Sutton and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an increase in her Jobseeker Payment, with the Respondent being the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on the Applicant's income from her self-employment, specifically a cleaning and tutoring business named 'Sparkling Brilliance', which operated between 2013 and 2016. The Applicant contended that her income had been incorrectly assessed by the Respondent, leading to an underpayment of her Jobseeker Payment over a significant period. The case was heard by B J Illingworth SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's Jobseeker Payment had been paid at a rate less than that provided for by social security law, and if so, from what date any increase should take effect. This involved determining the Applicant's actual income from her business during the relevant periods, considering her claims of financial hardship and attempts to report changes in her circumstances to the Respondent. The Tribunal also had to consider the effect of the notices of decision issued by the Respondent and the timeframes for seeking a review of those decisions.

The Tribunal considered evidence including profit and loss statements, tax invoices, and communications between the Applicant and the Respondent. It was noted that the Respondent had adjusted the Applicant's Jobseeker Payment in May 2013 based on a profit and loss statement indicating an annual income of approximately $5,247.73. While the Applicant claimed her subcontract cleaning work ceased in September 2013, evidence of business invoices for cleaning and tutoring services extended into 2016. The Tribunal found that the business was operating post-September 2013, but there was insufficient evidence to determine the precise nature and extent of the work or the income derived. The Tribunal applied sections 78, 109, and 110 of the Administration Act, which govern the circumstances under which a social security payment rate can be increased and the date from which such an increase takes effect, particularly in relation to when the Department was informed of a change in circumstances.

The Tribunal determined that while the Applicant's business was operating post-September 2013, there was insufficient evidence to establish the exact income derived from it. Consequently, the Tribunal could not make a favourable determination that the rate of Jobseeker Payment had been less than that provided for by social security law for the entire period claimed. The Tribunal did not make specific orders for arrears but indicated that the Applicant's entitlement would depend on her ability to provide sufficient evidence of her income and the timing of her notification to the Department of any changes in her circumstances.