Post by Banjo on Mar 30, 2016 7:25:43 GMT 7
Payne and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 143 (11 March 2016)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Brigadier AG Warner, Member
11 March 2016
INTRODUCTION
Mr Payne lodged a claim for Age Pension with Centrelink on 14 August 2014 (T4/34). On 26 August 2014 a Centrelink employee determined that Mr Payne was not a resident of Australia when he made the claim and so rejected it (T5/123). Mr Payne sought a review of that decision and on 29 January 2015, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the decision (T7/129).
On 11 March 2011, Mr Payne applied to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) for a review of the Centrelink decision. The SSAT conducted a hearing in Hobart on 18 May 2015 and Mr Payne participated from Thailand by conference telephone. The SSAT affirmed the decision under review, finding that he was not an ‘Australian resident’ when he made his claim for Age Pension and his claim is taken, pursuant to subsection 29(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (“the Administration Act”), not to have been made (T2/14).
It is not in dispute that Mr Payne was an Australian citizen and physically in Australia when he submitted his claim for Age Pension on 14 August 2014.
On 7 June 2015, Mr Payne applied to this Tribunal for review of the Centrelink decision as affirmed by the SSAT (T1/1).
Mr Payne participated in the hearing on 23 February 2016 by telephone conference from Thailand.
BACKGROUND
Mr Payne was born in the United Kingdom in August 1949.
Mr Payne arrived in Australia on 28 November 1981 (T4/100,111) and resided in Australia until 19 March 2008 (T8/131-132).
Mr Payne married his wife in Thailand on 17 August 2007 (T4/104).
Mr Payne departed Australia for Thailand on 20 March 2008 and remained there until 20 April 2011 (T7/128). He then resided with his wife in Australia until 15 March 2013 (T7/128). They returned to Thailand for a month in July-August 2012 and for a short period around Christmas 2012 (T5/118).
Mr Payne was granted Australian citizenship on 20 August 2008 (T4/113).
Mr Payne departed Australia for Thailand on 16 March 2013 with his wife and they have resided there since that date (T7/128).
Mr Payne achieved pension age on 7 August 2014. On 10 August 2014 Mr Payne returned to Australia (T7/128). He lodged a claim for Age Pension on 14 August 2014 (T4/34) and departed Australia again for Thailand on 23 August 2014 (T7/128).
THE ISSUE
The issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Payne made a proper claim for the Age Pension on 14 August 2014. This depends on his satisfaction of s 29(1) of the Administration Act, and in particular whether at the time he lodged his claim he was an Australian resident.
THE RELEVANT LAW
Section 43(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) provides that a person who has reached pension age is qualified for an age pension if any of the following applies:
(a) the person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence;
(b) the person has a qualifying residence exemption for an age pension;
(c) the person was receiving a widow B pension, a widow allowance, a mature age allowance or a partner allowance, immediately before reaching that age; or
(d) if the person reached pension age before 20 March 1997--- the person was receiving a widow B pension, a widow allowance or a partner allowance, immediately before 20 March 1997.
Section 7(5) of the Act provides that a person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence only if:
(a) the person has, at any time, been an Australian resident for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; or
(b) the person has been an Australian resident during more than one period and:
(i) at least one of those periods is 5 years or more; and
(ii) the aggregate of those periods exceeds 10 years.
Subject to some exceptions, none of which apply to Mr Payne, s 29 of the Administration Act provides that a claim for a social security payment may only be made by a person who is:
(a) an Australian resident; and
(b) in Australia.
Section 7(2) of the Act defines an Australian resident as someone who :
(a) Resides in Australia; and
(b) is one of the following:
(i) an Australian citizen;
(ii) the holder of a permanent visa;
(iii) a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
Section 7 (3) of the Act provides that, in deciding whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to the following:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia; and
(b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia; and
(c) the nature and extent of the person’s employment, business or financial ties with Australia; and
(d) the nature and extent of the person’s assets located in Australia; and
(e) the frequency and duration of the person’s travel outside Australia; and
(f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia.
