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

This matter concerned an application for Newstart Allowance (NSA) by the applicant, who had ceased self-employment due to injury. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member Poljak, was whether the applicant's claim for NSA was subject to a liquid assets waiting period (LAWP) and an ordinary waiting period (OWP). The applicant had lodged his claim on 6 April 2016, with his effective date for assessment determined as 29 February 2016 due to prior departmental error.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's claim for NSA was subject to a LAWP from 28 February 2016 to 28 May 2016, and an OWP from 29 May 2016 to 9 June 2016. Central to this was the interpretation of "liquid assets" under the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), particularly whether funds held in a term deposit by the applicant's partner constituted the applicant's liquid assets, and whether these assets exceeded the prescribed maximum reserve, thereby triggering the waiting periods. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for waiver and exemption from the LAWP due to severe financial hardship.

The Tribunal reasoned that the term deposit, despite being held by the applicant's partner and originating from her superannuation, met the definition of "liquid assets" under section 14A of the Act, as it included amounts deposited with a financial institution and was readily realisable, albeit with one month's notice and potential penalties. Furthermore, section 14A(2) mandates that a person's liquid assets include those of their partner for the purposes of Part 2.12 of the Act. As the combined liquid assets of $39,833 exceeded the maximum reserve of $10,000, a LAWP was applicable. The calculation, capped at 13 weeks by section 598(2B), resulted in a LAWP from 28 February 2016 to 28 May 2016. An OWP of one week was also correctly applied from 29 May 2016 to 4 June 2016, pursuant to sections 620 and 621 of the Act. The Tribunal found no evidence of severe financial hardship that would warrant a waiver or exemption of the LAWP.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that both the LAWP and OWP were correctly applied to the applicant's NSA claim.