Hawkins; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review)
[2024] AATA 3430
•25 September 2024
Hawkins; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 3430 (25 September 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s):2023/5499 & 2023/5501
Re:Secretary, Department of Social Services
APPLICANT
John HawkinsAnd
RESPONDENT
AndHelen Hawkins
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Member Lee Benjamin
Date:25 September 2024
Place:Brisbane
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with one that the Respondents’ claim for the Pension Bonus in September 2022 be rejected.
...............................[SGD].........................................
Member Lee Benjamin
Catchwords
PENSION BONUS SCHEME – Appeal of Social Services and Child Support Division decision – where Respondents erroneously members of Pension Bonus Scheme – where Respondents had been rejected for Age Pension – where Centrelink had repeatedly advised Respondents they were members of Pension Bonus Scheme – decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Cases
Foord and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 511
Grabovsky v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1130
Pidun and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 228
Polchow and Secretary, Department of Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 224Tselios and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 1112
Secondary Materials
Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration
Social Security Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Lee Benjamin
25 September 2024
WHAT IS THIS DECISION ABOUT?
Mr John & Mrs Helen Hawkins became members of the Pension Bonus Scheme (PBS) in September 2000 and April 2003, respectively. Centrelink (the Agency) issued written notification confirming the same. Mr Hawkins retired from work in April 2018. In the same month, Mr & Mrs Hawkins applied for the Age Pension (AP) and the pension bonus (PB). The AP claims were rejected in June 2018 because Mr & Mrs Hawkins did not meet the assets test.[1] Mr & Mrs Hawkins were advised that they remained registered in the PBS but that they needed to claim the AP again and be entitled to payment, within 13 weeks of failing to meet the work test. Mr & Mrs Hawkins were further advised in writing on several occasions over the years, that they remained registered in the PBS. In September 2022, Mr & Mrs Hawkins lodged a fresh claim for AP and PB. The AP claim was granted in November 2022. The PB claim was rejected as out of time, being more than 13 weeks after Mr & Mrs Hawkins ceased to meet the work test, even though the Agency had repeatedly advised Mr & Mrs Hawkins they remained PBS members over the relevant period.
[1] The rejection letters did not mention the PB. The Agency’s internal notes indicate that the PB claim was not determined.
In May 2023, the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) set aside the original decision, and in substitution decided that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claim for PB in September 2022 should be granted.
The Secretary has come to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT2) seeking a review of the AAT1 decision. The Secretary asks for the decision under review to be set aside and substituted with one that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claim for PB in September 2022 be rejected. The Secretary contends, among other things, as a hard matter of statutory interpretation, that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claims for PB were deemed to be rejected in July 2018 by operation of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (Administration Act). According to the Secretary, the consequence is that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PBS registration/membership automatically ceased at the same time for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act). The Secretary makes this submission despite years of Agency correspondence to Mr & Mrs Hawkins to the contrary and Agency internal notes indicating that the PB claim was not determined.
In this application, I am required to consider three questions:
(a)Whether the AAT1 was correct to conclude that the PBS claim lodged 24 April 2018 remained undetermined until the successful AP claim was determined in 2022;
(b)Whether Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PBS claim made on 26 September 2022 was made within time; and
(c)If not, whether there would be a basis upon which the AAT2 could extend the time to lodge the PBS claim.
In my view, the Secretary’s contention is legally correct. Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claims for PB were deemed to be rejected in July 2018 by operation of the Administration Act and they ceased to be PBS members at the same time under the Act.[2] Accordingly, the decision under review must be set aside and substituted with one that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claim for PB in September 2022 be rejected.
[2] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 4.1(a).
