Guse and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

Guse and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2403 (20 July 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/0027
Re:Jacek Guse
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member
Date:20 July 2021
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.
..........................[SGD]............................
Dr L Bygrave, Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – parenting payment single – payment cancelled – whether applicant committed a parenting payment participation failure – where applicant failed to attend appointment – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 500, 500A, 500D, 500F, 500ZA, 500SB, 502D
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 63
Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (DEWR) Determination 2006 (Cth) s 4
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr L Bygrave, Member
20 July 2021

The applicant, Mr Jacek Guse, was in receipt of parenting payment (single) from 4 July 2005.
The Department of Human Services (now Services Australia)[1] (Centrelink) informed Mr Guse by letter dated 29 August 2007 that his parenting payment (single) was suspended because he ‘did not attend an interview’ that Centrelink ‘had arranged’ for him.[2]
[1] On 26 May 2019, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of Services Australia and, on 1 February 2020, it became an executive agency in the Social Services portfolio.
[2] Exhibits T-T6, page 26 and T-T14, page 63.
On 20 November 2007, Centrelink decided to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single) with effect from 29 August 2007 because he ‘fail[ed] to attend interview’.[3]
[3] Exhibits T-T7, page 27 and T-T16, page 101. The Tribunal notes Centrelink letters sent to Mr Guse in relation to his parenting payment (single) state the payment was suspended on 29 August 2007, however, Mr Guse’s pension status history indicates the payment was cancelled with effect from ‘28’ August 2007.
Mr Guse contacted Centrelink on 19 May 2010 to request reconsideration of the decision to cancel his parenting payment (single) and, in a letter to Mr Guse also dated 19 May 2010, a customer service adviser from Centrelink advised:
After carefully considering the information you have provided, I have concluded the decision was correct and should not be changed…
I made this decision because your Parenting Payment Single was correctly suspended on 29/8/2007 as you had not attended a required appointment.[4]
[4] Exhibit T-T14, page 74.
On 1 November 2018 and 1 May 2019, Mr Guse wrote letters to Centrelink requesting Centrelink ‘reimburse’ the ‘Single Parent Pension Payments’ that were ‘withheld’ from him.[5]
[5] Exhibit T-T14, pages 76-77.
On 12 June 2020, an authorised review officer of Centrelink ‘reviewed the decision made on 29 August 2007 to cancel [Mr Guse’s] Parenting Payment’ and determined ‘this decision was correct’.[6]
[6] Exhibit T-T13, page 38.
Mr Guse then applied for review to the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) and, on 1 December 2020, the SSCSD affirmed the decision.
On 3 January 2021, Mr Guse applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for review.
The application was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney on 8 July 2021: the legal representative for the respondent appeared by videoconference, and Mr Guse participated in the hearing and gave oral evidence by teleconference.
ISSUES
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
·whether the decision to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single) with effect from 29 August 2007 was the correct and preferable decision; and
·whether, in any event, the legislation operates to limit any payment of arrears to Mr Guse to the period from 19 May 2010 onwards.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The statutory provisions relevant to this matter are set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act). I have considered the legislation as it was in force from the date Mr Guse received parenting payment (single) on 4 July 2005 to 20 November 2007, the date Centrelink decided to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single) with effect from 29 August 2007.
Part 2.10, Division 1 of the Act outlined the requirements for qualification for and payability of parenting payment. Section 500 of the Act set out the criteria to qualify for parenting payment; paragraph 500(1)(a) relevantly stipulated that a person qualified for parenting payment if they had ‘at least one PP child (see sections 500D and 500F to 500H)’.