The concept of residence is central to consideration of the factors above. As a general concept residence includes two elements: physical presence in a particular place and the intention to treat a place as home, at least for the time being, not necessarily forever: Hafza v Director-General of Social Security [1985] FCA 164; (1985) 6 FCR 444. In Hafza, Wilcox J said:
“Physical presence and intention will coincide for most of the time. But few people are always at home. Once a person has established a home in a particular place -- even involuntarily: see Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lysaght (1928) AC 234 at 248 and Keil v Keil (1947) VR 383 – a person does not necessarily cease to be resident there because he or she is physically absent. The test is whether the person has retained a continuity of association with the place – Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1928] UKHL 1; (1928) AC 217 at p 225 and Judd v Judd (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 147 at p 149 -- together with an intention to return to that place and an attitude that that place remains “home” – see Norman v Norman (No 3) (1969) 16 FLR 231 at 236. It is important to observe firstly, that a person may simultaneously be a resident in more than one place – see the facts of Lysaght (supra) and the reference by Williams J to “a home or homes” – and, secondly that the application of the general concept of residence to any particular case must depend upon the wording, and underlying purposes, of the particular statute in relation to which the question arises. But, where the general concept is applicable, it is obvious that, as residence of a place in which a person is not physically present depends upon an intention to return and to continue to treat that place as “home”, a change of intention may be decisive of the question whether residence in a particular place has been maintained.”
EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
The “T Documents” (Exhibit R1, T1-T13 , pp 1-169)
Applicant’s Additional Statement dated 18 September 2015 (Exhibit A1)
Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions dated 21 October 2015 (Exhibit R2)
Exhibits R3 - R7 tendered by the Respondent
The oral evidence of the applicant
It was clear to the Tribunal that at the time of his application for an Age Pension Mr Payne resided in Thailand, but that does not of itself conclude the matter adversely to him. He might have been a resident of both Australia and Thailand at the same time. The Tribunal must have regard to factors prescribed by s 7(3) of the Act in determining whether Mr Payne was residing in Australia at the time he lodged his claim for Age Pension.
Mr Payne’s evidence is considered against the six factors.
The nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia
Mr Payne does not have any owned or leased property in Australia. At the time he lodged his claim he was staying with a friend in Port Kennedy WA at no cost.
Mr Payne recorded his Thailand address as his permanent address when completing his claim for Age Pension (T4/38).
The nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia
Mr Payne has two adult children (born in 1986 and in 1989) and grandchildren residing in Australia.
His elder brother and his wife, their two sons and their wives and children, live in Australia.
Nature and extent of the person’s employment, business or financial ties in Australia
Mr Payne owns a small online drafting business. He told the Tribunal that the business address was in Thailand, but the only client was an Australian company and the modest income received came solely from that client.
Mr Payne said he had many friends, acquaintances and work colleagues in Australia and was in regular contact with them.
The nature and extent of the person’s assets located in Australia
Mr Payne maintains four bank accounts with the Commonwealth Bank in Australia, and told the Tribunal that the account balances in total approximated sixty thousand dollars. He told the Tribunal that the bank provided a good service and that he could access his money without difficulty from Thailand.
Mr Payne reports no other assets, having sold his furniture and effects before moving to Thailand (T4/72).
The frequency and destination of the person’s travel outside Australia
Mr Payne lived in Thailand during the period August 2008 to April 2011. He then returned to Australia with his wife and apart from two short visits to Thailand, resided in Australia until he departed again for Thailand on 16 March 2013. He has continued to live in Thailand with his wife since that date, returning for two weeks in August 2014 during which time he lodged his claim for Age Pension.
Any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to reside permanently in Australia
Mr Payne does not have Thai citizenship and does not speak Thai. He told the Tribunal that he holds a Spouse Visa which requires renewal annually, and that this process requires him to have four hundred thousand baht (approximately AUD$15 646) in a Thai bank account at the time of renewal.