In reaching the above conclusion, I acknowledge that it is a perverse outcome having regard to the Agency’s correspondence with, and advice to, Mr & Mrs Hawkins over many years. This is a case in which the Agency’s conduct can be properly characterised as poor (at best) and maladministration (at worst). In any case, the Agency has clearly engaged in defective administration, which resulted in Mr & Mrs Hawkins suffering loss or detriment. The Agency could, on any objective view, have reasonably expected Mr & Mrs Hawkins would have suffered the loss or detriment as a result of their defective administration. Mr & Mrs Hawkins should consider pursuing a claim for compensation for the amount of their loss or detriment under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (also known as the CDDA Scheme).[3] In the alternative, Mr & Mrs Hawkins may consider making an “Act of Grace” claim with the Department of Finance.[4]
[3] HAPPENED?
The Respondents are a married couple. Mr Hawkins was born in 1935 and Mrs Hawkins was born in 1941. Mr Hawkins became a member of the PBS in September 2000 and Mrs Hawkins became a member in April 2003.[5]
[5] Exhibit A1, p 1, para 2.1.
Between 2000 and 2022, the Agency advised Mr and/or Mrs Hawkins on at least eight occasions that they were PBS members.[6]
[6] See Exhibit Tr1, T9-T12; and T28 and T29.
Between 2000 and 2018, Mr & Mrs Hawkins made 42 visits to the Agency in Mackay. Around 18 visits were to disclose information. The others were to general enquiries and receive advice and instructions. They say they acted on the Agency’s advice and instructions.[7]
[7] Exhibit R4.
On 6 April 2018, Mr Hawkins retired from his employment.[8]
[8] Exhibit A1, p 1, para 2.2.
On 24 April 2018, Mr & Mrs Hawkins applied for the AP and PB on a combined form. The claim was made in accordance with the requirements in subsection 17(1)(a). The claims for AP were rejected on 13 June 2018 based on Mr & Mrs Hawkins not meeting the assets test. The rejection letters did not mention PB. The Agency’s notes indicate that the PB claim was not determined, and Mr & Mrs Hawkins were encouraged to seek reassessment within 13 weeks if their assets reduced to below the asset threshold. Mr & Mrs Hawkins were advised by the Agency that they remained registered in the PBS but that they did need to claim AP and be entitled to payment, within 13 weeks of failing to meet the work test.[9]
[9] Exhibit A1, p 1, para 2.3.
On 11 April 2022, Mrs Hawkins received correspondence outlining that she remained a member of the PBS. She had received similar letters since April 2018, all of which advised her that she needed to submit her claim for AP and PB within 13 weeks of not satisfying the work test.[10]
[10] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 2.4.
On 26 September 2022, Mr & Mrs Hawkins lodged a fresh claim for AP and PB. The claim for AP was granted on 14 November 2022, however the delegate decided to reject the claim for PB, on the basis that it was out of time, being more than 13 weeks after Mr and Mrs Hawkins ceased to meet the work test.[11]
[11] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 2.5.
This decision was affirmed by the Authorised Review Officer (ARO) on 21 December 2022. The ARO found Mr & Mrs Hawkins had not lodged a claim for PB within 13 weeks of ceasing to meet the work test on 6 April 2018.[12]
[12] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 2.6.
On 30 May 2023, the AAT1 set aside the decision, and in substitution decided that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claim for PB dated 26 September 2022 should be granted. According to the Secretary, the following findings of the Tribunal led the Tribunal to this conclusion:[13]
(a)Both Mr & Mrs Hawkins became non-accruing members of the scheme upon their 75th birthdays;
(b)Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ previous PB claim dated 24 April 2018 remained undetermined; and
(c)Because Mr & Mrs Hawkins remained non-accruing members of the PBS, as at the date they lodged their 2022 claim, their PB claim had been lodged within 13 weeks of them ceasing to be non-accruing members, as required by section 25 of the Administration Act.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
[13] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 2.7.
Administration Act provisions around making a claim
Subsection 11(1) of the Administration Act provides that a person who wants to be granted a social security payment must make a claim for the payment or card in accordance with Division 1 of Part 3.[14]
[14] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.2.
