Nixon and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2006] AATA 879
•17 October 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 879
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2006/296
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re RICHARD GUY NIXON Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr M Denovan, Member Date17 October 2006
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
............[Sgd]..............
M Denovan
Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Newstart Allowance – underpayment of allowance – payment in arrears – jurisdiction to hear matters of compensation, justiciable controversies, and conduct of delegates of Centrelink or SSAT members – compensation for detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme – CDDA – decision affirmed
Social Security Act 1991 ss 643, 596, 603
REASONS FOR DECISION
17 October 2006 Dr M Denovan, Member 1. Mr Nixon is a 37 year old busker. On 12 January 2006, when Mr Nixon lodged applications for payment of Newstart Allowance for the period 16 November 2005 to 10 January 2006, Centrelink mistakenly coded Mr Nixon’s earnings, resulting in Mr Nixon being underpaid. On 8 February 2006 a Centrelink authorised review officer corrected the mistake, and an arrears payment of $352.80 was paid to Mr Nixon the following day.
2. In relation to the arrears, Mr Nixon has not calculated the exact amount he believes that he should have been paid by Centrelink. He is therefore uncertain whether he has been paid the correct amount of arrears.
3. In addition, Mr Nixon has raised other issues – a claim for compensation against Centrelink; claims against the New South Wales Police Service and the like – in respect of which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction, so far as the present case is concerned, is limited to determining whether Mr Nixon has been paid the correct amount of Newstart Allowance.
ISSUES
·Was Mr Nixon underpaid Newstart Allowance during the period 16 November 2005 to 24 January 2006?, and if so
·Were the arrears paid to Mr Nixon correct?
Was Mr Nixon underpaid Newstart Allowance during the period 16 November 2005 to 24 January 2006?
4. Section 643 of the Social Security Act 1991 provides that a person’s Newstart Allowance rate is to be worked out using the Benefit Rate Calculator B at the end of section 1068. That calculator sets out the method of calculating the rate of Newstart Allowance.
5. Module B of that calculator provides that the maximum rate payable for a single person under 60 years of age is $444.20, and Module G provides for the rate of Newstart Allowance to reduce in relation to the earnings of a person (exhibit T4).
6. Mr Nixon’s rate of fortnight payment after applying the income test to his declared earnings of $200 per fortnight equals $323.90. Accordingly the Newstart Allowance payable to Mr Nixon from 16 November 2005 to 24 January 2006 was a total of $1619.50.
7. Mr Nixon received $942.80 on 13 January 2006, $208.22 on 25 January 2006, and $115.68 on 7 February 2006. This money, a total of $1266.70, represented Newstart Allowance for the period 16 November 2005-24 January 2006. Mr Nixon was underpaid the amount of $352.80, because Centrelink mistakenly coded Mr Nixon’s earnings.
Were the arrears paid to Mr Nixon Correct?
8. That mistake was corrected by Centrelink on 8 February 2006, and on 9 February 2006 Mr Nixon was paid the additional $352.80. The sum total that Mr Nixon received in Newstart Allowance for the period 16 November 2005 to 24 January 2006 is $1619.50. The arrears paid to Mr Nixon were correct.
9. The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 9 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the decision and reasons for the decision herein of Dr M Denovan, Member
Signed: Michelle Brazier
Legal Research OfficerDate/s of Hearing 5 September 2006
Date of Decision 17 October 2006
The Applicant was self represented
For the Respondent Ms S Dole, Departmental Advocate
0
0
0