In Thailand Mr Payne lives in a rural village on a farm owned by his mother-in-law.
In explaining his move to Thailand because of the health of his wife in March 2013, Mr Payne stated:
“...apart from missing her family and culture, see (sic) failed to be offered employment in her field after trying desperately for 2 years. She has a degree in chemistry, her thesis was water treatment and she speaks fluent English. We thought a career in this field was inevitable in Australia. I live with my wife now in Thailand as she was unable to accept the Australian culture and working as an agricultural nursery assistant after spending 2 years as a permanent resident in Perth. I love my wife and wish to be with her. Being with her takes precedence over where I live” (T1/4)
In referring to his wife in his additional statement dated 18 September 2015 (Exhibit A2), Mr Payne stated that “She’s as right as rain now she’s back with her family and in her own culture.” When questioned on this statement as it related to the issue under review by the Tribunal, Mr Payne told the Tribunal that his wife had not sought medical intervention or treatment, and was not working in Thailand in her scientific field, rather she was content to work on the family farm and do some cooking. He said his wife was slowly coming around to considering a return to Australia, but that her father was old and she wished to be with him. Mr Payne said that it was his intention to return to Australia when he and his wife were ready to do so, but until then he would remain in Thailand with her.
ANALYSIS
In his letter dated 18 September 2015 (A1) Mr Payne submitted:
”It seems ok for a person to receive the pension in a social security agreement country, such as Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia or even Slovenia, when I can’t? Why not Thailand? Many other people all over the world receive their rightful pension simply because they had been in Australia for the 2 years previous to application, then left. Even in Thailand I have friends that receive the Australian pension.”
He repeated this submission at the hearing.
The Tribunal must contain its consideration to the issue as it concerns Mr Payne and his circumstances. The Tribunal notes that Australia has thirty international social security agreements which help governments share responsibility for the social security support of people who have lived and worked in more than one country. There is no agreement with Thailand. Accordingly, this matter is taken no further.
The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that apart from the important relationship with his wife, Mr Payne’s connections with Thailand are limited. He is not a citizen, he resides in the country on a temporary visa, he does not speak Thai, he is not employed and has a very restricted social network. However, it does not follow therefrom that he continues to reside in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Payne at the time of his application on 14 August 2014 regarded Australia as “home” and continues to regard it as such. However, Mr Payne has been entirely frank regarding his intention to remain in Thailand for the foreseeable future. Thailand has been his home since 16 March 2013 and will remain so for some indefinite time.
It is clear to the Tribunal that Mr Payne’s protracted and continuing residence in Thailand, his very limited connectivity with Australia, and his commitment to stay with and support his wife in Thailand until she is eventually comfortable with a return to Australia weigh significantly against any possible conclusion that he is, or was at the date of his application, a resident of Australia.
The Respondent contends, and at the hearing Ms Sangha expanded on this contention, that Mr Payne was not residing in Australia when he made his claim for Age Pension, and the reasons can be stated briefly as follows:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the applicant in Australia was temporary and revealed that he was merely visiting as opposed to residing in Australia;
(b) the nature and extent of the applicant’s family relationships in Australia and the close relationship with his wife and her family in Thailand;
(c) the applicant’s small online drafting business with its address in Thailand, and the maintenance of four bank accounts in Australia with approximately $65,000.
(d) The applicant departed Australia in March 2013 to live in Thailand with his wife. He only returned to Australia for a 14 day period in 2014 during which he made his pension claim. The applicant’s living pattern shows that from March 2013 he was based in Thailand and visited Australia rather than the assumption that he was an Australian resident ordinarily based in Australia.
The Tribunal considers that the evidence substantially supports the Respondent’s contention.
