Mark Philp and and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[2012] AATA 466
•23 July 2012
[2012] AATA 466
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2012/1322
Re
Mark Philp
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
RESPONDENT
File Number
2012/1324
Re
Donna Philp
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President PE Hack SC
Date 23 July 2012 Place Brisbane Each application is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration within a period of 28 days from the date hereof pursuant to s 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
………………….[sgd]…………………………
Deputy President PE Hack SCCATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, benefits and allowance – underpayment of allowance – claimed systemic error in calculation of benefit – mathematical illogicality – unable to show error in the application of the legislation – matter remitted for reconsideration.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President PE Hack SC
23 July 2012
The applicants, Mr Mark Philp and Mrs Donna Philp, contend that for separate periods in August 2011 they were underpaid Newstart allowance (in the case of Mr Philp) and parenting payment (in the case of Mrs Philp). The amounts involved in the claimed underpayments are trifling – $9.40 in the case of Mr Philp and $4.44 in the case of Mrs Philp – the argument presented by Mr Philp is that there is a systemic error in the way Centrelink, on behalf of the respondent, the Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, deals with a benefit recipient’s employment income.
If that be right it has significance far greater than the trifling amounts of money involved in the present case.
The factual background can be illustrated by reference to Mrs Philp's circumstances. The period in issue in her case is from 16 August 2011 to 29 August 2011. During that period Mrs Philp was qualified to receive parenting payment partnered. Prior to the start of that period Mrs Philp had a “working credit balance" of $239.70. In respect of that period she had income from employment of $435.94 and six cents in other income making a total income for the period of $436.00 or $31.14 per day (on the basis of a 14 day fortnight).
Subject to the receipt of employment and other income, for the period 16 to 29 August 2011 Mrs Philp was entitled to be paid the sum of $428.70. She was, in fact, paid $357.11. The reduction came about because of her earnings, adjusted to take into account the working credit balance. Mrs Philp was entitled to earn $62.00 per fortnight without any reduction in her parenting payment. Income between $62 and $250 reduced her benefit by 50c in the dollar and income above $250 reduced the benefit by 60c in the dollar. Thus in the fortnight where her earnings were $436 she had income of $374 in excess of the income free amount.
The effect of the working credit balance was that this sum i.e. $239.70, could be used to abate the effect of benefit reduction for additional income earned, that is to say, income to that extent was not subject to benefit reduction.
Mr Philp's argument is that the fortnightly earnings of $436 should be reduced by the working credits of $239.70 leaving an excess income amount of $134.30. This sum, at 50c in the dollar, amounted to $67.15. If Mrs Philp, absent other income was entitled to be paid $428.70, then she should have received a benefit of $361.55, that is, $428.70 minus $67.15; instead she received $357.11. Thus, says Mr Philp, she has been underpaid by $4.44.
Mr Philp was unable to point to any error in the application of the legislation in the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal; he relied instead on the mathematical illogicality of the result produced in comparison to the result he says ought to have been produced. It may well be that there is a logical answer to this apparent illogicality however that answer is not clear to me and it is not clear on the submissions helpfully made by the Secretary following the hearing.
I appreciate that the amounts involved are, as I have said, trifling however I think it important that persons in the position of Mr and Mrs Philp are in a position to understand the basis on which payments to them are made. In circumstances where there is an unexplained illogicality it seems to me that this is a proper case to exercise the powers of the Tribunal under section 42 D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to remit the matters to the Secretary for reconsideration. It may well be that the Secretary reaches the same conclusion on reconsideration and affirms the decisions but is able to explain the apparent illogicality to Mr Philp. If the decisions are affirmed in that way and Mr Philp is not satisfied the matter can come back for a further hearing in accordance with the section. I propose to allow a period of 28 days for that reconsideration.
Each application will be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration pursuant to s 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals Act 1975 (Cth).
I certify that the preceding 9 (nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P E Hack SC. .............................[Sgd]................................
Associate
Dated 23 July 2012
Date of hearing 27 April 2012 Applicant In person Advocate for the Respondent Mr J Guthrie, Centrelink Legal Services
0
0
0