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

This matter concerned an appeal by a mother against a decision to cancel her carer payment and carer allowance. The mother had been granted these payments in respect of her two children, but Centrelink later reviewed her eligibility and determined she no longer qualified. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was asked to determine whether the mother was providing constant care to her children at the date of cancellation, whether her capacity for employment was severely restricted by this care, and whether the children required constant care.

The AAT considered the evidence from the mother, her general practitioner, and a psychologist. While accepting that the children had disabilities or medical conditions requiring more care than usual, and that caring for them was emotionally and physically demanding, the AAT was not satisfied that the children required "constant care" as defined by the legislation. The AAT placed significant weight on the assessments of the general practitioner and the psychologist, which indicated that the children's skills were age-appropriate or required minimal assistance, and that their care needs did not necessitate constant attention. The AAT also found that the mother's capacity for paid employment was not severely restricted by the provision of care, particularly as she was available for employment when the children were at school.

Ultimately, the AAT concluded that the mother did not meet the criteria for carer payment because she was not providing constant care to her children, nor was her capacity for employment severely restricted by such care. The AAT affirmed the decision under review, finding that the level of care provided did not reflect the children's requirement for constant care.