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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Lynch against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his claim for Newstart Allowance. Mr Lynch, who is over 55, suffers from emphysema and other medical conditions affecting his work capacity. His wife had previously claimed Newstart Allowance in March 2014 after ceasing employment, and a liquid assets waiting period was applied to her claim. Mr Lynch had lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP) in April 2014, indicating a provisional assessment for Newstart Allowance, but this claim was ultimately rejected. Following further assessments and reviews, Mr Lynch lodged a fresh claim for DSP in October 2014 and also contacted Centrelink about Newstart Allowance in August 2014 and May 2015.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the application of the liquid assets waiting period (LAWP) and the ordinary waiting period (OWP) to Mr Lynch's Newstart Allowance claim, specifically the date on which his liquid assets should be assessed, the duration of the LAWP, and the commencement date of that waiting period. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of "ceased work" in the context of self-employment and whether Mr Lynch qualified for Newstart Allowance based on his circumstances at the time of his claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Lynch's liquid assets were to be assessed on the date of his Newstart Allowance claim, which was 22 May 2015, as no exclusions under section 598(5) to (8) of the relevant legislation applied. Applying the formula in section 598(2A), the duration of the LAWP was calculated as 144 weeks, but this was capped at 13 weeks by section 598(2B). The commencement date of the LAWP was to be determined under section 598(3A). Mr Lynch's evidence indicated he did not cease work, meaning the criterion in section 598(3A)(a) did not apply to him personally. While his wife had ceased work in March 2014, her LAWP had concluded more than 12 months prior to Mr Lynch's claim. The Tribunal found that Mr Lynch's circumstances did not fall within any of the exclusions or grounds for waiving the LAWP.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.