A ‘PP child’ was defined in subsection 500D(3) of the Act as follows:
A child is a PP child of a person if:
(a) the child is a child of the person; and
(b) the child has not turned 16; and
(c) the person is the principal carer of the child; and
(d) the person is covered by the parenting payment transitional arrangement in relation to that child or any other child (see section 500F); and… [emphasis in original]
Subsection 500F(1) of the Act set out the provisions for when a single person was covered by the parenting payment transitional arrangement:
… a person is covered by the parenting payment transitional arrangement in relation to a child if:
(a) immediately before 1 July 2006, the person was not a member of a couple; and
(b) immediately before 1 July 2006, that child (or any other child) was a PP child of the person in respect of whom:
(i) a determination under section 37 of the Administration Act was in force granting a claim for a parenting payment to the person; or
(ii) a determination under section 80, 81 or 82 of the Administration Act was in force suspending payment of a parenting payment to the person; and
(c) the person is not a member of a couple; and
(d) in a case where the child has not turned 8—the person is qualified for parenting payment in relation to the child; and
(e) in a case where the child has turned 8—the person would be qualified for parenting payment in relation to the child if the child had not turned 8; and
(f) the person meets any participation requirements that apply to the person under section 500A. [emphasis added]
Section 500A of the Act stipulated the participation requirements for parenting payment as follows:
(a) the person must enter into a Parenting Payment Activity Agreement when the person is required by the Secretary under section 501 to do so;
(b) while the agreement is in force the person must comply with its terms;
(c) at any time while the agreement is in force the person must be prepared to enter into another such agreement, instead of the existing agreement, if required to do so by the Secretary under section 501;
(d) the person must comply with any requirements that the Secretary notifies to the person under subsection 502(1).
Relevant to this matter, the Act set out situations where parenting payment was not payable because of ‘parenting payment participation failure’. Sections 500ZA and 500ZB of the Act provided:
500ZA Parenting payment participation failures
(1) A person commits a parenting payment participation failure if the person is subject to participation requirements and the person:
(a) fails to comply with a requirement:
(i) that was notified to the person under subsection 63(2) … of the Administration Act; and
(ii) that was reasonable; and
(iii) the notification of which included a statement to the effect that a failure to comply with the requirement could constitute a parenting payment participation failure; or …
Note: For when a person is subject to participation requirements see subsection 23(1).
(2) Despite subsection (1), a failure of a kind referred to in that subsection is not a parenting payment participation failure if the person satisfies the Secretary that the person had a reasonable excuse for the failure.
(2A) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine matters that the Secretary must take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), a person had a reasonable excuse for committing a parenting payment participation failure.
(2B) To avoid doubt, a determination under subsection (2A) does not limit the matters that the Secretary may take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), a person had a reasonable excuse for committing the parenting payment participation failure referred to in subsection (1).
…
500ZB Payment not payable because of parenting payment participation failure
(1) A parenting payment is not payable to a person, for the period starting in accordance with section 500ZC and ending in accordance with section 500ZD, if:
(a) the person commits a parenting payment participation failure; and
(b) the Secretary requires the person:
(i) to comply with the requirement, or undertake the activity, to which the parenting payment participation failure relates; or
(ii) to comply with a particular requirement, or undertake a particular activity, in place of the requirement or activity to which the failure relates;
during the participation failure instalment period for the failure, or at a particular time during that period; and
(c) the person fails to comply with the requirement.
(2) This section does not apply in relation to the failure if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for the failure referred to paragraph (1)(c); or
(b) the Secretary is for any other reason satisfied that subsection (1) should not apply to the failure.
(2A) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine matters that the Secretary must take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a person had a reasonable excuse for a failure of a kind referred to in paragraph (1)(c).
(2B) To avoid doubt, a determination under subsection (2A) does not limit the matters that the Secretary may take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a person had a reasonable excuse for the failure referred to in paragraph (1)(c).
For the purpose of subsection 500ZA(1), subsection 23(1) of the Act defined ‘subject to participation requirements’ as:
… a person is subject to participation requirements if, because of paragraph 500(1)(c) or 500F(1)(f) or (2)(f), the person cannot be qualified for parenting payment unless the person meets any participation requirements that apply to the person under section 500A.
Subsections 502D(1) and 502D(3A) of the Act described a ‘participation exemption’ relevant to Mr Guse’s circumstances as follows:
(1) A person is covered by a participation exemption under this Division in respect of a period that the Secretary determines under this section in relation to the person.
…
(3A) The Secretary must make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer of 4 or more children.
Note: For principal carer see subsections 5(15) to (24)
Division 6 of the Administration Act outlined a person’s requirement to provide information etc. Relevant to this matter, section 63 of the Administration Act set out a person’s requirement to attend the Department etc as follows:
(1) This section applies to a person if:
(a) the person is receiving … a social security payment;
…
(2) If the Secretary is of the opinion that a person to whom this section 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 notify the person 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 that purpose; or
(h) give that information;
as the case may be.
The Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (DEWR) Determination 2006 (the Determination) commenced on 1 July 2006 and outlined matters to be taken into account in determining if a person had a reasonable excuse for committing a parenting payment participation failure. These matters relevantly include at paragraph 4(2)(g): ‘any unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person’. Subsection 4(3) of the Determination further states that the Secretary is required to be satisfied the matter had a ‘significant effect on the person’s capacity to comply’ with the requirement to which the failure relates.
EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal shows the following chronology:
·Mr Guse is the father of five children born on XX May 19XX, XX December 19XX, XX January 19XX and XX March 19XX (twins).
·Mr Guse was in receipt of parenting payment (single) from 4 July 2005 on the basis that he was the principal carer for his five children.
·On 24 July 2007, Centrelink sent Mr Guse a letter that stated:
You are required to attend an appointment with a Centrelink Customer Service Advisor to enter into an Activity Agreement. We will talk to you about what you have to do as part of this agreement to meet participation requirements, while you are receiving Parenting Payment.
…
The appointment will also give us an opportunity to explain and discuss your new participation requirements as well as help you to look at options for your future.
Please come to:
[Address of Centrelink office]
Date: 10 August 2007
Time: 11:50am
If this time is not suitable and you would like to change it please call us on [Centrelink phone number] straight away to arrange another time.
…
It is important that you keep this appointment. Your Parenting Payment may be affected if you do not keep the appointment or let us know why you cannot attend.
…
Do I have to keep this appointment?
Yes. You are required under social security law to come to this appointment. If you are not available for this appointment and do not make alternative arrangements, your Parenting Payment may stop. You may also be found to have committed a Parenting Payment participation failure.
…
If you have any special or urgent circumstances which make it unreasonable for you to keep this appointment, you need to let us know as soon as possible…
What will happen at my appointment?
We will discuss what you are doing now and what you will have to do in the future to meet your obligations and continue to receive your payment.
…
If you have any special personal or family circumstances, which you feel may affect your ability to meet your participation requirements, please discuss these matters with your Centrelink Customer Service Advisor during your appointment.[7]
[7] Exhibit T-T4, page 22.
·On 10 August 2007, a Centrelink officer telephoned Mr Guse to cancel his appointment at 11:50am and arrange another appointment date. This is noted in a Centrelink record dated 9 August 2007 stating that a customer service officer ‘actioned record… regarding Review of Entitlement for Parenting Payment Single. Information was obtained via Phone Call’.[8] An excerpt from Mr Guse’s electronic diary on 10 August 2007 recorded the following conversation:
[8] Exhibit T-T15, page 88.
Centerlink – Can you come to the appointment on 29 August?
I [Mr Guse] – On 29th August I’m taking my daughter…to a dentist appointment, and on the 23rd I have dentist.
Centrelink – What time is your daughter’s dentist appointment on the 29th August?
I [Mr Guse] – At 12:30h but I would need to pick her up half an hour earlier to make it.
Centrelink – How about 31st August. Friday?
[Son] whispered to me – Dad on 31st I have dentist.
I [Mr Guse] – I am taking my son to the dentist.
Centrelink – All right then, you pick the date suitable for you.
I [Mr Guse] – I don’t have anything at this stage on Tuesday 14 August or Wednesday 15 August next week but on Tuesday I’d have to pick up my daughter from school at 1430h.
Centrelink – Schools don’t finish until 3pm. Your appointment at Centrelink…will be on 29 August at 11:00h.
I [Mr Guse] – How long does it take?
Centrelink – Usually about 50 minutes.[9] [replicated as in original]
[9] Exhibit T-T14, page 59.
·Centrelink sent Mr Guse a letter dated 10 August 2007 that contained identical information to the letter sent to Mr Guse on 27 July 2007, except for the appointment date and time. For completeness, this letter stated:
You are required to attend an appointment with a Centrelink Customer Service Advisor to enter into an Activity Agreement. We will talk to you about what you have to do as part of this agreement to meet participation requirements, while you are receiving Parenting Payment.
…
The appointment will also give us an opportunity to explain and discuss your new participation requirements as well as help you to look at options for your future.
Please come to:
[Address of Centrelink office]
Date: 29 August 2007
Time: 11:00am
If this time is not suitable and you would like to change it please call us on [Centrelink phone number] straight away to arrange another time.
…
It is important that you keep this appointment. Your Parenting Payment may be affected if you do not keep the appointment or let us know why you cannot attend.
…
Do I have to keep this appointment?
