Salisbury and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Salisbury against the cancellation of her carer payment and carer allowance. The dispute centred on whether Ms Salisbury continued to meet the eligibility requirements for these payments, specifically concerning the provision of "constant care" to a child, C, in a private residence. The decision was made by K Millar SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Ms Salisbury provided "constant care" to C in a private residence that was C's home, as required by section 953(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). This involved interpreting the meaning of "constant care" in the context of C's living arrangements and Ms Salisbury's activities.

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "constant care" as established in previous cases, including Re Milne and Secretary, Department of Social Services v Smith. These authorities indicate that "constant care" requires consideration of the nature, intensity, frequency, and period of care needs and the carer's activities, encompassing both active and passive supervision. The Tribunal found that while C was living in a supported residential service, Ms Salisbury's role had diminished. Although she visited C daily and performed some tasks such as shopping, cleaning, and assisting with showering, the day-to-day care was primarily provided by support workers. Ms Salisbury's activities, such as cuddling C or watching television, were not considered sufficient to constitute the provision of "constant care" in the manner required by the Act, particularly as C was receiving extensive support from paid carers and professionals.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Salisbury did not meet the criteria for receiving carer payment and carer allowance at the time of the cancellation.