BRETT AMOS and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
[2012] AATA 285
•11 May 2012
[2012] AATA 285
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2011/4421
Re
BRETT AMOS
APPLICANT
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member
Date 11 May 2012 Place Brisbane The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.................[Sgd]..............................
Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Benefits and entitlements – Claim for baby bonus – Claim to be made within 26 weeks of birth of child – Claim made outside of that 26 week period – Time limit exception not applicable – Claim not effective – Decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 22, 36
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 36, 37, 38, 39
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member
11 May 2012
BACKGROUND
On 24 November 2010, Brett Amos lodged a claim with Centrelink for payment of the baby bonus which is payable under the A NewTax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Act) and the A NewTax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act)[1]. His claim was rejected on 21 February 2011. On 3 August 2011, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision as did the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 13 September 2011.
[1] References are to the Administration Act as it read prior to 1 January 2009.
LEGISLATION AND ISSUES
The eligibility requirements for the baby bonus are set out in s 36 of the Act. A claim for the baby bonus is made under ss 36 to 38 of the Administration Act. It is common ground that Mr Amos’ daughter was born in Thailand on 25 June 2007 and that she and Mr Amos returned to Australia on 4 March 2008. Further, it is not disputed that his daughter entered on a temporary residence visa (Tourist Visa (sub-class 676) – tourist short stay) and was granted Australian citizenship by descent on 27 June 2008. The claim for the baby bonus was rejected on the basis that it was lodged outside of the time-frame set under s 39 of the Administration Act. Prior to 1 January 2009 when Mr Amos’ daughter was born, that section provided that a claim was not effective if it was made later than 26 weeks after the birth of the child. The section also provided for an exception to the requirement where the claim was lodged after 26 weeks from birth and where the delay was due to severe illness associated with the birth of the child.
Mr Hamilton, for the respondent, submitted that Mr Amos’ claim for the baby bonus was not effective because it was made more than three years outside the limit set in s 39 of the Administration Act and that the exception had no application to his circumstances. Mr Hamilton also submitted that a precondition to Mr Amos qualifying for the baby bonus was that his daughter be a Family Tax Benefit child as provided for in s 22 of the Act.
EVIDENCE
Mr Amos gave the following evidence. Within two or three days of arriving in Australia on 4 March 2008, Mr Amos attended the Centrelink office at Beenleigh, near Brisbane, and sought advice about making a claim for the baby bonus. His name does not appear on his daughter’s birth certificate and he was advised that he had 52 weeks from his daughter’s birth to make his baby bonus claim and that he was required to obtain three points of identification, such as a DNA result to establish his parentage, a passport for his daughter and a Medicare card which included coverage for her. Mr Amos was critical of the Centrelink officer’s advice because he had been told that he had 52 weeks to lodge his baby bonus claim and because the delays in obtaining the points of identity took him beyond the time when he could lodge his claim.
CONSIDERATION
I have noted Mr Hamilton’s submission about the need for Mr Amos’ daughter to have been an FTB child as a precondition to being eligible for the baby bonus. However, I am satisfied that this review may be determined on the basis of the lateness of Mr Amos’ claim. After 26 weeks from the date of his daughter’s birth, any claim made by Mr Amos for the baby bonus was ineffective. His claim was made well outside of the time-frame and I am satisfied that it was an ineffective claim and that his circumstances are not encompassed in the exception to that requirement.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 6 (six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member.
..............[Sgd]......................................
Associate
Dated 11 May 2012
Date(s) of hearing 5 May 2012 Applicant By telephone Advocate for the Respondent Bob Hamilton Departmental Advocate
1
0
0