The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 9 October 2024 which determined payment of her parenting payment was to start from 28 June 2023, the date of her claim for this payment. Earlier decisions had found payment should start from 5 July 2023, applying for a one-week ordinary waiting period.
On 14 October 2014, the AAT was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Applicant applied for review of the AAT decision on 4 November 2024, as she was entitled to do by virtue of the transitional provisions relating to the ART's establishment.
The relevant factual background is narrow in compass. In November 2022, the Applicant gave birth to twin daughters. In December 2022, she claimed family tax benefit (FTB) which was subsequently granted. On 22 March 2023, she rang Centrelink about her payments. There is a transcript of this call. The staff member she spoke with focused on the Applicant's FTB payments. At one point, she asked about the prospect of a payment in her own right (although she didn't use that expression). She had mentioned that she was receiving less money than when she was on jobseeker payment before the twins were born. Unfortunately, she was not told she could apply for parenting payment in that call.
Eventually, the Applicant lodged a claim for parenting payment on 28 June 2023. The claim was granted and payments were made with effect from 5 July 2023; it had been determined she was subject to a one-week ordinary waiting period before payments would begin. An authorised review officer affirmed this decision. The AAT varied the decision, finding that the Applicant did not have to serve the ordinary waiting period. Its reasons for decision show that the AAT was sympathetic to the Applicant's position that she sought payment from 22 March 2023, the date of the contact with Centrelink mentioned above, but determined the rules in the law governing the start date for payment did not permit what she sought.
I conducted a hearing by telephone on 22 July 2025. Unsurprisingly, the Applicant continues to seek that parenting payment be paid from 22 March 2023.
The legal rules governing when social security payments such as parenting payment are to commence are found in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act). The general rule is that a social security payment becomes payable on a person's start day: subsection 41(1) of the Administration Act. A person's start day is worked out in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Administration Act: section 42.
Provided they are qualified, the general rule as to start days is that a person's start day is the day they make their claim: clause 3(1) of Schedule 2. This means the Applicant's start day in respect of her parenting payment claim was 28 June 2023. The only provision in Schedule 2 which might have permitted an earlier start day here is clause 10. However, it requires that the parenting payment claim be made within four weeks of birth which means it cannot assist the Applicant.
Other provisions in the Administration Act which might have assisted the Applicant's case are sections 13 and 15. Section 13 operates in limited circumstances to deem a claim to have been made where a person contacts Centrelink about a claim for a social security payment and they subsequently make such a claim. However, there are timeframes within which the claim must be lodged, the limit being within 13 weeks of the date of contact. Here, the Applicant's claim had to be lodged by 21 June 2023 for section 13 to have any possible application in respect of her contact on 22 March 2023. Her parenting payment claim on 28 June 2023 was too late, even if other requirements in section 13 were met. It is therefore unnecessary to consider section 13 further.
Section 15 operates in limited circumstances to deem a claim to have been made when an incorrect or inappropriate claim is initially made and an appropriate claim for a social security payment is made later. An "incorrect claim" here is either a claim for a social security payment the person is not qualified for or a supplementary payment as defined. A claim for FTB is not within the definition of either a social security payment or a supplementary payment.
The Respondent Secretary submitted section 15 had no application because the Applicant had not claimed an income support payment before 28 June 2023 and FTB was not within the definition of this term. I do not consider this to be the end of considering the potential application of section 15. Subsection 15(4) provides:
[2]
(4) For the purposes of the social security law, if:
[3]
(a) a person makes a claim for a pension, allowance, benefit or other payment under a law of the Commonwealth, other than this Act or the 1991 Act, or under a program administered by the Commonwealth, that is similar in character to a social security payment, other than a supplementary payment (the initial claim ); and
[4]
(b) when the claim was made, the person was qualified for a social security payment, other than a supplementary payment; and
[5]
(c) the person subsequently makes a claim for the social security payment referred to in paragraph (b) (the later claim ); and
[6]
(d) the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable that this subsection be applied;
[7]
the person is taken to have made the later claim on the day on which the initial claim was made.
[8]
The question which arises in considering the possible application of this provision is whether the Applicant's claim for FTB in December 2022 was for a payment that is similar in character to a social security payment such as parenting payment. If it was, then consideration can be given to other aspects of subsection 51(4) of the Administration Act.
