Kotevski and Secretary, Department of Employment (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Kotevski against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Employment (Social Services), affirming a previous decision regarding her claim for Youth Allowance. The core dispute revolved around the date from which Ms Kotevski's Youth Allowance should be granted, specifically whether it could be backdated to her original claim.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Kotevski's second claim for Youth Allowance, lodged on 26 March 2015, should be granted with effect from the date of her original claim on 7 November 2014, or from the date of the second claim. This involved interpreting the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 concerning the effective date of determinations for social security payments, particularly in circumstances where an original claim is rejected due to a failure to provide required documentation.

The Tribunal considered section 107 of the Act, which outlines the general rule for the commencement of determinations. Specifically, it examined subsections 107(2) and 107(3). Subsection 107(2) provides that if a claim is rejected, and a review is sought within 13 weeks of receiving notice of the rejection, and the claim is subsequently granted on review, the determination takes effect from the date the original decision took effect. Conversely, subsection 107(3) states that if the review application is lodged more than 13 weeks after notice of the rejection, the determination takes effect from the date the review application was made. The Tribunal found that Ms Kotevski was notified of the rejection of her original claim on 27 November 2014. Her subsequent claim, which was treated as a review, was not lodged until 26 March 2015, which was more than 13 weeks after she received notice of the rejection.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of subsection 107(3) applied. Therefore, the decision to grant Ms Kotevski's Youth Allowance with effect from 26 March 2015, the date of her second claim, was correct. The decision under review was affirmed.