Doering; Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and (Social services second review)

The applicant, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, sought review of decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT had set aside earlier decisions by the Secretary's delegate and an authorised review officer, which had refused the respondents' applications for farm household allowance. The refusal was based on the value of the respondents' non-farm assets exceeding the statutory limit. The respondents are two couples who operate a farm held by a company that acts as trustee for their family trust.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the amounts recorded in the trust's financial statements as "beneficiary loans" constituted loans to the respondents, and consequently, whether these amounts should be included as non-farm assets of the respondents for the purposes of the assets test under section 33 of the *Farm Household Support Act 2014*. The statutory asset value limit for a couple was $387,500.

The court considered evidence from the respondents' accountant, who explained that the financial statements recorded the profit distribution from the sale of farm land as a loan to the beneficiaries. However, the accountant also testified that this profit entitlement was effectively to be paid to the partnership and then used to repay a bank debt. While the accountant confirmed that the trust was required to pay the beneficiaries their share of the profit, which came from instalments paid by the purchaser of the land, he also stated that the trust had no ability to pay these amounts if the purchaser defaulted. The court noted that the legislative scheme provided that farm household allowance is not payable if the value of a person's non-farm assets exceeds the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal had set aside the delegate's decisions, effectively finding that the beneficiary loans did not count as assets for the purpose of the farm household allowance. However, the court determined that the farm household allowance was not payable because the value of each respondent’s non-farm assets exceeded the $387,500 limit. The Tribunal's decision was therefore set aside, and the decisions of the authorised review officer were substituted.