27 February 2004, and that notice constituted a written notice within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(2) of the Administration Act;
·the requirement specified in that notice was reasonable within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(4)(c) of the Administration Act;
·the applicant failed to comply with that requirement;
·the abovementioned notice was sent by prepaid post addressed to the applicant at the postal address of the applicant last known to Centrelink;
·the applicant did not have a reasonable excuse, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 63(9) of the Administration Act, for not complying with the abovementioned requirement;
·the abovementioned notice under s 63(2) of the Administration Act complied with s 63(11) of that Act.
38. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that, by reason of s 63(4)(e) of the Administration Act, an administrative breach rate reduction period applied to the applicant.
39. In the respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions filed with the Tribunal, it was conceded that “the second 16% administrative breach applied 22 March 2004 for the period from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004 was not correctly imposed and should be revoked”. That concession was purportedly based on s 558B of the Act which relevantly provides:
“558B(1) If an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to a person under this Part, the Secretary must give to the person a written notice telling the person of the start of the period.
558B(2)Subject to subsection (3), the administrative breach rate reduction period starts on the 14th day after the day on which the notice is given to the person.
…”
40. The Tribunal understands the respondent’s concession to be that, because the applicant was not given proper notice of the second administrative breach rate reduction period, that period, although it applied to the applicant by reason of s 63(4)(e) of the Administration Act, did not commence. So understood, that concession was, in the Tribunal’s opinion, appropriate.
41. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that an administrative breach rate reduction period applied to the applicant by reason of his failure to attend the scheduled interview with PVS Workfind on 27 February 2004 but that, by reason of Centrelink’s failure to give to the applicant written notice advising him of the commencement of that period, that period did not commence, and therefore he was not subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004.
Should the applicant’s youth allowance be cancelled with effect from 7 May 2004?
42. The Administration Act relevantly provides:
“68(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person to whom a social security payment (other than utilities allowance or seniors concession allowance) is being paid.
68(2)The Secretary may give a person to whom this subsection applies a notice that requires the person to do either or both of the following:
(a)inform the Department if:
(i) a specified event or change of circumstances occurs; or
(ii) the person becomes aware that a specified event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;
(b)give the Department one or more statements about a matter that might affect the payment to the person of the social security payment.
…”
“72(1) A notice under this Subdivision:
(a)must be given in writing; and
(b)may be given personally or by post or in any other manner approved by the Secretary; and
(c)must specify how the person is to give the information or statement to the Department; and
(d)must specify:
(i) in the case of a notice under section 68 that requires the giving of more than one statement, each relating to the payment of the social security payment in respect of a period – the date by which the person is to give each statement to the Department; or
(ii) in any other case – the period within which the person is to give the information or statement to the Department; and
(e) must specify that the notice is an information notice given under the social security law.
72(2)A notice under this Subdivision is not invalid merely because it fails to comply with paragraph (1) (c) or (e).
72(2A)A date specified for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(i) must be no earlier than 7 days after:
(i)the day on which the notice under section 68 is given; or
(ii)the day on which the period specified in the notice in relation to that first mentioned date begins;
whichever is the later.
72(3)Subject to subsections (4), (6) and (7), the period specified for the purpose of subparagraph (1)(d)(ii) must:
(a) in the case of a notice under section 67, 68 or 69 that requires the giving of information about an event of change of circumstances consisting of the receipt by the person of a compensation payment – be the period of 7 days after the day on which the person becomes aware that he or she has received, or is to receive, a compensation payment; or
(b) in the case of a notice under section 67,68 or 69 that requires the giving of any other information, or a notice under section 70 – be the period of 14 days after:
(i) the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs; or
(ii) the day on which the person becomes aware that the event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;
as the case may be; or
(c) in the case of a notice under section 67 or 68 that requires the giving of a statement that relates to the payment of the social security payment in respect of a period specified in the notice – end not earlier than 7 days after the day on which the notice is given; or
…”
“95(1) If:
(a)a person who is receiving a social security payment is given a notice under subsection 68(2) requiring the person to give the Department a statement or a number of statements; and
(b)the notice relates to the payment of the social security payment in respect of a period or a number of periods specified in the notice; and
(c)the person does not comply with the notice so far as it relates to a particular period;
then, subject to subsection (2), the social security payment is cancelled, by force of this section, on the first day in that period.
