STEVEN RYDER and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

[2010] AATA 450

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 450

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/0735

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		STEVEN RYDER

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member  

Date18 June 2010  

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

................[sgd].........................

Ms N Bell, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY - Newstart Allowance - reduction of employment prospects due to relocation – sufficient reason

Social Security Act 1991

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms N Bell, Senior Member            

1.      

Mr Steven Ryder has received Newstart Allowance intermittently since

7 November 2006, occasionally obtaining causal employment. On 27 August 2008, Mr Ryder relocated from Wanneroo, a suburb of Perth, in Western Australia to Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. Since arriving in Coffs Harbour, Mr Ryder has been unable to obtain any employment and has continued to receive Newstart Allowance.  

2.      

Mr Ryder seeks a review of a decision of Centrelink to impose a 26 week

non-payment period of Newstart Allowance on the basis that he reduced his employment prospects by moving from metropolitan Perth to Coffs Harbour, a place of fewer employment opportunities, without sufficient reason.

3. Under section 634 of the Social Security Act 1991, if a person who is the recipient of Newstart Allowance reduces his or her employment prospects by moving to a new place of residence without sufficient reason then the Newstart Allowance is not payable to that person for a period of 26 weeks. Subsection 634(3) of the Act outlines those circumstances which constitute a sufficient reason for moving: relocation in order to live with or near a family member who already resides in that place of residence; relocation for the purposes of treating or alleviating a physical disease or illness suffered by the person or a family member; or relocation because of an extreme circumstance.

4.      The issues for me to consider are whether Mr Ryder has substantially reduced his employment prospects by moving from Perth to Coffs Harbour and, if so, whether Mr Ryder had sufficient reason for moving to the new place of residence.

Did Mr Ryder substantially reduce his employment prospects by moving from Perth to Coffs Harbour?

5.      

The Secretary determined Mr Ryder had reduced his employment prospects by reference to a Centrelink “Reduced Employment Moving Test” produced on

26 November 2008 that showed the unemployment rate in Wanneroo in Perth was at 3.1% while the unemployment rate in Coffs Harbour was at a higher rate of 6.7%.

Mr Ryder does not dispute that the employment prospects are lower in

Coffs

Harbour than in metropolitan Perth.

6.      

Mr Ryder had not obtained work in Coffs Harbour prior to moving. On attending the Centrelink office on 20 August 2008 prior to moving, Mr Ryder indicated that he would commence work in Coffs Harbour approximately one month after arriving there. Mr Ryder’s evidence to the Tribunal was that his reason for moving to Coffs Harbour was in order to work with his father, a qualified bricklayer, who, at that time, had also intended to relocate to Coffs Harbour from the

United Kingdom

and commence a business there. Mr Ryder said that on arriving in

Coffs

Harbour, the sale of his father’s property in the United Kingdom fell through and as a result his father was unable to relocate and commence the business.

7.      Mr Ryder said he thought he would obtain other employment after learning that his father would not be relocating to Coffs Harbour but has been unsuccessful. Mr Ryder’s particular skills in mechanics, labouring and as a tyre fitter have not helped him in obtaining work in Coffs Harbour and there is no evidence that there is a particular demand for such skills in the Coffs Harbour area.

8.      

Mr Ryder admitted to not knowing the employment prospects in Coffs Harbour prior to leaving Perth. He said that, had he known and had knowledge that his Newstart Allowance would be cancelled, he would not have moved to Coffs Harbour. Mr Ryder said that he was never informed of the employment prospects in

Coffs Harbour

by Centrelink staff and he considered that it was Centrelink’s duty to inform him of these prospects and of the possibility of his Newstart Allowance being suspended for 26 weeks.  Mr Ryder admitted that the only thing that he had going for him in Perth was better employment opportunities.

9.      

Mr Ryder’s father’s relocation to Coffs Harbour depended on many contingencies.  Mr Ryder admitted to the Tribunal that no concrete plans had been made in respect of commencement of a business or obtaining employment.

Mr Ryder said that he had foreseen there would be some time, being some months, for which he would be supported by his father following his arrival in Coffs Harbour and that had he known that a non-payment period for his Newstart Allowance would be imposed he would not have moved to Coffs Harbour.

Did Mr Ryder have a sufficient reason for moving from Perth to Coffs Harbour?

10.     

Mr Ryder also stated that he had moved from Perth as a result of his accommodation being at an end.  He said that in Coffs Harbour a friend of his

sister-in-law who lived there could provide accommodation.  He said that he had been renting a room and could not obtain accommodation by himself in Perth as he had been “black-listed” and no suitable arrangements could be made with his existing family and friends in Perth.

11.     Mr Ryder has never contended that he had moved in order to live with or live near a family member or for the health reasons of himself or a family member as provided for by subsections 634(3) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. His father had not yet, and still has not, established his residence in Coffs.

12.     Nor could the circumstances surrounding Mr Ryder’s move constitute extreme circumstances as envisaged by subsection 634(d) of the Act. While Mr Ryder’s relocation coincided with the ceasing of his accommodation, this does not constitute an extreme circumstance and is not a sufficient reason, within the meaning of the Act,  to move to Coffs Harbour.

Decision

13.     The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 13 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Bell,
Senior Member

Signed:         ..........................[sgd]......................................................
  Associate: Lloyd Doherty

Date/s of Hearing  20 May 2010
Date of Decision  18 June 2010
Representative for the Applicant                  Self Represented 

Representative for the Respondent              Raewyn Harlock
Centrelink Advocacy Branch