Centrelink And The Duty Of Care

[Banjo]

We had this a while ago but it won't hurt to bring it up again for new members.
Remember these are THEIR rules.

guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-1/ssguide-1.3/ssguide-1.3.4/ssguide-1.3.4.10.html
(Duty of Care)

guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-1/ssguide-1.3/ssguide-1.3.4/ssguide-1.3.4.20.html
(Duty of Care when giving advice or information)

Some quotes.

1.3.4.10 Duty of Care
What does duty of care mean?

Australian Government employees have a duty of care to the public when performing their duties. This extends to any advice given and any actions performed.

Negligent decisions

There are not many negligent actions that result in a common law duty of care and therefore a possibility of settlement under Regulation 9 of the FMAA, because the majority of negligent actions under the Act are decisions that are subject to a right of review.

Example: A determination is made to grant Age but because of a breakdown in normal procedures, the decision is not put into effect for several months. As a result, a PCC is issued late and medical expenses are paid without concession.

1.3.4.20 Duty of Care when giving Advice or Information
Giving advice or information

Duty of care with regard to advice involves the performance of duties to a reasonable standard of care. 'Reasonable' generally means a standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent public servant administering welfare legislation consistent with sound administrative practices.

Negligent advice

The question of whether negligence occurred depends on the particular facts of each case. Duty of care is not breached simply because advice is wrong. The duty is only to exercise reasonable care when giving advice. As a rule carelessness WILL constitute a breach of duty of care.

Even their rules for themselves are flexible...

[howdo]

In summary, yes may be yes and no may be no. On the other hand, no could be yes and yes could be no. ;D

[latindancer]

In other words, it gives them leeway to interpret things however they like. And you need a very good (expensive) barrister to argue the fine points, or they will walk all over you.
It's the same in Centrelink, and I'm so sick of that.

[Banjo]

I strongly believe this is why they back off sometimes before a case get to the Federal Court.

Their tribunals work by the rules, but courts only go by what the legislation says.

They really don't want unfriendly case law lurking in the background of their appeals system, an examination of AAT cases shows the tribunal refers to it frequently.