Place holder node for 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Date of Effect: 1 November 1994
RELEASE OF NEW GENERAL ORDERS
SUBSIDY VERIFICATION ISSUES
Purpose
The purpose of this instruction is to formally issue a further part of the new General Orders. The part is for inclusion in the Practice and Procedural Volume and covers the subject of: PART 5 SUBSIDY VERIFICATION ISSUES
Background
When the decision was taken to write and issue a completely new set of General Orders following the bedding down of the Subsidy Scheme, it was agreed that the new document would contain two volumes. The first volume would cover 'Legislation Interpretation & Policy' and the second volume 'Practice & Procedural Matters'.
Four parts of the first volume were issued in October 1993 and the two parts of the second volume were issued in March 1994.
The Subsidy Verification and Payment General Orders describe DSH's procedures for verification of subsidy payable and some other aspects relating to the Commonwealth's Agreement with Westpac.
General Orders
Copies of Part 5 of the 'Practice & Procedural Matters' volume of the General Orders, covering 'Subsidy Verification Issues' are enclosed. They are to be added to the GO folders provided in October 1993.
In addition, sufficient copies of 'Subsidy Verification Issues' have been provided so that all staff in the Subsidy Verification area have their own copy. It is essential that all staff involved in subsidy verification tasks adhere to the protocols.
Amended GO Index
This opportunity is also taken to issue an amended operative COI index
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
31 October 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 35
Date of Effect: 1 November 1994
ELIGIBILITY - MEMBERS OF CMF, AND VAD DURING WORLD WAR II
[All refences to women's service in this COI have been superseded by NOI 47]
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is to clarify the meaning of sub-section 4(2A) of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. The effect of this clarification is a variation in a longstanding practice in relation to determination of eligibility for members of such services during World War II.
Background
A recent case brought to our attention through an informal review following an appeal to the AAT has highlighted the need to issue an instruction clarifying this matter.
Eligibility under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 for those who served during World War II was based on enlistment or appointment for, or employment on active service overseas outside Australia or on a ship of war.
By enlisting in the Australian Imperial Force, Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Navy during World War II, volunteers made themselves liable for active service outside Australia. These volunteers committed themselves to potential risks beyond those normally associated with peacetime service and it was this commitment that was recognised by the conferring of the loan benefit among other repatriation measures. Members of the Women's Services were also volunteers and as the war progressed, they had a growing expectation that they might be called upon to perform non-combatant support duties overseas.
While many male volunteers were actually sent overseas, a significant number were required to perform their military service within Australia. There was no distinction drawn between this group and those with overseas service for the purpose of eligibility under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918.
In 1948 it was decided that because the CMF and Women's Services were raised primarily for home service, service in these forces would not of itself, be generally regarded as qualifying service for Defence Service Homes assistance unless there was substantial evidence that the person had, in fact satisfied the definition of Australian Soldier in section 4. The general principle applied was that the applicant actually had to have seen active service outside Australia in order to satisfy the definition. This policy was applied until the Act was amended with effect from 11 November 1978 to include the present sub-section 4(2A). Question 18 of the Request for Service Details Form D7602 is designed to satisfy this long held interpretation of sub-section 4(2A).
As a result, former members of the CMF, Women's Services and VAD who did not actually serve overseas during war time are generally excluded from Defence Service Homes benefits in contrast to their AIF, RAAF and RAN counterparts. Eligibility GO 3.2.1.2 reflects this position.
The case referred to above involved a member of the AWAS who served from 6 November 1942 to 2 July 1946 and who was posted to two different units within Australia for the express purpose - 'for overseas movement'. Neither overseas movement eventuated, but the fact that she was posted in this fashion within Australia indicates that the terms of her continuing engagement in the Forces were such that she was prepared to be sent, and that the Army was prepared to post her accordingly. This latter fact was not known to the delegates who made the initial and review decisions, but came to light with further questioning of the Defence Records Office during the informal review.