A person makes a claim for a social security payment by, relevantly, lodging a written claim for the payment (subsection 16(1)(a) of the Administration Act).[15]
[15] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.3.
If a person wishes to make a claim for PB, they must meet the requirements in section 17, such as the claim must be “attached to a proper claim made by the person for age pension and lodged together with that claim for age pension” (subsection 17(1)(a) of the Administration Act).[16]
[16] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.4.
The Administration Act provides (subsection 17(2)):[17]
A claim for pension bonus may be made even though it is not certain whether the person will start to receive an age pension at or after the time when the person makes the claim. The claim has effect as a claim that is contingent on the person receiving an age pension.
[17] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.5.
The Secretary contends that the first sentence in subsection 17(2) makes clear that a claim for PB is able to be made despite it not being known, as at the date of the claim, whether the person will receive an AP. The second sentence in subsection 17(2) purportedly establishes that the PB claim is effective even though its grant depends on the grant of an AP.[18]
[18] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.6.
The time limits for making PB claims are set out in Subdivision E of Division 1 of Part 3 of the Administration Act. According to the Secretary, the general rule, stated in subsection 21(1), is that a claim for pension bonus “must be made within the lodgement period fixed by this Subdivision”. However, pursuant to subsection 21(2), the Secretary “may in special circumstances allow a person a longer period to make a claim than the period fixed by th[e] Subdivision”.[19]
[19] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.7.
Section 34 of the Administration Act permits withdrawal of a PB claim. Where a person claims both a PB and an AP and the claim for an AP is withdrawn, then the PB claim is taken to have been withdrawn (subsection 34(2)).[20]
[20] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.8.
Subsection 36(1) of the Administration Act imposes an obligation on the Secretary, subject to the section, to “determine a claim for a social security payment …, either granting or rejecting the claim”. By reason of subsection 36(2), “[i]f a person claims both a pension bonus and an age pension, the Secretary must not determine the claim for pension bonus until the claim for age pension has been granted”.[21]
[21] Exhibit A1, p 3, para 4.9.
Subsection 37(1) provides that, subject to that section and section 40 of the Administration Act, the Secretary “must determine that a claim for a social security payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that (a) the claimant is qualified for the social security payment” and “(b) the social security payment is payable”.[22]
[22] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.10.
Subsection 39(1) provides that, subject to presently irrelevant exceptions, “if the Secretary does not make a determination regarding a claim within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim was made, the Secretary is taken to have made, at the end of that period, a determination rejecting the claim”.[23]
[23] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.11.
Pension Bonus Scheme Membership
Under section 25 of the Administration Act, if a person’s PBS membership becomes non-accruing immediately after the end of the person’s last bonus period, the lodgement period applicable to the person’s PB claim is the period beginning at the end of the person’s last bonus period and ending 13 weeks after the time when the person’s membership of the scheme ceases to be non-accruing.[24]
[24] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.12.
Under subsection 26(1) of the Administration Act, if a post-75 member of the pension bonus scheme has a post-75 work period, the lodgement period for a claim for pension bonus is the period of 13 weeks beginning at the end of the period nominated in the claim as the person’s post-75 work period. By reason of subsection 26(2), a post-75 member of the PBS has a post-75 work period if the following requirements are satisfied:
(a)the person’s claim for pension bonus nominates a particular period as the person’s post-75 work period;
(b)the nominated period begins immediately after the end of the person’s last bonus period;
(c)if it were assumed that the person had been an accruing member of the PBS throughout each test period that is applicable to the person, the person would have passed the work test for each test period.[25]
[25] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.13.
The term “post-75 member of the pension bonus scheme” has the meaning given in section 92S of the Act, which provides that “[a] person’s membership of the pension bonus scheme is post-75 at all times after the person reaches age 75”.[26] The operation of this provision is addressed in the Social Security Guide in the following terms:
Once a member turns 75 years of age they can no longer accrue further bonus periods under ANY circumstances. Members aged over 75 years of age can remain members provided they continue to meet the work test. Registered partners of members over 75 years of age can use the work performed by their partner to accrue bonus periods.[27]
[26] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.14.
