Maria Tralongo and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2014] AATA 560
•31 July 2014
[2014] AATA 560
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/6067
Re
Maria Tralongo
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member R W Dunne
Date 31 July 2014 Date of written reasons 12 August 2014 Place Adelaide For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
......................[Sgd]..................................................
Senior Member R W Dunne
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - pensions, benefits and allowances - claim for fares allowance - journey using reasonable route at least expensive form of public transport that is reasonable - no discretion - decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss 1061ZAAA, 1061ZAAJ, 1061ZAAK
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member R W Dunne
12 August 2014
At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter, the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefore were stated orally. After the giving of the oral reasons, pursuant to subsection 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal determined to furnish to the applicant a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.
The oral reasons for the decision have been transcribed by Merrill Corporation. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reason for the said decision.
An extract from the transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the respondent and to the applicant as it is the reason for the Tribunal’s decision.
I certify that the following paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R W Dunne ......................[Sgd]..................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 12 August 2014
Date(s) of hearing 31 July 2014 Applicant In person Advocate for the Respondent Mr Christian Visser Solicitors for the Respondent Department of Human Services EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS [11.10 am]
ORAL DECISION OF SENIOR MEMBER DUNNE [11.10 am]
SENIOR MEMBER: Basically the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has said that the position of Centrelink was that they paid a Fares Allowance to you which was reasonable. It was based on responses that Centrelink had from Rex Airlines and that the amount of reimbursement, based on that information, was to be a total of $562; and that reimbursement was based on the cheapest form of travel by air from Mount Gambier to Adelaide and then Adelaide to Brisbane.
The Social Security Appeals Tribunal had to have regard to that legislation, section 1061ZAAJ, which deals with Fares Allowance. What that section said, as Mr Visser mentioned:
The amount of fares allowance is the cost of making the journey, or the part of the journey, using a reasonable route
And Mount Gambier to Adelaide, Adelaide to Brisbane and return to me is a reasonable route:
And the least expensive form of public transport
They refer to public transport, and that would include obviously air fares, is reasonable; and that's what the Social Security Appeals Tribunal did find, that it was reasonable. On the basis of what the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decided and on the fact that you're not able to show me how that decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is wrong, and on the evidence that you have given, and on the evidence that the respondent has given, I can't decide that that finding by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal was wrong either.
Based on all that, I must affirm the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, as Mr Visser has asked me to do, and therefore I will give a decision that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision is correct and that that, unfortunately for you, completes the matter.
Like the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, I feel the same. I am sympathetic to your positon but I have to base it on the evidence that I've got and I can't be satisfied that that figure of $562 was not a reasonable expense for the form of transport that took place from Mount Gambier to Brisbane and return.
END OF ORAL DECISION [11.14 am]
0
0
0