Yes. You are required under social security law to come to this appointment. If you are not available for this appointment and do not make alternative arrangements, your Parenting Payment may stop. You may also be found to have committed a Parenting Payment participation failure.
…
If you have any special or urgent circumstances which make it unreasonable for you to keep this appointment, you need to let us know as soon as possible…
What will happen at my appointment?
We will discuss what you are doing now and what you will have to do in the future to meet your obligations and continue to receive your payment.
…
If you have any special personal or family circumstances, which you feel may affect your ability to meet your participation requirements, please discuss these matters with your Centrelink Customer Service Advisor during your appointment.[10]
[10] Exhibits T-T5, page 24 and T-T14, page 60.
·Mr Guse did not attend the appointment at Centrelink on 29 August 2007. An extract from Mr Guse’s electronic diary on 29 August 2007 showed (amongst other events) his activities between 10am and 12pm included:
oat 10am, his godmother called, she was ‘in pain’ and wanted him ‘to come as she was alone and could not get a drink of water’;
oat 10:20am, his godmother ‘dosed off’;
oat 10:30am, he went to the bank to make a payment;
oat 10:45am, his godmother called and wanted him to come over and stay until [name of a person] comes;
oat 11:30am, a [name of a different person] comes, so he can leave; and
oat 12:00pm, his godmother calls and asks him to come and he does.[11]
[11] Exhibit T-T14, page 68.
·A Centrelink record dated 29 August 2007 noted a customer service officer ‘actioned record’ regarding Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single). This record stated ‘DO NOT RESTORE UNLESS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT IS UPDATED’.[12] [emphasis in original]
[12] Exhibit T-T14, page 90.
·Centrelink sent Mr Guse a letter dated 29 August 2007, which he received on 3 September 2007, that stated:
Suspension of your Parenting Payment
…
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Your Parenting Payment has been suspended because you did not attend an interview we had arranged for you.
YOUR RIGHTS
What to do if you think this decision is wrong
If you do not agree with the decision, please contact us or come in and see us. We will reconsider your case and change the decision if appropriate. If you still do not agree with the decision, you can ask for an Authorised Review Officer to look at it. The Authorised Review Officer is an experienced officer who has not been involved in your case before. They can change this decision if it is wrong or, if they agree with the decision they can tell you how to appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal…
It is important to ask for the decision to be reviewed as soon as possible. This is because if you do not ask for the decision to be reviewed within 13 weeks of being told about it, any change, or any back payment, might only be able to take effect from the date you ask…[13] [emphasis in original]
[13] Exhibits T-T6, page 26 and T-T14, page 63 (in part).
·Centrelink records showed that Mr Guse contacted Centrelink on 5 September 2007 by telephone about his parenting payment (single). The Centrelink record stated:
Please phone customer re: rebooking appointment for compulsory PPP [sic] grandfathered interview. Customer has 5 children in his care and has difficulty attending CSC and making appt times.[14]
·Centrelink records from 6 September 2007 showed a customer service officer reported:
rang number male answered phone I asked for a/n and told him my name he wanted to know where I was calling from I told him once I can confirm if I am speaking with a/n I will then explain who and where I am calling from. Person told me he does not talk to anyone if they will not tell him where they are from. I terminated phone call.
…
customer has all school aged children no reason as to why he cannot attend his appointments.[15] [replicated as in original]
·An excerpt from Mr Guse’s electronic diary on 6 September 2007 stated ‘Teresa call- Centrelink?. No introduction no talk ok’.[16]
·Centrelink records dated 19 May 2010 stated that Mr Guse wanted the decision to cancel his parenting payment (single) reconsidered and ‘up to recently was too busy to attend to certain affairs with regards to his Parenting Payment’.[17] These issues were recorded as his separation from his wife, custody issues with solicitors and the courts, and caring for his five children.
[14] Exhibit T-T14, page 91.
[15] Exhibit T-T14, page 91.
[16] Exhibit A3.
[17] Exhibit T-T14, page 92.

Mr Guse provided extensive oral evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing. This included that he attended a Centrelink information session on 8 March 2007 and understood he was exempt from participation and activity agreement requirements. He therefore believed he should not have been ‘compelled’ to attend a Centrelink office in August 2007 to discuss meeting participation requirements in relation to his parenting payment (single). He said that Centrelink knew he had four children under the age of 16 years in August 2007 and so he thought ‘what is the point’ of attending the Centrelink office to ‘sign a participation agreement’. He accepted, however, that his second eldest child would turn 16 years later in 2007.