[27] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.15.
Section 92C of the Act lists the requirements that need to be met by a person to be qualified for a PB. Relevantly, the person must start to receive an AP at or after the time when they make a PB claim (subsection 92C(a)(i)) and they must not have received an AP at any time before making a PB claim (subsection 92C(b)).[28]
[28] Exhibit A1, p 4, para 4.16.
A person is a member of the PBS from the date on which the registration of their membership takes effect until the membership is cancelled under the Act (section 92K). Cancellation of membership is governed by section 92L. Relevantly, a person’s membership of the PBS is cancelled if their claim for pension bonus is determined (section 92L(a)).[29]
[29] Exhibit A1, p 5, para 4.17.
WHAT QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED?
As mentioned earlier, the Tribunal needs to first consider whether the AAT1 was correct to conclude that the PBS claim lodged on 24 April 2018 remained undetermined until the successful AP claim was determined in 2022. If the answer to this first question is no, that is the end of the matter. If the answer to this first question is yes, I must then consider the second question of whether Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PBS claim made on 26 September 2022 was made within time. If the answer to the second question is no, I must determine whether there are special circumstances to warrant an extension of time to make a claim.
WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS?
In my view (and I find) that the AAT1 was incorrect to conclude that the PBS claim lodged on 24 April 2018 remained undetermined until the successful AP claim was determined in 2022.
This outcome arises as a matter of correct statutory construction. Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claims for PB were deemed to be rejected on 24 July 2018 by operation of subsection 39(1) of the Administration Act. As this was the case, Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ registration to the scheme was cancelled from this date pursuant to sections 92K and 92L of the Act. That being the case, Mr & Mrs Hawkins were no longer registered members of the PBS as at the date of their claims on 26 September 2022 and the claim should be rejected on that basis (subsection 92C(c) of the Act).[30]
[30] Exhibit A1, p 2, para 4.1.
WHY IS THIS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS?
The Secretary contends that, contrary to AAT1’s reasons, Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PB claims did not remain undetermined, but were rejected by operation of subsection 39(1) of the Administration Act.[31] I accept the Secretary’s submissions as being technically correct as a matter of plain statutory construction.
[31] Exhibit A1, p 5, para 4.18.
The Secretary says that the proper construction of subsection 17(2) of the Administration Act is that the PBS claims were contingent upon Mr & Mrs Hawkins receiving AP. That construction, the Secretary says, is consistent with the Tribunal’s reasons in Foord and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 511 where Member Webb stated at [53] that “the legislation may sensibly be construed to permit and preserve a Pension Bonus claim lodged concurrently with a claim for Age Pension pending determination of the Age pension claim.”[32] The Secretary submits that the same approach was adopted in Pidun and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 228; and Tselios and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 1112.
[32] Exhibit A1, p 5, para 4.19.
Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ AP claims were rejected under subsection 36(1) of the Administration Act. The Secretary submits that, because Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ AP claims were rejected on 24 April 2018, subsection 36(2) operated to prevent the Secretary from exercising the power in subsection 36(1) to determine the PB claims. However, subsection 36(2) does not affect the operation of subsection 39(1). The former is concerned with a positive exercise of power, while the latter is a deeming provision. There is no provision in section 39 that states it is subject to subsection 36(2). Given Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PB claims had not been determined within 13 weeks of the date of claim, they were deemed to be rejected by operation of law.[33]
[33] Exhibit A1, p 5, para 4.20.
