Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Griffiths and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 3016 (20 August 2021)

Aljbour and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 762

1. Mr ZGBH cares for his son who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis on 17 May 2023. Centrelink granted Mr ZGBH carer allowance with effect from 17 November 2023, being the day he actually submitted an online claim for the payment.
2. Mr ZGBH's dealings with Centrelink did not however first begin on 17 November 2023. Rather Mr ZGBH and his partner, Ms G, had been dealing with Centrelink from as early as May 2023, following their son's diagnosis and advice from hospital staff that a grant of carer allowance would be accompanied by a health care card that would assist the family meet the costs of their son's medication.
3. Centrelink's records show that Centrelink had advised Mr ZGBH to claim Family Tax Benefit rather than carer allowance on 29 May 2023, which was subsequently granted albeit without the health care card that was the primary objective for Mr ZGBH and Ms G. Centrelink then appear to have advised Mr ZGBH not to claim carer allowance in October 2023 when he attempted to claim again, because Centrelink considered Ms G to be the appropriate claimant. Centrelink however then rejected the claim because Ms G was not residentially qualified. Mr ZGBH then lodged the claim on 17 November 2023.
4. Mr ZGBH was dissatisfied with Centrelink's decision to pay carer allowance only from 17 November 2023 and applied for review. Centrelink's decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer on 20 March 2024. Mr ZGBH applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review on 6 June 2024.
5. On 25 October 2024, a Senior Member of the Administrative Review Tribunal set aside Centrelink's decision and decided that Mr ZGBH's claim was to be taken to have been made on 11 October 2023 when Ms G had lodged an online claim.
6. On 13 June 2025 Mr ZGBH applied for social services second review of the decision. An extension of time was granted.
7. Following a hearing on 10 February 2026, I ordered the Secretary to provide further written submissions addressing the circumstances and fate at law of a carer allowance claim commenced by Mr ZGBH on 3 July 2023. Written submissions addressing that topic were received on 19 February 2026. Mr ZGBH had an opportunity to provide any written submissions in response by 3 March 2026 but ultimately did not provide any submissions.
8. As noted by the Senior Member at first review, and as also mentioned by the Secretary in these proceedings, Mr ZGBH may wish to pursue a claim for compensation for detriment caused by defective administration from Centrelink under the CDDA scheme. As explained to Mr ZGBH, the role of the Tribunal is to ensure that the correct or preferable decision is made under the social security law. Compensation under the CDDA scheme is not within the framework of the social security legislation, and is not a matter the Tribunal has authority to address.

