Ibrahim and Secretary Department of Family and Community Services

[2005] AATA 684

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 684

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )           No N2004/1490

DIVISIONGENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE		)
Re		WILLIAM IBRAHIM

Applicant

And SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date24 June 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is AFFIRMED.

(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
  ..................................................
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – special benefits – dispute as to correct calculation of payments – allowance for GST not a separate payment – Applicant conceded at the hearing that the law applied and method of calculation by the Respondent was correct – decision under review affirmed.

Social Security Act 1991 - s 746, s 1070Q, s 1068 Module F

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 June 2005 Senior Member M Allen     

1.      By application made the 16^th November 2004 the Applicant sought review of a decision of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal made the 5^th October 2004, setting aside a decision of an Authorised Review Officer and remitting the matter to Centrelink with directions that the Applicant be paid $20.32 with respect to the period 27 April 2001 to 30 August 2002.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing in this matter I announced the decision of the Tribunal and short reasons for my decision. Subsequently the Applicant, pursuant to s 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested written reasons for that decision. These are the said reasons.

3.      The events giving rise to the application are set out in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions which became Exhibit R1 in these proceedings. They may be summed up by saying the Applicant, who was in receipt of a special benefit since 1996, departed Australia on 25 November 2000 with the expectation that he would be returning on 27 April 2001 however his return to Australia was delayed because of family circumstances. On 25 November 2001 the Applicant returned to Australia and was regranted the special benefit. Subsequently it was determined that because ill health prevented the return of the Applicant to Australia, a decision was made granting to the Applicant special benefit from 27 April 2001 to 26 November 2001. There have been subsequent proceedings relating to the calculations of the amounts to be paid to the Applicant.

4.      The Applicant claims he has been underpaid. His calculations of the underpayment of special benefit payable to him became Exhibit A1 in these proceedings. Further submissions by the Applicant together with copies of his bank statements became Exhibit A2.

5.      I found it very difficult to ascertain just what the Applicant’s complaint was. At page 8 of Exhibit A1 he states:

“I think that I am underpaid:

1.    page 4 – The ‘GST’  $667.00

2.    page 7 – The Period

(27.4.01 – 30.8.02) $633.72

3.    pages 4-5 Rent Assistance

…”

6.      At the outset it can be stated that the Applicant was not underpaid regarding GST. As pointed out in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, an allowance for GST is included in the basic benefit rate and is not a separate payment. Confusion has arisen because the notice issued by Centrelink to the New South Wales Department of Housing shows a GST component. But that is a requirement of that particular notice and the GST component is paid to the Applicant as part of his special benefit.

7.      So far as the other calculations are concerned, the dispute appears to be regarding small amounts and the mathematics. During the hearing of this matter the Applicant conceded that the law applied and the method of calculation by the Respondent was correct.

8.      Doing the best I can and comparing the Applicant’s figures with those provided by the Respondent in the Statement of Facts and Contentions I can only conclude that the figures and calculations provided by the Respondent are correct.

9.      The Applicant has of course a copy of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions and the offer to him to attend his local Centrelink office where the calculations will be further explained to him still stands.

10.     As however I was satisfied the Respondent’s facts, figures and calculations were correct the decision under review was affirmed.   

I certify that the 10 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

Signed:         (E.Pope)           .....................................................................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  24 June 2005
Date of Decision  24 June 2005
Advocate for the Applicant       Self Represented            

Advocate for the Respondent   Mr George Lozynsky, Centrelink Service Recovery Team