When all of the evidence is considered with regard to the factors in s 7(3) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Payne cannot be considered to have been resident in Australia at the date of his claim. Accordingly, his claim is taken under s 29(2) of the Administration Act, not to have been made.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2016/143.html
REASONS FOR DECISION
Brigadier AG Warner, Member
11 March 2016
INTRODUCTION
Mr Payne lodged a claim for Age Pension with Centrelink on 14 August 2014 (T4/34). On 26 August 2014 a Centrelink employee determined that Mr Payne was not a resident of Australia when he made the claim and so rejected it (T5/123). Mr Payne sought a review of that decision and on 29 January 2015, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the decision (T7/129).
On 11 March 2011, Mr Payne applied to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) for a review of the Centrelink decision. The SSAT conducted a hearing in Hobart on 18 May 2015 and Mr Payne participated from Thailand by conference telephone. The SSAT affirmed the decision under review, finding that he was not an ‘Australian resident’ when he made his claim for Age Pension and his claim is taken, pursuant to subsection 29(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (“the Administration Act”), not to have been made (T2/14).
It is not in dispute that Mr Payne was an Australian citizen and physically in Australia when he submitted his claim for Age Pension on 14 August 2014.
On 7 June 2015, Mr Payne applied to this Tribunal for review of the Centrelink decision as affirmed by the SSAT (T1/1).
Mr Payne participated in the hearing on 23 February 2016 by telephone conference from Thailand.
BACKGROUND
Mr Payne was born in the United Kingdom in August 1949.
Mr Payne arrived in Australia on 28 November 1981 (T4/100,111) and resided in Australia until 19 March 2008 (T8/131-132).
Mr Payne married his wife in Thailand on 17 August 2007 (T4/104).
Mr Payne departed Australia for Thailand on 20 March 2008 and remained there until 20 April 2011 (T7/128). He then resided with his wife in Australia until 15 March 2013 (T7/128). They returned to Thailand for a month in July-August 2012 and for a short period around Christmas 2012 (T5/118).
Mr Payne was granted Australian citizenship on 20 August 2008 (T4/113).
Mr Payne departed Australia for Thailand on 16 March 2013 with his wife and they have resided there since that date (T7/128).
Mr Payne achieved pension age on 7 August 2014. On 10 August 2014 Mr Payne returned to Australia (T7/128). He lodged a claim for Age Pension on 14 August 2014 (T4/34) and departed Australia again for Thailand on 23 August 2014 (T7/128).
THE ISSUE
The issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Payne made a proper claim for the Age Pension on 14 August 2014. This depends on his satisfaction of s 29(1) of the Administration Act, and in particular whether at the time he lodged his claim he was an Australian resident.
THE RELEVANT LAW
Section 43(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) provides that a person who has reached pension age is qualified for an age pension if any of the following applies:
(a) the person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence;
(b) the person has a qualifying residence exemption for an age pension;
(c) the person was receiving a widow B pension, a widow allowance, a mature age allowance or a partner allowance, immediately before reaching that age; or
(d) if the person reached pension age before 20 March 1997--- the person was receiving a widow B pension, a widow allowance or a partner allowance, immediately before 20 March 1997.
Section 7(5) of the Act provides that a person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence only if:
(a) the person has, at any time, been an Australian resident for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; or
(b) the person has been an Australian resident during more than one period and:
(i) at least one of those periods is 5 years or more; and
(ii) the aggregate of those periods exceeds 10 years.
Subject to some exceptions, none of which apply to Mr Payne, s 29 of the Administration Act provides that a claim for a social security payment may only be made by a person who is:
(a) an Australian resident; and
(b) in Australia.
Section 7(2) of the Act defines an Australian resident as someone who :
(a) Resides in Australia; and
(b) is one of the following:
(i) an Australian citizen;
(ii) the holder of a permanent visa;
(iii) a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
Section 7 (3) of the Act provides that, in deciding whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to the following:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia; and
(b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia; and
(c) the nature and extent of the person’s employment, business or financial ties with Australia; and
(d) the nature and extent of the person’s assets located in Australia; and
(e) the frequency and duration of the person’s travel outside Australia; and
(f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia.