According to the Secretary, the contrary construction that was adopted by the AAT1, being that the PB claims made on 24 April 2018 were undetermined as at 14 November 2022, is not consistent with the other provisions in the Administration Act and in the Act. The Secretary contends that such an interpretation would make a mockery of the strict date of claim rules and provide a loophole contrary to the intention of the legislation, whereby a person could lodge a PB claim at a time they were not entitled to AP in order for it to be forever preserved until their assets were at a level that they were entitled to AP. The Secretary points to the Tribunal decision in Polchow and Secretary, Department of Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 224, which addresses what the Secretary says was Parliament’s intention in determining the 13-week timeframe for claims:
After some research, I was able to locate the reason why the period of 13 weeks was selected for the purposes ss22 and 23 of the AdministrationAct as being the time limit within which, after the last bonus period, a claim must be made. In a report prepared by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee dated May 1998, the committee provided the following reasons for the 13 week limit:
DSS and DVA noted, however, that the Scheme provides that a bonus payment can only be made to a person who is able to claim and receive an age (or equivalent DVA) pension within 13 weeks of their retirement or within 13 weeks of failing to meet the work test requirements for a year. The 13 week limits were included to minimise the capacity of people to disperse or reduce their retirement savings following the cessation or reduction in work.[34]
[34] Exhibit A1, p 5, para 4.21.
It follows that, in the Secretary’s contention, it would be an oddity if Parliament intended a person’s PB claim could remain indefinitely undetermined but unable to ever be granted because the AP claim made concurrently was rejected.[35]
[35] Exhibit A1, p 6, para 4.22.
The Administration Act, in particular, subsections 17(1)-(2), (4)-(5), and subsections 34(2) and 36(2), contemplate a PB claim being tied to an AP claim. Thus, according to the Secretary, a claim for PB can only be made with a claim for AP (subsection 17(1)-(2), (4)-(5)). A PB claim cannot survive if an AP claim has been withdrawn (subsection 34(2)). A PB claim cannot be determined (granted or rejected), unless and until an AP claim has been granted (subsection 36(2)).[36]
[36] Exhibit A1, p 6, para 4.23.
All this points to, what the Secretary contends, would be at odds with that legislative purpose for a PB claim to survive - perhaps never being determined if another AP claim is not made - years after an AP claim is not accepted. If a new AP claim is made years later, the Secretary submits that it is also difficult to see how the PB claim made years earlier could satisfy the requirements of subsection 17(1). The Secretary’s construction of section 17, 36 and 39 has the benefit that it results in a deemed decision being made under subsection 39(1), thereby, as pointed out by the Tribunal in Grabovsky v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1130 at [23], “giv[ing] claimants redress in the circumstance of unwarranted delay by the [Secretary] in determining a claim”.[37]
[37] Exhibit A1, p 6, para 4.23.
Overall, in circumstances where Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ AP claims were rejected, the Secretary contends that sections 92K and 92L of the Act operate so as to cancel their PBS membership. It follows, according to the Secretary, that Mr & Mrs Hawkins did not meet the criteria in subsection 92C(c) of the Act when their PB claim were lodged on 26 September 2022 and were not qualified for PB. On that basis alone, the Secretary submits that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PB claim ought to have been rejected.[38]
[38] Exhibit A1, p 6, para 4.24.
On the other hand, Mr & Mrs Hawkins contend that section 17 is fully explained in its special requirements so there cannot be other legalities pertaining to it that are not printed as a party of it. Mr & Mrs Hawkins submit that there is nothing mystical about section 17 - the provision was originally initiated to make it clear that an applicant must claim both the AP and PB at the same time. They say that they complied with the provision, did everything they were instructed to do, twice, when they claimed in April 2018 and again in September 2023.[39]
[39] Exhibit R4.
In my view, having considered the statutory provisions and having surveyed relevant Tribunal decisions, I find that the Secretary’s position in this application is legally correct. Accordingly, I find that AAT1 was incorrect to conclude that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PBS claim lodged in 2018 remained undetermined until the successful AP claim was determined in 2022. As a matter of law, Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ claims for PB were deemed to be rejected in July 2018 by operation of the Administration Act and they ceased to be PBS members at the same time under the Act.