Mr Guse confirmed he had received the letter from Centrelink dated 24 July 2007 informing him about his requirement to attend an appointment on 10 August 2007. He said that he intended to attend this appointment, however, a male customer service officer from Centrelink telephoned him to cancel the appointment at 8:30am on the day of the appointment. Mr Guse described this Centrelink customer service officer as ‘arrogant’, ‘provocative’ and ‘stupid’ and said that, in rebooking his appointment for 11am on 29 August 2007, the customer service officer did not take into account that Mr Guse had to take his daughter to the dentist at 12:30pm on the same day.
Mr Guse also confirmed that he had received the letter from Centrelink dated 10 August 2007 informing him about his requirement to attend a new appointment on 29 August 2007. He said that his daughter’s dental appointment on 29 August 2007 was subsequently cancelled by her dentist on 21 August 2007. However, he then ‘forgot’ about the appointment scheduled for 11am on 29 August 2007 at the Centrelink office because his godmother was unwell. He said that 29 August 2007 was the ‘first time’ he realised his godmother was dying and she subsequently passed away six weeks later. He explained that he lived near to his godmother’s home and so was able to assist her, although she also had ‘carers’ and ‘servants’ to look after her.
Mr Guse said he had received the letter about his parenting payment (single) being suspended on 3 September 2007. He then contacted Centrelink by telephone on 5 September 2007 and was informed that someone would call him in the next day or so. He accepted that when ‘Teresa’ from Centrelink phoned him on 6 September 2007, he refused to identify himself as he ‘did not know who she was’.
Mr Guse said that, after 6 September 2007, he went to Centrelink ‘many times’ and ‘begged’ for his parenting payment (single) to be restored. There are no records of Mr Guse’s contact in the Centrelink records and Mr Guse advised the Tribunal that he could not find any references to his contacting Centrelink in relation to his parenting payment (single) in his electronic diary records.
CONSIDERATION
Was the decision to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single) with effect from 29 August 2007 the correct and preferable decision?
Having regard to the provisions in section 500ZA of the Act, for the following reasons I am satisfied Mr Guse committed a parenting payment participation failure on 29 August 2007 when he failed to attend his appointment at a Centrelink office.
Subparagraph 500ZA(1)(a)(i) – was Mr Guse notified of a requirement under subsection 63(2) of the Administration Act?
Mr Guse was in receipt of parenting payment (single) from 4 July 2005 to 29 August 2007 and, as the recipient of a social security payment, he was obliged to comply with the requirements of subsection 63(2) of the Administration Act.
By letter dated 10 August 2007, Centrelink notified Mr Guse that he was required ‘under social security law’ to attend an appointment at a nominated Centrelink office on 29 August 2007 at 11am. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Guse was notified in accordance with subsection 63(2) of the Administration Act of his requirement to attend this appointment.
Subparagraph 500ZA(1)(a)(ii) – was the requirement ‘reasonable’?
The letter Centrelink sent to Mr Guse dated 10 August 2007 advised him about the purpose of the appointment on 29 August 2007, which was to discuss his participation requirements while he was receiving parenting payment, what he is ‘doing now’ and what he will have to ‘in the future’ to continue to receive his payment. This letter clearly set out the date, time and place of the appointment, and advised him that he could change the time of the appointment if it was ‘not suitable’.
I am satisfied that Mr Guse was provided adequate (more than two weeks) notice in writing about his requirement to attend the appointment at Centrelink. I am also satisfied that he was advised the purpose of the appointment and was informed he could change the time of the appointment. As the recipient of parenting payment (single), I find the requirement for Mr Guse to attend a Centrelink appointment to discuss ‘new participation requirements’ was ‘reasonable’ for the purpose of subparagraph 500ZA(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. In making this finding, I note that ‘reasonable’ in this context requires a fair, sensible and holistic consideration of both the ‘requirement’ for Mr Guse to attend an appointment at a Centrelink office and Mr Guse’s circumstances at the time.
While I accept Mr Guse’s evidence that he was busy raising five children in August 2007, I observe that all his children were attending school and his daughter’s dental appointment at 12:30pm on 29 August 2007 was subsequently cancelled on 21 August 2007. I further note that Mr Guse provided no evidence to the Tribunal that he contacted Centrelink at any time to change the time or date of his appointment because it was ‘not suitable’.