95(2)If the Secretary is satisfied that, in the special circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to do so, the Secretary may determine in writing that subsection (1) does not apply to the person on and from a day specified in the determination.
…”
43. As previously mentioned (see paragraph 28 above), by letter dated 6 May 2004 Centrelink sent to the applicant a regular fortnightly “Application for Payment” form and informed him that he must return the form, together with his “Jobseeker Diary”, to his local Centrelink office by 20 May 2004. The Tribunal finds that that letter constituted a notice given under s 68(2) of the Administration Act and that it complied with s 72 of that Act.
44. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant did not return the abovementioned form to Centrelink and that he thereby failed to comply with the abovementioned notice given to him under s 68(2) of the Administration Act.
45. In these circumstances, pursuant to s 95(1) of the Administration Act the applicant’s youth allowance is automatically cancelled on the first day in the relevant period unless it is determined, pursuant to s 95(2), that s 95(1) does not apply because of the “special circumstances of the case”.
46. In the applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions filed with the Tribunal on 15 February 2006, no reliance was sought to be placed on s 95(2) of the Administration Act (which had been quoted and discussed in the respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 23 November 2005), and no reference was made to any particular circumstances of the applicant’s case that might arguably constitute “special circumstances” for the purposes of s 95(2).
47. The Tribunal notes, however, that at the hearing before the SSAT the applicant claimed that he did not receive the abovementioned letter from Centrelink dated 6 May 2004 and the enclosed “Application for Payment” form. The Tribunal is satisfied, however, that that letter was sent by prepaid post addressed to the applicant at his postal address last known to Centrelink. In those circumstances, by reason of s 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) service on the applicant of the notice contained in the letter of 6 May 2004, and of the enclosed form, is deemed to have been effected. Such service is, furthermore, deemed by s 29(1) to have been effected at the time when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the basis of the material before it, that the deemed time of service has been disproved.
48. In this connection the Tribunal notes that on at least one previous occasion (namely, on 12 March 2004) the applicant’s youth allowance had been cancelled because Centrelink had not received from him an “Application for Payment” form (T45, T100, p301), and that on several previous occasions the applicant had obtained from Centrelink a duplicate “Application for Payment” form because the original form had been “lost” (T47). The Tribunal also notes that the applicant, having been in receipt of youth allowance since September 2003, must have been well aware of the requirement for him to provide to Centrelink a completed “Application for Payment” form on a regular fortnightly basis in order to continue to receive fortnightly payments of youth allowance, and of the consequences regarding his youth allowance payments if he failed to do so. Yet, according to the material before the Tribunal, there is no record of the applicant’s notifying Centrelink that he had not received the relevant “Application for Payment” form between 6 May 2004 and 20 May 2004 or requesting Centrelink to issue a duplicate form. Having regard to these considerations, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant did not receive the relevant “Application for Payment” form under cover of a letter dated 6 May 2004 from Centrelink.
49. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that, by reason of s 95(1) of the Administration Act, the applicant’s youth allowance was properly cancelled, by force of that subsection, with effect from 7 May 2004.
Decision
50. For the above reasons the Tribunal:
Application No W2005/216
Sets aside the decision of the SSAT dated 11 May 2005 and, in substitution therefor, decides that the applicant:
·was subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 18 February 2004 to 18 May 2004 and that the appropriate reduction in the rate of his youth allowance for that period is 16%;
·was not subject to an administrative breach rate reduction period from 5 April 2004 to 4 July 2004.
Application No W2005/337
Affirms the decision of the SSAT dated 2 September 2005.
I certify that the 50 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S D Hotop
Signed: (sgd E M Jordan) .....................................................................................
Associate
0
0
0