Having reached the above conclusion, it is unnecessary for me to address the question of whether Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PBS claim was made within time or whether there are special circumstances to extend the time for making a PB claim.
OTHER MATTERS
I know that Mr & Mrs Hawkins will be deeply disappointed by my decision. It is, as I have already said, a perverse outcome having regard to the Agency’s correspondence with, and advice to, Mr & Mrs Hawkins over many years that they remained PBS members after their PBS membership ceased, by operation of law, upon rejection of their initial AP and PB claims. It is all the more perverse given that the Agency’s own internal records indicate that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ PB claims had not been determined.
The PBS was intended to incentivise older Australians to remain in the workforce beyond retirement age, reflecting the value that older, experienced Australians can bring to employment, as well as the positive economic and social benefits that arise to individuals and the community from the same. Mr & Mrs Hawkins attempted to access the PB but the Agency’s defective administration prevented Mr & Mrs Hawkins from doing so. Mr & Mrs Hawkins have been let down by the Agency and suffered financial loss as a result.
Mr & Mrs Hawkins present as thoroughly decent, hardworking Australians, who have done the right thing and acted with complete integrity. It seems that Mr & Mrs Hawkins’ only mistakes were to rely and act on the Agency’s correspondence and advice. Like other Australians, Mr & Mrs Hawkins were entitled to expect that the Agency’s written and oral communications would be accurate, could be relied on, and duly acted upon.
The information before me safely establishes that the Agency’s correspondence with, and advice to, Mr & Mrs Hawkins about their PB claims and PBS membership over many years was plainly erroneous. The Agency’s own internal records were wrong. Had the Agency issued Mr & Mrs Hawkins with accurate correspondence and advice about their PB claims and PBS membership, Mr & Mrs Hawkins would no doubt have acted differently, and would have lodged fresh PB claims at the right time and received the PB, to which they were clearly entitled.
In my view, the Agency could, on any objective analysis, have reasonably expected Mr & Mrs Hawkins would have suffered the loss or detriment (i.e., the PB amounts) as a result of the Agency’s defective administration.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make awards under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (also known as the CDDA Scheme). That said, Mr & Mrs Hawkins appear to have a compelling case to pursue a claim for compensation for the amount of their loss or detriment under the CDDA Scheme.[40] In the alternative, Mr & Mrs Hawkins may consider making an “Act of Grace” claim with the Department of Finance.[41]
[40] >
Finally, it has been observed in other Tribunal decisions dealing with the PBS regime that the provisions are complex.[42] I would say that the provisions are absurdly complex. The Agency does not have an easy job in delivering services to Australians in the face of such complexity. As with other social security legislation, past and present, the legislature appears to have an addiction to statutory complexity. This results in legal frameworks which are difficult to administer and comply with. In my respectful opinion, a much simpler principles-based legislative drafting model is called for, to improve government administration and outcomes for Australians.
[42] See, for example, Polchow and Secretary, Department of Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 224.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with one that the Respondents’ claim for the Pension Bonus in September 2022 be rejected.
I certify that the preceding 52 (fifty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Lee Benjamin
……………[SGD]………………
Associate
25 September 2024
Date/s of Hearing: 8 July 2024
Applicant Representative: Mr Ben Dube, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondents: Self-represented
ANNEXURE A
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE PARTY DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED A1. Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions A 16/01/2024 A2. Centrelink Income and Assets Form - A3. Letters from Brown & Bird dated 24/04/2018 - R1. Pages of financial advice statement from 2019-2022 (Covering email + four pink pages) R - 05/09/2023 R2. Pages of financial advice statement from 2018 (Covering email + two pages) 08/09/2023 R3. Chronology for pension bonus claim 17/09/2023 R4. Resume explaining involvement in scheme 08/07/2024 R5. Response to Applicant Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions 30/01/2024 Tr1. Section 37 T-Documents (T1-T31) - - 29/08/2023
0
5
0