QX06/14 and Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] AATA 1024

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1024

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2006/390

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		QX06/14

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT of FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES and INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member

Date30 November 2006 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.........[Sgd]........

RG Kenny
  Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – maternity payment – claim made more than 26 weeks after birth of child – claim out of time – severe illness not sufficiently established – claim for maternity payment not effective – decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 s 39

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 November 2006    Mr RG Kenny, Member   

Application

1.      The applicant lodged a claim for maternity payment with Centrelink on 28 October 2005.  This was in relation to her son who was born on 22 March 2005.  On 28 October 2005, the claim was rejected and that was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer on 28 March 2006.  That decision was then affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 9 May 2006.  The applicant sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 13 June 2006.

Hearing

2. At the hearing, the applicant was not represented and Mr C Keim appeared on behalf of the respondent. Material before the Tribunal included the documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975.

Issues and Legislation

3.      The requirements for making a claim under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA (Administration) Act) are set out in section 39 thereof. Subsection 39(2) of the FA (Administration) Act provides that a claim for maternity payment is not effective if the claim is not lodged within 26 weeks of the birth of a child. It is not disputed in this matter that the claim by the applicant was made outside of that required time-frame. Subsection 39(3) of the FA (Administration) Act enables the time limit to be extended. It reads:

(3) If the Secretary is satisfied that the claimant was unable to make a claim for payment of maternity payment in normal circumstances because of severe illness associated with the birth of the child concerned, the Secretary may extend the period of 26 weeks mentioned in subsection (2) to such longer period as the Secretary considers appropriate.

4.      The issue for the Tribunal is whether or not the circumstances of the applicant are encompassed by that provision. 

Applicant’s Case

5.      The applicant gave birth to her son in a private hospital on 22 March 2005.  She recalled being provided with relevant documents for making a claim for maternity payment while she was at the hospital.  However, she had not paid great attention to the content of the documents and was not aware of the 26 week time-frame within which a claim had to be lodged until October 2005. 

6.      The applicant was experiencing marital difficulties after her child was born and this caused her to feel mentally unwell and unable to cope with various aspects of her life.  The applicant's pregnancy had been unexpected and the birth placed financial and emotional stresses on her husband, herself and her daughter who was aged 14 years.  She believed that she was suffering from postnatal depression in the months after the birth.  She felt that, apart from looking after her baby, her main task during that period was to keep her family together and functioning.  She described other difficulties that she had at that time with keeping schedules and in making payments of various forms, including credit card debts, in a timely manner.

7.      The applicant conceded that, if she had known that the documents had to be lodged within 26 weeks, she could have done so.  She also conceded that she had dealings with Centrelink in June 2005 and made appointments on two occasions to see a Centrelink officer in relation to receiving a social security benefit in the form of parenting payment at the single rate.  However, she telephoned Centrelink and cancelled those appointments because she had not reached the stage of actually separating from her husband.

8.      During the 26 week period after the child was born, the applicant consulted a medical practitioner on only one occasion and this was for the purposes of having a routine check-up following the birth.  She accepted that she made no complaint at that time about her mental state. She is now undergoing regular consultations with a psychologist and these visitations commenced in January 2006.

Other evidence

9.      In evidence were Centrelink documents which confirmed that appointments were made with the applicant in June 2005 and that these had been cancelled by the applicant by telephone.  The documents also indicate that assistance to the applicant by a social worker was offered to her.

10.     The applicant provided a medical report from a medical practitioner in a local medical centre.  It is dated 4 October 2006 and, in part, reads:

This lady is a patient of this practice and gives a detailed history of postnatal depression following the birth of [her son] in March 2005.  One of the classical symptoms of PND is poor concentration and procrastination which caused her to overlook her paperwork.

11.     In her evidence, the applicant said that she had never been treated by the doctor who completed that report although she believed that she had seen another doctor at the practice on one occasion.  She said that she had been treated for some time by another doctor who has now retired and that the last time she consulted with her was about one month before her baby was born.

12.     The applicant also provided a report from a psychologist, dated 26 September 2006.  It describes the history of difficulty that the applicant had after the birth of her child.  It described her as a “highly resilient and resourceful woman” whose character was such that she was “more likely to withdraw and suffer in silence rather than seek outside assistance.” It concluded:

Collectively, the above biological, environmental, and psychological factors clearly indicate a high probability that [the applicant] experienced postpartum onset depression.

Submissions

13. Mr Keim submitted that the discretion in subsection 39(3) of the FA (Administration) Act should not be extended to the applicant. He submitted that there was no evidence of severe illness which was associated with the birth of the child and which prevented her from lodging a claim in a timely manner. He submitted that the reasons for not doing so in the applicant's case were related to her lack of knowledge of that requirement and to her experiencing various marital difficulties. He submitted that she had been physically capable of lodging the relevant forms and had, indeed, been interfacing with Centrelink during the 26 week period.

Consideration

14. Subsection 39(3) of the FA (Administration) Act is specific in its reference to the circumstances which enable an extension of time to be granted. There must be a severe illness associated with the birth of the child which caused the applicant to be unable to lodge within time. There is no contemporaneous evidence that would satisfy that requirement. However, there is evidence from the medical practitioner and the psychologist which is detailed above. I note that neither had treated the applicant prior to 2006. The content of their reports necessarily relies heavily upon the history provided by the applicant. The medical practitioner who provided the report was prepared to enter a diagnosis, retrospectively, of postnatal depression which, he said, was characterised by poor concentration and procrastination. The applicant may have experienced those phenomena. However, her evidence was that she was not aware of the relevant time limit and also that, if she had known, she would have been able to make the claim within the required 26 weeks. In that situation, I am satisfied that, even if she suffered from a condition as described by the medical practitioner, this did not render her unable to make the claim for maternity allowance. It follows that the claim is to be treated by the respondent as not being an effective claim for the purposes of the FA (Administration) Act.

Decision

15.     The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

I certify that the 15 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RG Kenny, Member

Signed:          M Brazier
  Legal Research Officer

Date of Hearing  5 October 2006 
Date of Decision  30 November 2006
The Applicant was self represented
Advocate for the Respondent   Mr C Keim Departmental Advocate