Schubert and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2000] AATA 1041

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 1041

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No V2000/1055

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )          
           Re      JENNIFER SCHUBERT   
  Applicant
           And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES  
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal       Mr J. Handley, Senior Member    

Date17 November 2000

PlaceMelbourne

Decision      The Tribunal decides that the decision of the authorised review officer to pay Youth Allowance to Therese Rauter is not reviewable by the applicant and the application is therefore dismissed pursuant to s.42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
  ........ Sgd. Mr J. Handley .........
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Social Security – Youth Allowance – payments made to applicant as parent prior to beneficiary achieving 18 years; Payment of Youth Allowance paid to beneficiary after she achieved 18 years; whether Centrelink entitled or permitted to make payments to parent after beneficiary achieves 18 years; whether Tribunal has any jurisdiction per s.42(4) of AAT Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 November 2000 Mr J. Handley, Senior Member                

1. The applicant applies to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("SSAT") made on 8 August 2000.  The SSAT then decided to affirm a decision made by an Authorised Review Officer ("ARO").  The ARO decided to pay arrears of Youth Allowance for the period 30 September 1998 to 30 October 1998 to Therese Rauter, the daughter of Mrs Schubert. 

2. This decision has been prepared "on the papers" as a result of an objection to jurisdiction.  The facts may be briefly summarised as follows-

3. At all relevant times prior to Therese achieving 18 years of age youth allowance was paid into her mothers bank account, pursuant to s.559E of the Social Security Act.  When Therese achieved 18 years, all payments were thereafter paid to a bank account held by her pursuant to s.559D of the Act.  Later an application was made for arrears of payments between September and October 1998, which was a period of time whilst Therese was under the age of 18 years.  Centrelink decided to pay arrears but at a point in time after Therese had turned 18 years.  Centrelink decided to pay the arrears into her account.  Mrs Schubert objects to that decision. 

4. Mrs Schubert is clearly very unhappy with the decision made by Centrelink to pay arrears to Therese as described above.  In her application to the Tribunal, a three page typed letter was forwarded (28 August 2000).  Another typed letter was forwarded to the Tribunal (dated 24 October 2000), after the Registrar wrote to her and requested she make submissions concerning jurisdiction.

5. The complaint of Mrs Schubert may be identified from an extract of her letter of 24 October 2000, which reads as follows-

   "My complaint is that Centrelink had not taken responsibility for their contribution to enabling my daughter to behave irresponsibly.  I know Centrelink have other recourse to repay arrears ie. they argue my daughter didn't want to pay board.  Does she operate on this level with her landlord now?  Is it Centrelink's indirect role to allow and encourage this moral behaviour.
   The original review took well over the usual time to resolve.  If Centrelink wish to leave the payment in my childs hands they could not have exercised their power to reimburse me for their mistake.
   My argument is that Centrelink have not looked at the moral side of this case, they have allowed a parent to be disrespected and actively encouraged this by leaving the payment in my daughters hands.  A very disturbed, angry, and rebellious young woman who has run away from home.  That I should negotiate with Therese is preposterous as I do not know her address.  I am a single parent trying to teach a set of responsible attitudes to a daughter, having a very difficult teenage time with a large spending habit.  She spent all her earnings on take-away food, saved none.  Complained that she only had $20 per week from me (an amount my elder daughters have expressed is usually more than they have supporting themselves) plus all her earnings to spend on herself.  
   I believe the decision is damaging to my daughter's sense of personal responsibility and respect."

Conclusion

1. At all relevant times Therese qualified for Youth Allowance.  Before she achieved 18 years the benefit was paid into a bank account nominated by her mother, Mrs Schubert, the applicant in these proceedings.  Thereafter Therese was entitled to receive the payments having achieved 18 years.  Payments were in fact made, after she achieved 18 years, to her bank account.  Centrelink was entitled to do so as a matter of law.  The payment of Youth Allowance pursuant to s.560(1) is inalienable.  Mrs Schubert has no entitlement to it, nor does the law recognise any "moral responsibility" (refer letter 28 August 2000) as she asserts.  The payments made by Centrelink after Therese turned 18 years were properly made.  This extends to the payment of arrears, which were otherwise payable to her before she turned 18 years. 

2. There has been no decision which affects the rights or interests (in law) of Mrs Schubert. She has no entitlement to bring these proceedings and the application must be dismissed pursuant to s.42(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

   I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J. Handley, Senior Member

   Signed:         .....................................................................................
     Secretary

   Date/s of Hearing  "on the papers"
   Date of Decision  17 November 2000
   Counsel for the Applicant         
   Solicitor for the Applicant          
   Counsel for the Respondent     
   Solicitor for the Respondent