The concept of residence is central to consideration of the factors above. As a general concept residence includes two elements: physical presence in a particular place and the intention to treat a place as home, at least for the time being, not necessarily forever: Hafza v Director-General of Social Security [1985] FCA 164; (1985) 6 FCR 444. In Hafza, Wilcox J said:
“Physical presence and intention will coincide for most of the time. But few people are always at home. Once a person has established a home in a particular place -- even involuntarily: see Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lysaght (1928) AC 234 at 248 and Keil v Keil (1947) VR 383 – a person does not necessarily cease to be resident there because he or she is physically absent. The test is whether the person has retained a continuity of association with the place – Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1928] UKHL 1; (1928) AC 217 at p 225 and Judd v Judd (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 147 at p 149 -- together with an intention to return to that place and an attitude that that place remains “home” – see Norman v Norman (No 3) (1969) 16 FLR 231 at 236. It is important to observe firstly, that a person may simultaneously be a resident in more than one place – see the facts of Lysaght (supra) and the reference by Williams J to “a home or homes” – and, secondly that the application of the general concept of residence to any particular case must depend upon the wording, and underlying purposes, of the particular statute in relation to which the question arises. But, where the general concept is applicable, it is obvious that, as residence of a place in which a person is not physically present depends upon an intention to return and to continue to treat that place as “home”, a change of intention may be decisive of the question whether residence in a particular place has been maintained.”
EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
The “T Documents” (Exhibit R1, T1-T13 , pp 1-169)
Applicant’s Additional Statement dated 18 September 2015 (Exhibit A1)
Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions dated 21 October 2015 (Exhibit R2)
Exhibits R3 - R7 tendered by the Respondent
The oral evidence of the applicant
It was clear to the Tribunal that at the time of his application for an Age Pension Mr Payne resided in Thailand, but that does not of itself conclude the matter adversely to him. He might have been a resident of both Australia and Thailand at the same time. The Tribunal must have regard to factors prescribed by s 7(3) of the Act in determining whether Mr Payne was residing in Australia at the time he lodged his claim for Age Pension.
Mr Payne’s evidence is considered against the six factors.
The nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia
Mr Payne does not have any owned or leased property in Australia. At the time he lodged his claim he was staying with a friend in Port Kennedy WA at no cost.
Mr Payne recorded his Thailand address as his permanent address when completing his claim for Age Pension (T4/38).
The nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia
Mr Payne has two adult children (born in 1986 and in 1989) and grandchildren residing in Australia.
His elder brother and his wife, their two sons and their wives and children, live in Australia.
Nature and extent of the person’s employment, business or financial ties in Australia
Mr Payne owns a small online drafting business. He told the Tribunal that the business address was in Thailand, but the only client was an Australian company and the modest income received came solely from that client.
Mr Payne said he had many friends, acquaintances and work colleagues in Australia and was in regular contact with them.
The nature and extent of the person’s assets located in Australia
Mr Payne maintains four bank accounts with the Commonwealth Bank in Australia, and told the Tribunal that the account balances in total approximated sixty thousand dollars. He told the Tribunal that the bank provided a good service and that he could access his money without difficulty from Thailand.
Mr Payne reports no other assets, having sold his furniture and effects before moving to Thailand (T4/72).
The frequency and destination of the person’s travel outside Australia
Mr Payne lived in Thailand during the period August 2008 to April 2011. He then returned to Australia with his wife and apart from two short visits to Thailand, resided in Australia until he departed again for Thailand on 16 March 2013. He has continued to live in Thailand with his wife since that date, returning for two weeks in August 2014 during which time he lodged his claim for Age Pension.
Any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to reside permanently in Australia
Mr Payne does not have Thai citizenship and does not speak Thai. He told the Tribunal that he holds a Spouse Visa which requires renewal annually, and that this process requires him to have four hundred thousand baht (approximately AUD$15 646) in a Thai bank account at the time of renewal.