Subparagraph 500ZA(1)(a)(iii) – did the notification include a statement to the effect that a failure to comply with the requirement could constitute a parenting payment participation failure?
The letter Centrelink sent to Mr Guse on 10 August 2007 contained the statement:
If you are not available for this appointment and do not make alternative arrangements, your Parenting Payment may stop. You may also be found to have committed a Parenting Payment participation failure.
I am therefore satisfied that the notification to Mr Guse included a statement as required by subparagraph 500ZA(1)(a)(iii) of the Act.
Subsections 500ZA(2), 500ZA(2A) and 500ZA(2B) – was there a ‘reasonable excuse’ for committing the failure?
At the Tribunal hearing, Mr Guse variously gave evidence that he did not attend his appointment at Centrelink at 11am on 29 August 2007 because he was too busy, needed to care for his five children, believed he should not have been compelled to attend the appointment, his daughter had a dental appointment at 12:30pm on 29 August 2007 (noting that it was later cancelled), and he forgot about the appointment because his godmother was unwell.
I have had regard to the matters to be taken into account in determining if a person had a reasonable excuse for committing a parenting payment participation failure, as set out in the Determination, and note that paragraph 4(2)(g) relevantly stipulates ‘any unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person’. While I accept that Mr Guse’s godmother was unwell on 29 August 2007, there is no evidence that this situation had a ‘significant effect’ on Mr Guse’s capacity to attend his appointment at Centrelink as required by subsection 4(3) of the Determination. This is because he was able to attend the bank at 10:30am, his godmother had other people who cared for and looked after her on the day, and Mr Guse has provided no medical evidence verifying his caring responsibilities for his godmother.
In considering whether Mr Guse had a ‘reasonable excuse’, I have also examined Mr Guse’s actions following the suspension of his parenting payment (single) on 29 August 2007. I am satisfied that Mr Guse was notified in writing by Centrelink that his parenting payment (single) was suspended and he received this letter on 3 September 2007. While Mr Guse then contacted Centrelink by telephone on 5 September 2007, his evidence to the Tribunal was that, when ‘Teresa’ from Centrelink telephoned him on 6 September 2007, he refused to identify himself and the call was terminated. I also note that the letter from Centrelink dated 29 August 2007 clearly informed Mr Guse about the reason for his parenting payment (single) being suspended and that he needed to contact Centrelink if he thought the decision was wrong.
I find that, after 6 September 2007, Mr Guse did not have contact with Centrelink in relation to his parenting payment (single) until 19 May 2010, when he asked Centrelink to reconsider the decision to cancel his parenting payment (single). I do not accept Mr Guse’s oral evidence that he went to Centrelink ‘many times’ and ‘begged’ for his parenting payment (single) to be restored. This evidence is not supported by either Centrelink records or documentary evidence from Mr Guse. In view of the detailed electronic diary records Mr Guse filed with the Tribunal, I find it implausible that he would have attended a Centrelink office in relation to his parenting payment (single) and not diarised the event.
I am satisfied Mr Guse did not have a reasonable excuse for committing a parenting payment participation failure on 29 August 2007.
CONCLUSION
As I am satisfied that Mr Guse committed a ‘parenting payment participation failure’ pursuant to section 500ZA of the Act, it follows that his payment was not payable under section 500ZB of the Act. I therefore find the decision made by Centrelink on 20 November 2007 to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment (single) with effect from 29 August 2007, the date that he committed a parenting payment participation failure, was the correct and preferable decision.
In relation to Mr Guse’s extensive oral and written submissions that he should now be entitled to be paid parenting payment (single) from 2007, I note that there is no apparent reason to explain why Mr Guse could not have made a new claim for parenting payment (single) and had his claim assessed on the basis of his circumstances at that relevant time.
DECISION
The decision under view, to cancel Mr Guse’s parenting payment single with effect from 29 August 2007, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 42 (forty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member

...............................[SGD]...................................
Associate
Dated: 20 July 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 8 July 2021

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Joined Party: Dr Stephen Thompson, Sparke Helmore

[2021] AATA 2403

20 July 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Date(s) of hearing:	8 July 2021
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Joined Party:	Dr Stephen Thompson, Sparke Helmore