DACIC and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Case [2010] AATA 247


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 247

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/3471

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re STANOJE DACIC

Applicant

And

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr I Alexander, Member

Date 9 April 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

...................[sgd]...........................

Dr I Alexander
  Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – pensions – disability support pension – portability – where Australia does not have a social security agreement with the country the applicant intends to permanently reside in – qualification for unlimited portability period – meaning of terminally ill – decision under review affirmed

Social Security Act 1991 s 1217, 1218AA

Re Foster and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 983

Re Toseska and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 386

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 April 2010 Dr I Alexander, Member

1.      In this application Mr Dacic seeks review of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal’s decision of 23 June 2009 which affirmed Centrelink’s decision of 29 April 2009 that his disability support pension (“DSP”) can only be paid for 13 weeks should he leave Australia to reside permanently in Serbia.

2.      Mr Dacic is a 58 year old man of Serbian descent who was granted DSP in January 2008. He suffers from a progressive degenerative eye disorder which has left him legally blind and several other chronic conditions.

3.      At the hearing Mr Dacic explained that he lives alone in subsidised housing with no family support and relies on friends and intermittent domestic assistance. He described the various difficulties he has with daily living and vigorously expressed his distress as a result of his current circumstances.

4.      Mr Dacic submits that his only reasonable option is to return to Serbia where he can be supported by his mother and other family members and accordingly seeks an unlimited portability period for his DSP.

ISSUES

5.      The portability provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) apply unless a person is travelling to a country with which Australia has a scheduled international social security agreement. No such agreement exists with Serbia.

6. Section 1217 of the Act provides that DSP is portable for only thirteen weeks unless a person is able to satisfy all the criteria in section 1218AA of the Act. There is no other relevant discretion afforded by the Act.

7. Section 1218AA states inter alia:

1218AA  Extended portability period for disability support pension

(1)The Secretary may determine that a particular person’s maximum portability period for disability support pension is an unlimited period, if all of the following circumstances (the qualifying circumstances) exist:

(a)       the person is severely disabled (see subsection 23(4B)); and

(b)       the person is receiving disability support pension; and

(c)       the person is terminally ill; and

(d)the person’s absence from Australia is or will be permanent; and

(e)       the purpose of the person’s absence is:

(i)to be with or near…

Continue reading DACIC and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUN...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DACIC and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS [2010] AATA 247
Case
[2010] AATA 247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, DACIC, sought a review of a decision made by the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs regarding their eligibility for a disability support pension (DSP) under the Social Security Act 1991. DACIC contended that they qualified for an unlimited portability period for their DSP, which would enable them to continue receiving the pension despite their intention to permanently reside in a country with which Australia does not have a social security agreement. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term "terminally ill" within the context of the Act, and whether DACIC's condition met the necessary criteria for unlimited portability.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 1217 and section 1218AA of the Social Security Act 1991, particularly in relation to the term "terminally ill" and its implications for the portability of DSP benefits. The court needed to determine whether DACIC's condition satisfied the definition of "terminally ill" and, if so, whether this condition qualified them for an unlimited portability period for their DSP. This involved examining relevant case law, such as Re Foster and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Re Toseska and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services, to understand the scope and application of the term.

The court found that DACIC did not meet the criteria for being "terminally ill" as required by the Social Security Act 1991. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that DACIC had a life expectancy of less than six months, nor was their condition such that it inevitably led to death within that timeframe. The court relied on the statutory definition and previous case law to conclude that DACIC's condition did not align with the necessary threshold for an unlimited portability period. Consequently, the court affirmed the original decision of the Secretary, finding that DACIC was not eligible for the unlimited portability period for their DSP.

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.