[9]
This issue has been previously considered by the AAT in Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Valori[2002] AATA 252. The Tribunal considered the application of section 15 of the Administration Act and said, at [38]:
[10]
"Family tax benefit and similar payments (such as for child care) are paid to people on low to middle incomes to help them meet the cost of raising dependent children and young adults. (M Raper, The Independent Social Security Handbook 4th ed, Pluto Press Australia, 2001). These payments are different from income support payments such as parenting payment. The difference in the income support nature of a parenting payment, as against family tax benefit, is reflected in the choice that can be made in the case of the latter to have the payment paid fortnightly or at the end of the tax year. Parenting payment is paid to the person, it is not merely an allowance for children. It is paid to only one person in relation to a child whereas family tax benefit can be a shared payment. Its attachment to the person and its nature as income support is reflected also in the fact that if the person receives compensation moneys the payment is affected whereas family payments are not affected by the receipt of compensation, as they are payments for children. Family tax benefits are not asset tested and the rates of payment are dependent on the age of the dependent child, which points to the focus of the payment being on identified requirements of children for different levels of support at different ages. There are many differences of detail in the rates and the way that the payments are calculated."
[11]
I agree with this analysis and find that FTB is not similar in character to parenting payment. This means it is not open to deem the Applicant's claim for FTB in December 2022 to have been a claim for parenting payment.
It follows that, in the circumstances of this case, there is no provision which would enable a start day earlier than the date of the Applicant's parenting payment claim on 28 June 2023.
The Secretary's written submissions put in issue the AAT's finding that the one-week ordinary waiting period which applies generally to new claims did not apply in the Applicant's case. Pursuant to paragraph 500WA(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act), this waiting period applies unless, in the Applicant's case, she was at claim "experiencing a personal financial crisis" as defined in subsection 19DA(1) of the Act. That definition detailed relevant criteria, the first of which was that the Applicant had to be in "severe financial hardship". Under subsection 19C(2) of the Act, the Applicant was in severe financial hardship if the value of her liquid assets was less than $967.90. Her liquid assets were just above $300 at claim, so this criterion was met.
A further requirement for the Applicant to be found to be experiencing a personal financial crisis was that she was in severe financial hardship because she incurred "unavoidable or reasonable expenditure" in the four weeks preceding her start day: subsection 19DA(3) of the Act. Unavoidable or reasonable expenditure is defined in subsection 19C(4) of the Act to include expenditure on reasonable costs of living, car registration, essential medical expenses, essential repairs to a person's house or car and the like. Subsection 91C(5) defined reasonable costs of living to include the costs of food, rent, utilities, regular medical expenses, petrol, public transport and similar regular costs. Subsection 19C(6) provided for an upper limit in respect of expenditure on reasonable costs of living; the limit was set at the amount of four weeks of parenting payment.
The evidence at hearing revealed the Applicant had quire meagre means at the time of claim on 28 June 2023. She and the children lived with her mother, from whom she had to regularly borrow money to make ends meet. After hearing the evidence, Ms Nguyen, who represented the Secretary, accepted it was open to me to find the Applicant was experiencing a personal financial crisis at claim so that she did not have to serve an ordinary waiting period. I consider that concession was properly made, especially in light of the relatively low evidentiary bar set by subsection 19DA(6) of the Act. I agree with the AAT's assessment in this respect and find the Applicant has adequately established she was experiencing a personal financial crisis as defined at the time of her parenting payment claim on 28 June 2023. A one-week ordinary waiting period under section 500WA of the Act did not apply.
There is no provision in the social security law which enables a start day prior to 28 June 2023 in this case. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to attempt to cure any alleged defect in advice or assistance the Applicant received in her contact with Centrelink on 22 March 2023; the Applicant can pursue a claim for compensation in this respect. The AAT correctly found the Applicant should be paid parenting payment from the date of her claim on 28 June 2023. Accordingly, I affirm that decision.
Legislation Cited (2)
Security (Administration) Act 1999
Security Act 1991
Cases Cited (2)
RSMX and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 3062 (12 August 2025)
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Valori[2002] AATA 252