Gallasch and Dairy Adjustment Authority

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1047

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2002/228

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ANTHONY IAN GALLASCH

Applicant

And DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date16 October 2003

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

D G Jarvis

(Signed)
  Deputy President

The Issue

4.      The issue in this matter is whether the applicant is entitled to a discretionary payment right in consequence of having been affected by “significant events or significant crises” or “significant anomalous circumstances” as those terms are defined in s8(3) and s8(5) of the Supplementary Dairy Adjustment Scheme (“the SDA Scheme).

Background and Findings of Fact

5.      From the evidence before me I make the following findings of fact.  The applicant was born on 15 November 1944 and is a fifth generation dairy farmer.  He carried on the dairy farming enterprise at Verdun in South Australia in partnership with his wife.  The total area of the farm is about 350 acres.  Some years ago, on the advice of a consultant, he adopted some changed practices in the running of his dairy farm, namely the use of lime and liquid fertilisers instead of granular fertilisers, and he also started aerating his pastures.  Apart from that, there was nothing unusual about the practices which he adopted in running his dairy farm.  About 15 years ago the dairy was milking 150 cows, but then changed processors and the numbers dropped.  However, in more recent years the enterprise commenced building up the herd again because the applicant intended that his son Benjamin Gallasch would work on the farm after he left school, and it was necessary to increase the number of milking cows in order to support another full-time employee.

6.      The applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage in July 1999.  It appears likely that this was caused or contributed to by stress resulting from two significant adverse events which occurred during the previous financial year.  I will refer to these events below.  The applicant said that his stroke has severely affected his memory, and this was apparent to me from the applicant’s evidence and the difficulty he had in recalling relevant matters.  His speech is also somewhat impaired.  I also note from his application for a discretionary payment right under the SDA Scheme (T14) that he says that his brain haemorrhage “resulted in a week in hospital, severe impairment to his balance, judgement, short-term memory, ability to make decisions and his capacity to do any physical or mental work”..  The form went on to say that the applicant was lucky to be alive and that he had one year off work.  In view of the applicant’s difficulties, Mr Austin Reid, a rural financial counsellor from Fleurieu & Adelaide Hills Rural Counselling & Information Service Inc., attended the Tribunal hearing with the applicant, and assisted him to present his application.

7.      In the financial year ended 30 June 1999, which is the “base year” for…