Keating and Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care (Social services)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Keating against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care, regarding eligibility for a hardship supplement in the context of residential aged care. The core of the dispute revolved around the inclusion of Mr Keating's commercial property in the assessment of his assets, which the Respondent argued rendered him ineligible for the supplement.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Keating was eligible for a hardship supplement, and specifically, whether his commercial property, valued at $200,000, exceeded the permissible asset threshold of 1.5 times the annual age pension. The Tribunal was also required to consider the basis upon which a previous hardship supplement had been paid, which was understood to be linked to temporary COVID-19 measures that excluded the commercial property from asset calculations.

The Tribunal acknowledged the significant financial stress experienced by Mr Keating and the difficulties faced by his daughter, Mrs Martinussen, in managing his affairs. While finding Mrs Martinussen to be a credible witness and accepting that Mr Keating was in serious financial stress, the Tribunal noted that the commercial property had always been disclosed. Crucially, the Tribunal found that Mrs Martinussen had not been advised that the initial hardship supplement was granted under temporary COVID-19 provisions that excluded the commercial property from the asset test. The Tribunal relied on internal Centrelink records indicating advice provided to Mrs Martinussen regarding the criteria for excluding the commercial property for hardship assistance purposes, which included marketing efforts and price reductions.

Despite finding that Centrelink had failed to adequately explain the original basis for the hardship supplement, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. However, the Tribunal encouraged Mrs Martinussen to lodge an application with the CDDA Scheme on her father's behalf, suggesting that such an application might be successful given the apparent lack of clear explanation from Centrelink regarding the temporary COVID-19 provisions.