1. The start date for payment of a social security payment is regulated by social security law.
2. Section 11 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Act) states that for a person to receive a social security payment they must lodge a claim, and section 16 of that Act specifies the method by which a claim is lodged. In the ordinary course of events, if otherwise qualified, the start day for the payment will be the day on which the claim is made: subclause 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act.
3. There are provisions that operate as a limited practical modification to this general rule. For example, section 13 of the Administration Act allows for a claim to be 'deemed' to be made when a person first contacts Services Australia about making a claim, provided the completed claim is lodged within either 14 days or 13 weeks, depending on the circumstances. These provisions will apply where a person falls within a class of persons specified in a legislative instrument: the Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons - Intent to Claim) Determination 2018 (the Determination).
4. The Senior Member at first review was satisfied that Mr ZGBH was in a class of persons determined in the Determination; specifically, a person who was subject to special circumstances beyond their control. The Senior Member accepted Mr ZGBH's submission that the special circumstances beyond his control was his receipt of incorrect advice from Centrelink staff.
5. The Secretary does not seek to disturb the Senior Member's finding that Mr ZGBH is in a class of persons determined in the Determination, but contends for an alternative class; namely a parent of a dependant child born during the relevant period in this regard. Mr ZGBY has also introduced other matters that may bring him into other classes of persons determined in the instrument.
6. I respectfully adopt the Senior Member's analysis from first review. I am satisfied that Mr ZGBH falls within the class of persons determined in paragraph 5(k) of the Determination as he was subject to special circumstances outside his control; namely, the receipt of incorrect advice from Centrelink staff that dissuaded him from lodging the claim earlier. There is sufficient probative evidence in Centrelink's records to indicate that Mr ZGBH was misdirected by Centrelink staff away from lodging a claim for carer allowance.
7. The Senior Member also construed the online claim lodged by Ms G with Centrelink on 11 October 2023 as a contact on behalf of Mr ZGBH in relation to claiming carer allowance, and was otherwise unable to find any earlier contact that was within 13 weeks of 17 November 2023. I agree that the Senior Member's construction of this event is appropriate and reach the same finding. The Secretary does not contend to the contrary. Subject only to the discussion below, I have been unable to identify any record that supports an earlier contact within 13 weeks of 17 November 2023 which may be construed as an intention to claim.
8. Mr ZGBY's qualification for carer allowance turns on his son's medical condition and caring needs. No issue arises as to whether Mr ZGBY was qualified for carer allowance on 11 October 2023 given Centrelink found he was qualified on 17 November 2023.
9. Therefore, the criteria to be satisfied for a claim to be deemed to be made as provided for in section 13 of the Act are satisfied, and I find that Mr ZGBH's claim for carer allowance is deemed to be made on 11 October 2023. Subject only to the discussion below, Mr ZGBY's start date at law is therefore 11 October 2023.
10. In the course of the hearing and in my analysis of the Tribunal papers, I identified references to a claim Mr ZGBH had commenced on 3 July 2023 that was said to have been 'cancelled' by Centrelink. The social security law does not use the term 'cancelled' in the context of the outcome of a claim. Payments may be cancelled under the social security law but claims will be granted, rejected or withdrawn. Where a claim is rejected, review rights flow. Naturally, I was concerned by the introduction of terminology such as 'cancelled' to describe the outcome of what was potentially an earlier claim by Mr ZGBH.
11. At my direction, the Secretary has undertaken further investigation into that reference. The Secretary contends that the reference to a claim of 3 July 2023 being cancelled is a reference to a process where Mr ZGBH commenced a claim online on 3 July 2023, did not submit the claim, and the claim process was cancelled by Centrelink staff. The Secretary contends that Centrelink did not reject the claim because the claim was never lodged. Likewise, Centrelink was not obliged to notify Mr ZGBH of the rejection of the claim, because the claim was never lodged.
12. Mr ZGBY gave evidence that he had commenced an online claim and in the course of that claim, error messages appeared that directed him to approach Centrelink for assistance. He said he did not reach a point in that claim process where the system permitted him to complete and submit the claim. It was when attending the Centrelink office in response to his inability to submit the claim that Mr ZGBY was incorrectly told that his wife should lodge the claim, and in that regard the Secretary concedes that this advice was incorrect. The Secretary contends that in this way Mr ZGBY consented to the claim being 'cancelled', citing section 33 of the Act that provides for a claim to be withdrawn by a claimant. In this way, I understand the Secretary to contend that the proper legal construction of the fate of the claim commenced on 3 July 2023 is that it was withdrawn pursuant to section 33 of the Act.
13. In Griffiths and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 3016 (20 August 2021) (Griffiths), the Tribunal found that an application cannot be treated as having been made unless, and until, the final declaration on the application process has been completed and lodged: see also Aljbour and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 762.
14. The factual scenario presented by Mr ZGBH's circumstances is that a claim was commenced but could not be submitted. Instead, the claimant was provided with an instruction to revert to Centrelink. The claim was then withdrawn following incorrect advice and direction from Centrelink staff. In this way, Mr ZGBY's factual scenario sorely tests the simple legal principal recognised in Griffiths and other such cases. Ultimately however, I think that the principle must hold even against this factual scenario, with the appropriate remedy to the administrative injustice being potentially available in the CDDA scheme.
15. I consider that as a result of the social services first review, the correct start date for Mr ZGBY's claim for carer allowance was identified in accordance with the Act as 11 October 2023. I will therefore affirm the decision under review.