In Thailand Mr Payne lives in a rural village on a farm owned by his mother-in-law.
In explaining his move to Thailand because of the health of his wife in March 2013, Mr Payne stated:
“...apart from missing her family and culture, see (sic) failed to be offered employment in her field after trying desperately for 2 years. She has a degree in chemistry, her thesis was water treatment and she speaks fluent English. We thought a career in this field was inevitable in Australia. I live with my wife now in Thailand as she was unable to accept the Australian culture and working as an agricultural nursery assistant after spending 2 years as a permanent resident in Perth. I love my wife and wish to be with her. Being with her takes precedence over where I live” (T1/4)
In referring to his wife in his additional statement dated 18 September 2015 (Exhibit A2), Mr Payne stated that “She’s as right as rain now she’s back with her family and in her own culture.” When questioned on this statement as it related to the issue under review by the Tribunal, Mr Payne told the Tribunal that his wife had not sought medical intervention or treatment, and was not working in Thailand in her scientific field, rather she was content to work on the family farm and do some cooking. He said his wife was slowly coming around to considering a return to Australia, but that her father was old and she wished to be with him. Mr Payne said that it was his intention to return to Australia when he and his wife were ready to do so, but until then he would remain in Thailand with her.
ANALYSIS
In his letter dated 18 September 2015 (A1) Mr Payne submitted:
”It seems ok for a person to receive the pension in a social security agreement country, such as Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia or even Slovenia, when I can’t? Why not Thailand? Many other people all over the world receive their rightful pension simply because they had been in Australia for the 2 years previous to application, then left. Even in Thailand I have friends that receive the Australian pension.”
He repeated this submission at the hearing.
The Tribunal must contain its consideration to the issue as it concerns Mr Payne and his circumstances. The Tribunal notes that Australia has thirty international social security agreements which help governments share responsibility for the social security support of people who have lived and worked in more than one country. There is no agreement with Thailand. Accordingly, this matter is taken no further.
The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that apart from the important relationship with his wife, Mr Payne’s connections with Thailand are limited. He is not a citizen, he resides in the country on a temporary visa, he does not speak Thai, he is not employed and has a very restricted social network. However, it does not follow therefrom that he continues to reside in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Payne at the time of his application on 14 August 2014 regarded Australia as “home” and continues to regard it as such. However, Mr Payne has been entirely frank regarding his intention to remain in Thailand for the foreseeable future. Thailand has been his home since 16 March 2013 and will remain so for some indefinite time.
It is clear to the Tribunal that Mr Payne’s protracted and continuing residence in Thailand, his very limited connectivity with Australia, and his commitment to stay with and support his wife in Thailand until she is eventually comfortable with a return to Australia weigh significantly against any possible conclusion that he is, or was at the date of his application, a resident of Australia.
The Respondent contends, and at the hearing Ms Sangha expanded on this contention, that Mr Payne was not residing in Australia when he made his claim for Age Pension, and the reasons can be stated briefly as follows:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the applicant in Australia was temporary and revealed that he was merely visiting as opposed to residing in Australia;
(b) the nature and extent of the applicant’s family relationships in Australia and the close relationship with his wife and her family in Thailand;
(c) the applicant’s small online drafting business with its address in Thailand, and the maintenance of four bank accounts in Australia with approximately $65,000.
(d) The applicant departed Australia in March 2013 to live in Thailand with his wife. He only returned to Australia for a 14 day period in 2014 during which he made his pension claim. The applicant’s living pattern shows that from March 2013 he was based in Thailand and visited Australia rather than the assumption that he was an Australian resident ordinarily based in Australia.
The Tribunal considers that the evidence substantially supports the Respondent’s contention.
When all of the evidence is considered with regard to the factors in s 7(3) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Payne cannot be considered to have been resident in Australia at the date of his claim. Accordingly, his claim is taken under s 29(2) of the Administration Act, not to have been made.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2016/143.html