The question that needs to be resolved in any case involving service during World War II is 'was the person enlisted or appointed for or employed on active service outside Australia or on a ship of war?' We know that members of the AIF, RAAF and RAN during World War II enlisted for active service outside Australia or on a ship of war, and even if they did not go overseas, are still eligible. We also know that the CMF, Women's Services and VAD were raised generally for home service. It is for this reason sub-section 4(2A) goes on to say that in considering whether a person meets the definition of Australia Soldier in section 4, a member of the CMF, the Women's Services and VAD shall not, by reason only of being or having been such a member, be taken to have been enlisted or appointed for active service outside Australia or on a ship of war. In other words, membership of such groups is not of itself sufficient to grant eligibility, unlike membership of the AIF, RAAF and RAN. This provision requires us to decline eligibility for members of the 'home services' unless there is evidence that the military authorities intended to actually employ them on active service outside Australia. It does not, contrary to long standing practice, require us to be satisfied that the person had actually served overseas.
In view of the foregoing, the original decision and review decisions on the case in question were set aside on informal review, and a fresh determination made that the applicant is an eligible person as defined and that a Notice of Eligibility should be issued accordingly.
It is important that this case is not seen as a criticism of those who dealt with the case, nor of longstanding practices employed in all State Offices and Central Office in dealing with similar cases. The problem has been the interpretation of sub-section 4(2A) and the subsequent design of the Request for Service Details Form.
Policy to be applied
Members of the CMF, Women's Services and VAD during World War II are generally not eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 unless there is evidence that the military authorities intended to actually employ them on active service outside Australia. Initially, applicants from these groups should be asked whether the terms of their employment satisfy this requirement, and where possible, to provide evidence in accordance with the 'best evidence' policy. Satisfactory evidence would be documentation of an overseas posting during World War II or of a posting within Australia 'for overseas movement'. If applicants do not claim to have served on active service outside Australia or to have been posted 'for overseas movement', it is reasonable to decline eligibility on that basis. If enlistment for active service outside Australia is claimed and insufficient confirmatory evidence is provided, a Request for Service Details Form D7602 should be sent to the relevant Service Records Office with the accompanying question appended to Section B.
'Was the person posted either within or outside Australia for the purpose of serving on active service outside Australia? If so, please provide details.'
The Request for Service Details Form D7602 will be amended to include this question before the next reprint.
General Orders
Attached is an amended pages 13-14 of the Eligibility General Orders reflecting a change to GO 3.2.1.2. Please replace the existing pages 13-14 with the amended version. This Instruction has no effect on any previously issued operative COI.
Eligibility GO 3.2.1.2 has been altered to read:
" 3.2.1.2 Forces raised for Home Service. Enlistment in the following Forces was generally for home service:
Accordingly, eligibility can only be established if a person who enlisted in one of these Forces actually served outside the territorial boundaries of Australia, or there is evidence that the military authorities intended to actually employ them on active service outside Australia. Acceptable evidence would be documentation of an overseas posting or of a posting within Australia 'for overseas movement' during WWII. "
Notes 1 and 2 of GO 3.2.1.2 remain unchanged.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
28 October 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Date of Effect: 1 November 1994
"BEST EVIDENCE" POLICY
- service in Malaya and Singapore
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is to clarify the eligibility determination process in relation to persons who served in Malaya or Singapore between 1 September 1957 and 28 May 1963.
Background
The interpretation of the description of the operational area defined in regulation 74J confines qualifying service to that actually served on land in Malaya or Singapore during this period. When the "best evidence" policy was introduced by COI 19 on 1 January 1993, it was thought that the servicemen may have suitable evidence in their possession which could verify that they were required to perform duty on land.
Experience has revealed that such evidence is usually non-existent. Indeed, there are times when the Service Records Offices have difficulty in determining whether naval personnel were required to actually perform duty on land even though a ship was within territorial waters. The absence of evidence in the hands of servicemen means that delegates inevitably have to issue a Request for Service Details form to confirm the service.
Policy to be applied
It is considered appropriate for confirmation to be sought from Service Records Offices in every case where eligibility is being claimed on the basis of service in Malaya or Singapore between 1 September 1957 and 28 May 1963.
General Orders
Attached are amended pages 55-56 for the Eligibility General Orders. Please replace the existing pages with the amended version.
