Sokolovska and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

[2010] AATA 612

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 612

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )   

)    No: 2010/1557

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION        )   

ReSonja SOKOLOVSKA

Applicant

AndSecretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Respondent

DECISION

TribunalMr RP Handley, Deputy President

Date13 August 2010

PlaceWollongong

DecisionFor the reasons given orally at the hearing, the decision under review is affirmed.

...................[sgd].......................

Mr RP Handley
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY- allowances – applicant ceased full-time study - youth allowance cancelled – newstart application not received – applicant not eligible  for newstart following cancellation of youth allowance and prior to commencing full-time employment

RELEVANT ACTS

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (Cth) ss 543B

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth): ss 11, 16, 80

PREAMBLE

A. At the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the reasons for the decision were stated orally. The Respondent, pursuant to s 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, requested the Tribunal to furnish it with a statement in writing of the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 August 2010 Mr RP Handley, Deputy President

1. Ms Sokolovska has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) dated 1 April 2010 to affirm the Centrelink decisions to cancel Ms Sokolovska’s youth allowance and not pay her a newstart allowance.

Background

1. Ms Sokolovska is aged 23.  She received youth allowance from 10 February 2007 while enrolled as a full-time student in a Bachelor of Dentistry program at the University of Melbourne.  Ms Sokolovska concluded this degree at the end of the spring semester in 2009 and graduated on 5 December 2009.  She applied to undertake further study towards a medical degree in conjunction with a position at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, which was to start on 15 January 2010.

2. On 16 November 2009, she advised Centrelink that she would be continuing study in 2010 and Centrelink advised her that she would continue to be paid until 15 January 2010 on an interim basis.  A form would be sent to her for her to fill out with her full study details. 

3. On the same date, Centrelink also wrote to Ms Sokolovska confirming her contact with them about her intention to claim newstart allowance.  The letter advised her to lodge a preliminary claim form by 24 November 2009 or at any later date.

4. On 29 December 2009, Centrelink sent Ms Sokolovska an SY074 form called “Course details required for Youth Allowance”.  Ms Sokolovska returned the completed form, which was received by Centrelink on 8 January 2010.  It appears this form was transferred to a student processing team.  On 20 January 2010, Centrelink advised Ms Sokolovska that her youth allowance had been suspended for failure to lodge this form – which was obviously incorrect.  However, when the matter was reviewed at the beginning of February 2010, it was, by that time clear that Ms Sokolovska was not intending to continue full-time study.

5. Ms Sokolovska states that in the first week of January 2010, she received formal notification that her application for the Alfred Hospital position had been unsuccessful.  She then looked around for other suitable positions and obtained a position doing dental work at Westmead Hospital, where she commenced on 27 January 2010.

6. In terms of her eligibility for youth allowance, it appears that by 8 January 2010, when her study details form was received by Centrelink, it was clear that she was not enrolled in a course of education and was not, at that time, intending to enrol in a course of full-time education.

7. This meant that pursuant to s 543B of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act), she was not qualified for youth allowance. Section 543B provides that where a person is not undertaking full-time study and is at least 21, they have attained the maximum age for the payment of youth allowance.

8. Thus, in terms of the requirements of the Act, Ms Sokolovska was, because of her age, not entitled to youth allowance for the period from 8 January 2010.

9. Moreover, s 80(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act) provides that where the Secretary is satisfied that a person has been paid a social security payment for which they are not qualified, that payment must be cancelled or suspended. There are also provisions in the Act requiring the person who is receiving a social security benefit such as youth allowance to notify Centrelink of matters that may affect the payment of their benefit, and that Centrelink may cancel or suspend payment of the benefit if that obligation is not complied with.

in relation to ms sokolovska’s claims for newstart allowance

1. Section 11 of the Administration Act requires that a person who seeks a social security payment must lodge a claim for that payment. Section 16 requires that claim must be in writing and in a form approved by the Secretary or in a manner approved by the Secretary of the Department.

2. Ms Sokolovska was receiving youth allowance prior to 8 January 2010 and commenced employment at Westmead Hospital on 27 January 2010.  So the only period in which she could make a claim for Newstart Allowance was from 8 January 2010 to 26 January 2010.

3. Ms Sokolovska states that after learning that her application for the Alfred Hospital position had been unsuccessful, she was desperately looking for dental work across Australia.  She also had to collect her lodgings from Melbourne, bring them to her family home in Wollongong, prior to moving elsewhere.  It was obviously a very busy time for her and she did not lodge a formal claim for Newstart Allowance.  While I understood her reasons for not doing so, I am not, therefore, satisfied, that Ms Sokolovska lodged a claim in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  Thus, the decision not to pay her Newstart Allowance for the period 8 January 2010 to 26 January 2010 was correct.

4. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 14 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RP Handley, Deputy President.

Signed:   ...........[sgd]...............................................................
               Associate

Date of Hearing:  13 August 2010
Date of Oral Decision:  13 August 2010
Date of Written Reasons:                  18 August 2010
Applicant representative:                   Mr V Sokolovski

Respondent representative:              Ms G Heggen, Centrelink Advocacy Branch