Hamilton and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

[2008] AATA 107

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 107

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          N° 2007/0920

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		IAN HAMILTON

Applicant

And

SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr C. Ermert, Member

Date18 January 2008

PlaceMelbourne

Decision For reasons given orally at the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) C. Ermert

Member

SOCIAL SECURITY – ceased employment – received age pension – re-employed – age pension stopped – ceased employment again – application for age pension – application for pension bonus – age pension granted – pension bonus not granted – previously received age pension – whether qualified for pension bonus – decision affirmed

Social Security Act 1991 s 92C

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 January 2008  Mr C. Ermert, Member

INTRODUCTION

1.      Mr Hamilton registered for the pension bonus scheme in 1999.  In June 1999 he became unemployed and went to Centrelink to claim Newstart Allowance. Centrelink is the service delivery agency for the respondent.  He was told that, being over 65 years of age, he could not claim Newstart Allowance.  However, he could apply for the age pension.  He was not told that this would have an impact on a future pension bonus claim.  Mr Hamilton subsequently received age pension payments between 24 June 1999 and 12 January 2000, at which time he was successful in starting in new full-time employment.

2.      In 2006 Mr Hamilton ceased his employment and on 18 July 2006 he lodged claims for age pension and pension bonus with Centrelink.  On 4 August 2006 Centrelink made a decision to pay Mr Hamilton age pension with effect from 18 July 2006.  On the same day Centrelink made a decision not to pay him a pension bonus as he had previously received an age pension and therefore was no longer qualified to receive a pension bonus.  Mr Hamilton sought a review of the latter decision.  The decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer on 13 October 2006 and later by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 26 February 2007.  This matter is an application for review of the SSAT decision.

THE HEARING

3. At the hearing Mr Hamilton represented himself. The respondent was represented by Ms Kayren Paul, a Centrelink advocate. I had before me the documents lodged by the respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T-documents).

THE ISSUE

4.      The issue before the tribunal is whether Mr Hamilton is entitled to be paid a pension bonus.

LEGISLATION

5. Qualification for pension bonus is contained in section 92C of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) which relevantly provides:

A person is qualified for a pension bonus if:

(a)... and

(b)the person has not received an age pension at any time before making a claim for the pension bonus; and

(c)…

6. All subsections of section 92C are connected by and.  Therefore, all subsections have to be satisfied before a person can be qualified for a pension bonus.

EVIDENCE

7.      Mr Hamilton gave detailed evidence of his meetings and discussions with officers of Centrelink.  He was firm in his evidence that at the time of his first application for age pension on 23 June 1999 he was not informed of the effect that this claim would have on his qualification for pension bonus.  He said that had he known, he would have made alternate financial arrangements and not jeopardised his pension bonus.  Mr Hamilton also gave evidence of his contacts with Centrelink staff and stated that file records kept by Centrelink are incorrect and misleading.

8.In his submissions Mr Hamilton summarised the issues he has with Centrelink:

(a)He claims that Centrelink have confused his file.

(b)Four dates have now been stated by Centrelink and the respondent as being the date of his application for pension bonus.

(c)He claims he was not told about the effect of the bonus when he applied for the age pension.

(d)He is concerned about the selective and missing file notes by Centrelink officers.

(e)He is concerned about false file notes and wishes to have them removed.

(f)At the time of his initial age pension claim Centrelink staff did not appear to be trained in the pension bonus scheme and were not helpful to him.

(g)He has offered to repay the pension he received with interest to re‑instate his qualification for the bonus.

(h)He has never done anything knowingly to preclude his qualification for the pension bonus.

9.      Mr Hamilton agreed that he had received an age pension from 24 June 1999 to 12 January 2000 and that he lodged his claim for a pension bonus on 18 July 2006.

CONSIDERATION

10. In considering Mr Hamilton’s submissions I find that none of them can affect the working of section 92C of the Act. The issues may however all be relevant to Centrelink’s Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme and I was pleased to hear that Mr Hamilton had initiated action in regard to that scheme.  I can also understand Mr Hamilton’s concerns at the handling of his case, however the issues he has raised cannot affect the decision in this case.

11. It is not in dispute that Mr Hamilton received the age pension from 24 June 1999 to 12 January 2000 and that this time was before his claim for the pension bonus and I find accordingly. As a consequence the provisions of section 92C(b) are not met and Mr Hamilton cannot qualify for a pension bonus. I have been unable to find any discretionary powers in the Act in regard to the working of section 92C of the Act.

DECISION

12.The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the twelve [12] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:

Mr C. Ermert, Member

(sgd)     Olympia Sarrinikolaou
  Clerk

Date of Hearing:  18 January 2008

Date of Decision:  18 January 2008

Advocate for the applicant:                 Mr Ian Hamilton, self represented

Advocate for the respondent:             Ms Kayren Paul, Centrelink Legal Services