The sixth paragraph of Eligibility GO 13.1 has been altered to read:
Where eligibility is being claimed on the basis of service on land in Malaya or Singapore between 1 September 1957 and 28 May 1963, it is appropriate that a service check be sent to the Department of Defence.
A service check may also be required if, for example, an applicant has served for 6 years 2 days but it is not clear whether the additional service was due to a delay in processing the person's discharge. Delegates are to use sound judgement in these matters.
Effect on previously issued COIs
This Instruction refines the policy enunciated in COI 19.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
27 October 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 33
Date of Effect: 25 October 1994
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is remove restrictions on what constitutes "acceptable" modifications for the purpose of section 18 of the DSH Act.
Background
Amendments to the DSH Act, commencing on 1 January 1993, allowed loans to be used for modifications to a dwelling house. The change was introduced, in line with Government policy, to allow people to remain in their homes longer and was particularly targeted at older veterans and widows.
Upon introduction of the change we were concerned that loans could be used for items which could be seen as luxuries and, thus, not meeting the intention of the amendments. As a consequence, we issued an all States memorandum on 5 January 1993 to which was attached a list of modifications which were regarded as unequivocally acceptable.
With 21 months of experience behind us, we have reviewed the situation and have found that the general intention of the amendments are being met and applications for "luxury" items have been minimal.
Policy to be applied
As the term "modify" is not defined in the legislation, there are administrative advantages in removing the earlier imposed restrictions. Hence, the restrictions imposed on 5 January 1993 are not to be imposed any longer. The commentary in Entitlement GO 3.3.2.2 is considered sufficient to guide delegates in future decisions and ensures that they have maximum flexibility in deciding individual cases.
General Orders
No changes are required to General Orders.
Effect on previously issued COIs
This Instruction supports the policy introduced by COI 21.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
20 October 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 32
Date of Effect: 5 September 1994
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is to refine the policy on proposals to "purchase land and build" as amended by COI 28.
Background
Following the issue of COI 28 it has come to our attention that where borrowers are initially buying land with the intention of building, Westpac has a policy of applying housing rates of interest for the first five years only. If the client has not built a home within that period, the loan interest is raised to investment rates. We see this approach as a way of ensuring that our mutual clients comply with the dual purpose specified on the certificate of entitlement issued i.e. "to purchase a holding and build a dwelling-house on the holding". We have therefore decided to refine the policy enunciated in COI 28 and to define the term "reasonable time" for this category of assistance as five years.
Policy to be applied
In any case where the applicant intends to buy land initially with the intention of building a home within a reasonable time, a certificate of entitlement may be issued for the dual purpose, notwithstanding that under the initial funding arrangements the advance is used solely for the purchase of the land. In accordance with paragraph 18(2)(b) of the Act we need to be satisfied that the advance will enable the client to buy land and build a house. A reasonable time within which to satisfy this dual purpose is set at five years. If construction of the home has not been completed within five years, subsidy is to be cancelled on the basis that the applicant used the advance for a purpose other than that for which it was made [paragraph 26(1)(c) of the Act refers]. Recovery action is not to be taken in these cases. Upon cancellation of subsidy, the bank will discharge the subsidised loan with a fresh loan at the going investment rate of interest, or alternatively the applicant may refinance through another source. Either way, the subsidised advance will be terminated leaving the applicant the option to take up a further advance under the portability arrangements at some time in the future for a legitimate housing related purpose.
In these circumstance it is most important that clients are warned of the possible consequences in writing at the time the certificate is issued, particularly in view of the impact on both DSH and Westpac of the proposed uniform credit legislation, which will be the subject of a later COI. Please delete the note 4 reference on the reverse of the certificate in these cases until the form is reprinted.
An appropriate monitoring mechanism should be put in place to ensure that the five year time limit is complied with.
General Orders
Attached are amended pages 23-26 for the Entitlement General Orders. Please replace the existing version with the amended version. The amended GOs now read;
3.7.1 Purchase of Land
A subsidised loan is not available to purchase land solely. However, where a client genuinely intends to proceed with the building of a home within a reasonable time and construction is to be completed within five years of settlement, a Certificate of Entitlement should not be refused merely because the advance will be applied initially to the purchase of the land only. The decision should be based on consideration of both the intended purpose and the intention to occupy. [Please also see Entitlement GO 3.7.6.]
3.7.6.2 Time Limits. Whether the intention to use the house for the prescribed purpose will be met within a reasonable time is relevant to the genuineness of the intention. What is a reasonable time will vary having regard to the circumstances of each case, but where a certificate is issued to buy land and build a home and the funds are used for the purchase of land with the intention of building, it is a requirement that the home is completed within five years from settlement of the loan. Failure to complete construction of a house capable of being occupied within five years will result in cancellation of subsidy, discharge of the initial advance and substitution with a loan at investment rates of interest or alternative finance. Clients should be warned of these possible implications in such cases.
We also take this opportunity to insert a cross reference in Entitlement GO 3.7.9 to the corresponding instruction in Subsidy Procedural Matters GO 1.5.
Standard Letters
Standard letters will be appropriately amended.
Effect on previously issued COIs
This Instruction further refines the policy enunciated in COI 28.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
2 September 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 29
Date of Effect: 1 August 1994
INTRODUCTION OF WIDOWS'/ WIDOWERS' BENEFITS TABLE
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is to introduce a table of benefits available to widows/widowers for inclusion as Appendix A to the Entitlement General Orders.
Background
In view of the complex nature of the legislation covering benefits available to widows/widowers, it was decided at a meeting of Subsidy Managers in 1993 that an appropriate ready reference table should be developed for incorporation into the General Orders.
It was acknowledged that staff had difficulty in applying the legislation and this in turn could have been causing some confusion for clients. A ready reference table was seen as the possible answer, in that it would provide staff with clear guidance on interpretation of the legislation and the application of uniform policies for all clients.
The complexities encountered in this task have caused considerable delay in finalising the table, and even now we are aware that not all widows'/widowers' circumstances are covered.
Policy to be applied
When dealing with potential applications or inquiries from widows/widowers, staff are to refer to the table of benefits at Appendix A to the Entitlement General Orders. The table is designed to assist staff in advising the options available. It is essential that all the options in each category are explained when advising the widow/widower, although it is recognised that some options may not be all that practical, dependent upon the circumstances. It is important that once the options are explained, the final decision on what benefit to apply for is left to the widow/widower.
In the table, references to a widow of an eligible person should be read to include references to a widower of an eligible person and similarly, references to a husband should also include a wife. The benefits available in the Additional Advance and the Widow/Essential Repair Advances columns are dependent upon the benefit in the Loan column being taken up. The table format, although comprehensive may not cover all widows'/widowers' circumstances. Any case in circumstances not covered by the table should be referred to Central Office by telephone for advice in the first instance, particularly where the widow has completed her own military service.
Where the applicant's circumstances indicate a Further Advance option, staff must check that the portability provisions are satisfied, e.g. previous loan current at, or funded after, 9/12/87, and that previous terms have not exceeded 25 years. Care also needs to be exercised in relation to the effective dates of legislative changes which bestow the benefits, i.e. de-facto widows are eligible as widows if the person with qualifying service died after 10/11/78. De-facto widowers of female veterans are eligible if the person with qualifying service died after 18 December 1988.
Staff should be fully conversant with the legislation and other parts of the General Orders before using the table. Relevant GOs related to widows'/widowers' benefits are located in Eligibility Chapter 10 and GO 12.2.1 and Entitlement GO 3.6.4, Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7, and GOs 10.13 and 10.14. It is emphasised that the complexities of some of the legislative provisions mean that they are open to some debate and variance in interpretation. Where this is so, the table applies a policy consistent with a beneficial interpretation of the legislation and sets down uniform guidelines to follow for the majority of cases. However, there may be cases where widows have received or acted upon previous DSH advice given under earlier views of the same legislation. It is not intended that the guidelines in the table would disadvantage those clients who have received or acted upon previous contrary advice. Delegates are encouraged to consider the merits of cases in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and to satisfy themselves that such widows are not disadvantaged.
Advice to widows/widowers should include reference to Insurance - both property and contents.
General Orders
Attached is an amended page 49 of the Entitlement General Orders introducing Chapter 11 and Appendix A - the Widows'/Widowers' Benefits Table. Please replace the existing page 49 with the amended version and insert Appendix A as the immediately following pages and before Appendix B.
Also attached is a replacement page 59 of the Eligibility General Orders, reflecting the new address of the Soldier Career Management Agency.
Amended GO Index
An amended Index page 3 for the Entitlement GOs is also attached.
Effect on previously issued COIs
This Instruction has no effect on any previously issued operative COI, but is related to COI 11 of 1 March 1991, COI 13 effective from 25 June 1991, COI 14 of 29 August 1991, and COI 18 of 1 October 1992.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
25 July 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 28
Date of Effect: 1 August 1994
Purpose
The purpose of this Instruction is to vary the policy regarding applications for a Certificate of Entitlement to purchase a holding and build a dwelling-house on the holding as provided for in paragraph 18(2)(b) of the DSH Act.
Background
Paragraph 18(2)(b) of the DSH Act allows the Secretary to issue a Certificate of Entitlement for a subsidy on an advance for the purpose of enabling a person to purchase land and build a house on it. This provision has always been applied in the sense of requiring that the advance fulfil both functions. Although the advance could be partly applied towards the purchase of land, the remainder of the advance had to be applied towards the actual construction of the house.
In the days when the DSH loan constituted a high proportion of the cost of house and land packages, there was little opportunity for the advance to be used solely towards the cost of the land. Now that the maximum loan represents such a low proportion of the overall cost, some clients are expecting to use the DSH loan in connection with the purchase of the land when they do not intend to proceed immediately with the construction of the home.
We have sometimes discovered, during compliance monitoring, instances where the Bank advanced the loan for the purchase of land where there was no intention to immediately construct a house. Although our initial reaction on discovering these instances might be to consider cancelling the subsidy and recovering what is perceived as wrongfully paid subsidy, in most cases clients have been able to demonstrate their intention to proceed with building within a reasonable time frame. In such cases, we have decided to continue the subsidy. The effect in such cases is that the subsidy commences earlier than it would normally and, therefore, will finish earlier than it would have if we waited until construction had been completed; however, it still has the effect of enabling a person to buy land and construct a dwelling house.
There is increasing pressure from clients for a relaxation of the current requirement. The 1991-92 Entitlement Review also favoured the "land only" option in view of recent experiences, and in particular, it was seen as a way to assist low income earners break into the housing market.
Policy to be applied
We have received legal advice that confirms the view that a Certificate of Entitlement cannot be issued where the client intends to purchase land and not construct a house.
Sub section 18(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to be satisfied that the advance sought is for one of the listed purposes. Note that, reading through to paragraph (b), the Secretary must be satisfied that the advance will enable the client to buy land and build a house.
Provided the delegate can be satisfied that a home will be built within a reasonable time thereby complying with the occupancy policy, the fact that the full amount of the advance will be spent on purchasing the land should not prevent a Certificate of Entitlement from being issued. The approach is to be consistent with the policy on occupancy (i.e. intention to occupy) as set out in Entitlement General Order 3.7.6. The stated purpose in the Certificate will, of course, still be to purchase a holding and build a dwelling-house on the holding.
Each case needs to be treated on its merits. Where it is clear that the client has no serious intent of building a home on the land, the application should be declined. In other cases a positive decision should be made by considering, in conjunction, both the purpose for which the advance will be applied and the intention to occupy rather than considering both as independent issues.
General Orders
Attached is an amended page for the Entitlement General Orders. Please replace the existing page 24 with the amended version. This Instruction has no effect on any previously issued operative COI.
Entitlement GO 3.7.1 has been altered to read:
3.7.1 Purchase of Land
A subsidised loan is not available to purchase land solely. However, where a client genuinely intends to proceed with the building of a home within a reasonable time, a Certificate of Entitlement should not be refused merely because the advance will be applied initially to the purchase of the land only. The decision should be based on consideration of both the intended purpose and the intention to occupy. [Please also see Entitlement GO 3.7.6.]
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
25 July 1994
Central Office Instruction
amending General Orders (1993 edition)
Instruction No. 24
Date of Effect: 22 March 1994
RELEASE OF NEW GENERAL ORDERS
Purpose
The purpose of this instruction is to formally issue two further parts of the new General Orders. The two parts are for inclusion in the Practice and Procedural Volume and cover the subjects of:
PART 1 SUBSIDY PROCEDURAL MATTERS
PART 3 DATA ENTRY PROTOCOLS
Background
When the decision was taken to write and issue a completely new set of General Orders following the bedding down of the Subsidy Scheme, it was agreed that the new document would contain two volumes. The first volume would cover 'Legislation Interpretation & Policy' and the second volume 'Practice & Procedural Matters'.
Four parts of the first volume were issued in October 1993 and the two parts of the second volume as listed above were dispatched to all State and Regional Offices on 16 March 1994.
Part 1 relating to 'Subsidy Procedural Matters' represents those matters which were part of the former General Orders but which are not considered to be policy issues as such. The purpose of this Part is to provide general guidance and information on procedural matters associated with implementing and administering the policy outlined in the Legislation Interpretation & Policy Parts. It is not intended that this Part be taken to be a comprehensive procedural manual for all tasks undertaken. Rather, State Program Managers and delegated officers are to use their own discretion in such matters. Procedures should be flexible enough to take account of any local arrangements, yet at the same time result in clients receiving uniformly high standards of quality service and advice from all Departmental Offices.
The earlier Legislation Interpretation & Policy Parts are aimed at achieving a uniformly correct and fair way of dealing with all casework under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. They place the same rights and obligations on clients and staff irrespective of State Office boundaries.
In addition to policy considerations, there are some procedural matters which also need to be addressed in a uniformly acceptable way and these matters are set out in the 'Subsidy Procedural Matters' part.
The purpose of establishing Data Entry Protocols is to enable data to be recorded in a consistent manner across all data entry points and to facilitate any data interchange.
The Data Entry Protocols are included as Part 3 of the 'Practice & Procedural Matters' volume of the DSH General Orders as a ready reference instruction for all staff to adhere to when entering data into the ADP Systems. The protocols provide a standard form of data entry in respect of client details (including correspondence address details).
The protocols are developed to cover the vast majority of data entry needs, but there will be rare cases where the number of characters required to be entered exceeds the maximum allowable for that particular field. In such cases, unless the protocol provides for the use of the next line field, staff are to use their judgement on an appropriate abbreviation, which will, of course, mean a break of protocol.
Changes in Policy or Practice
In preparing the new procedural General Orders the opportunity to examine and revise our approach to a range of issues has been taken and all staff are urged to become familiar with the content of this new part. In particular, the following changes are brought to attention:
File Numbers
The allocation of file numbers was the subject of Central Office Instruction 20 effective from 1 January 1993. This instruction has been revised and incorporated into the new GOs as 1.1 and Chapter 2. The system changes that have occurred in Insurance since that COI was issued have also been taken into account. COI 20 is therefore superseded by this issue. Please destroy copies of COI 20 and delete it from the list of operative COIs.
Action to be Taken Regarding False Declaration
The content of new GO 1.4 reflects the changes that have occurred in relation to these matters within the Department since the publication of the Benefits Prosecution Guidelines. Action to be taken by the Housing Sub-program is to conform with the remainder of the Benefits Program.
Marriage of Two Eligible Persons Each in Receipt of an Advance
The old GOs 34.2 and 34.3 prescribed the subsidy cancellation action to be taken where two eligible persons, each in receipt of an advance, become the husband or wife of the other. The power in ss.26(4) of the Act is discretionary, but as a matter of policy, was exercised in most cases as far as is known. It must be remembered though, that this power preceded the amendments allowing portability and the pooling of entitlements. As such, the policy to cancel in every case is outdated. This was hinted at in the Entitlement GO 3.7.9, but in hindsight, a stronger policy message perhaps should have been conveyed in that GO. The opportunity has therefore been taken to propose a change of procedure in the Procedural GO 1.5 and to reflect a change of policy in an amended Entitlement GO 3.7.9. A copy of the new Entitlement GO 3.7.9 will be issued in the near future.
Term/Review/Cancellation of Relief
On close examination of the legislation covering the relief provisions it became evident that there is no legislative power to review or cancel Instalment Relief during the currency of a Certificate of Entitlement granting instalment relief for a specified period. This has been confirmed by legal advice. As a result, it became necessary to rewrite the GOs covering this subject, but there is no change to the basic philosophy of the policy contained in the old GOs. This has been achieved by suggesting a normal term for instalment relief of 12 months and setting a maximum term of two years.
The absence of legislative power to review or cancel relief also impacts on the action to be taken on the marriage or death of a relief recipient, as well as when a relief recipient ceases to occupy a property.
Relief Term - Recurring Expenses
The policy to limit the normal term for instalment relief to 12 months and to set a maximum term of two years also impacts on the arrangements for assisting with the payment of recurring expenses. There is no legislative provision to issue a certificate for recurring expenses without a corresponding application. Your attention is drawn to new GOs 3.3 and 3.4.2 for further details.
Term - Essential Repairs
It should also be pointed out that the policy in the former GO 41.8 did not allow the term for repaying an advance for essential repairs to exceed the balance of term of the current subsidised advance. The new GO 4.3 refers to these arrangements as the norm but correctly points out that the legislation provides for a longer term if considered necessary. A client could incur financial hardship if this provision was not considered as an option at the time of utilising the benefit. It might even cause the client not to proceed to apply for a benefit to which he/she is legally entitled.
Relief - Inclusion of Cost of Technical Advice to Widow/Widower
Other changes made reflect our changed role from mortgagee lender to subsidy provider and our gradual withdrawal from some of the more paternalistic/bureaucratic practices such as the seeking of documentary evidence of repairs to be carried out through quotes and technical inspections. In this regard the former GO 40.19 stipulated that any charges for inspections by a consultant will be payable by the widow direct to the consultant, but if payment of the fee would cause hardship, she may be reimbursed from the Widow Advance provided one is approved. Bearing in mind that we no longer have the technical expertise of Work Supervisors as we had in the past, and the fact that the Minister's Hardship Guidelines enable a fairly mechanical approach to deciding whether a widow/widower is suffering the hardship defined, it is considered entirely appropriate to allow the cost of any necessary technical expertise provided to a widow/widower to be included in the overall cost of the work to be done as a matter of routine. This is consistent with the Government's often stated policy of assisting the elderly to remain independent in their own homes for as long as possible. Because of the Hardship Guidelines we would normally be in a position to judge whether a widow/widower is likely to be successful in her/his application before she/he incurs any expense in obtaining independent technical advice. The new GO 3.4.1 has been written along these lines. That new GO also mentions that details of the repairs required should be obtained from the widow/widower or her/his representative and that a technical inspection and report will not normally be requested.
Appealable/Reviewable Decisions
The changes to the General Orders covering appealable/reviewable decisions in Chapter 5 are the result of input from the Benefits Compensation and Review Branch.
General Orders
Copies of Parts 1 and 3 of the new 'Practice & Procedural Matters' volume of the General Orders, covering 'Subsidy Procedural Matters' and 'Data Entry Protocols' respectively, have been forwarded under separate cover. They are to be added to the GOs folders provided in October 1993.
In addition, sufficient copies of the 'Data Entry Protocols' have been provided so that all staff, in both Subsidy and Insurance have their own copy. It is essential that all staff involved in data entry tasks adhere to the protocols except, as mentioned earlier in this Instruction, in the very rare circumstances where one does not apply.
This opportunity is also taken to issue an amended Index to the 'Subsidy Procedural Matters' part following a late change to the pagination of the document at around the printing stage. The new Index is attached.
DAVID MACKRELL
General Manager
18 March 1994
Links
[1] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=comment/reply/18721%23comment-form
[2] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18683%23comment-form
[3] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18705%23comment-form
[4] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18676%23comment-form
[5] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18706%23comment-form
[6] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18684%23comment-form
[7] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18698%23comment-form
[8] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18692%23comment-form
[9] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/18680%23comment-form