Valori; Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services - [2002] AATA 252

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 252

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Nº V2001/865
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
  Re:         SECRETARY TO THE
  DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
  COMMUNITY SERVICES
  Applicant
  And:       RITA VALORI
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       M.J. Carstairs, Member
Date:             12 April 2002
Place:            Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that parenting payment is not payable to the respondent prior to 15 March 2001.

(sgd) M.J. Carstairs
Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – parenting payment –whether payable from date of lodgement of claim for family tax benefit and maternity allowance - whether a claim for family tax benefit can be treated as a claim for parenting payment
Social Security Act 1991 ss23, 500K
Social Security Administration Act 1999 s15
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s15AA
Calderaro v Secretary Department of Social Security (1991) 24 ALD 556
Scott v Secretary Department of Social Security (1999) 57 ALD 627
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Cooper (1990) 21 ALD 155
Re Favara and Department of Social Security (1988) 16 ALD 64
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Hissey
(AATA 9042, 8 October 1993)
Re Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Quinn [2002] AATA 81
P Whiteford, D Stanton and M Gray "Families and Income Security; Changing Patterns of Social Security and Related Policy Issues" (2001) Vol 60 Family Matters 24-35
M Raper, The Independent Social Security Handbook 4th ed Pluto Press Australia 2001

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 April 2002 M.J. Carstairs, Member

This is an application by the Secretary to the Department of Family Community Services (the applicant) for review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT) on 1 June 2001. The SSAT set aside a decision of a Centrelink delegate that the respondent could be paid parenting payment only from 15 March 2001 and not from an earlier date.
At the hearing the applicant was represented by Mr M. Todd, an advocate with Centrelink. The respondent represented herself. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as well as a Statement of Facts and Contentions lodged by the applicant (exhibit A1).
BACKGROUND
The respondent is aged thirty years. She is the mother of a child, Lance Valori, born on 7 July 2000. Her partner, Colin Colston, is self-employed.
The respondent claimed family tax benefit at the time of the birth of her son, after she received the relevant forms while in hospital after the birth. Family tax benefit (which has two levels of payment, Parts A and B) was a new payment provided for in legislation that came into effect on 1 July 2000 under a series of Acts associated with the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. The claim form that the respondent lodged on 27 July 2000 was headed Claim for Family Tax Benefit, Maternity Allowance, and Maternity Immunisation Allowance (T3). At Question 13, the respondent estimated the combined income of herself and her partner as $26,000 for the year 2000.
Centrelink wrote to the respondent on 31 July 2000 advising her that she would be paid family tax benefit (both parts A and B) on a continuing basis as well as the one-off payment of maternity allowance of $780 (T5). The letter confirmed that Centrelink was using the combined income estimated by the respondent to calculate regular payments of family tax benefit.
On 15 March 2001 the respondent telephoned Centrelink. It appears from the computer record of the telephone call that the respondent's entitlement to parenting payment at the partnered rate (parenting payment) was discussed. However a Centrelink officer stated that this payment could only be made from the time of lodgement of a claim. A claim form was sent to the respondent and it was returned to Centrelink on 26 March 2001.
In the new claim the combined income of the respondent and her partner was shown as $8270. Centrelink does not dispute that on that level of income the respondent was entitled to parenting payment from the time of Lance's birth.
The respondent was dissatisfied with the decision that she would be paid parenting payment only from 15 March 2001. She sought review of the decision and stated in her letter dated 29 March 2001 (T11):
…
In July 2000, I gave birth to my baby boy and filled out the family assistance forms I was given in hospital. The forms I was given were to for Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B. There was no mention of Parenting Payment, and until last week I had never heard of it. Lance was my first baby and I was quite naive when it came to government payments. I have been in the workforce for the past 8 years and haven't required any government assistance; therefore I was unaware of all that is available to assist low-income earners and what my entitlements should be.
Currently I am a full time mum, not earning an income. My husband is self-employed and doesn't have a regular, predictable income. Especially with the GST coming into effect in July 2000, we were more uncertain of what to predict for his income for the following 12 months.
It was by coincidence that I learned of Parenting Payment; I phoned 13 6150 to query a letter of review that I received in the mail. The main on the other end of the line questioned why I wasn't receiving Parenting Payment when he felt I should be eligible to receive at least part of the payment, given the estimate I declared for my husband. After he gave me a full explanation of what Parenting Payment was, I too felt that I was entitled to it and was angry that no one had informed me of it previously.
Prior to completing the Centrelink forms, I consulted a Centrelink representative. As my husband is self-employed, I was advised by Centrelink to overestimate our income for the financial year. My husband's taxable income for the year 1999-2000 was nearly $6000.00, (as he had just started his own business). Given his taxable income, I also allowed for depreciation and moneys paid to a solicitor. The amount I would have roughly estimated for the following financial year would have been around $16,000.00. On the advice I received, I generously overestimated the financial year's income to be $24,000.00 in an effort to protect myself from being in a position where I would need to repay paid benefits.
However, had I known that there was another benefit that I would have been entitled to, I would have taken this into consideration when making my estimate. You will be aware that to be eligible for Parenting Payment, the income needs to be between $13,900.00 and $25,700.00. My estimate for my husband's income was for $24,000.00. My own was for $2000.00. This only barely falls short of the amount allowed. Had I not been overly generous with my estimate (as per your recommendation), then I would have been receiving Parenting Payment since the birth of my child. (Currently, my husband's income is $8270.00. We are well within our rights to claim Parenting Payment, and since bringing this to the attention of your staff we have been granted it).
An authorised review officer on 1 May 2001 affirmed the decision. The review officer said in her reasons that as the claim for parenting payment was lodged more than four weeks after the birth of Lance, there was no discretion in the legislation to backdate the claim, even if Centrelink failed to advise you of a possible entitlement (T13). The respondent then sought review by the SSAT.
The SSAT set aside the decision not to backdate the claim, and decided the claim for parenting payment could be backdated to July 2000, based upon the claim for family tax benefits and maternity allowance made at that time. The applicant has sought review of this decision and lodged an application with the Tribunal on 13 July 2001.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
There was no dispute between the parties as to the facts in this case. The Tribunal accepts the facts as found by the SSAT, namely that the respondent has one child Lance, born on 7 July 2000; that she lodged a completed claim form, first for family tax benefit and maternity allowance on 27 July 2000 and later lodged a claim for parenting payment on 26 March 2001; and that she was advised by Centrelink on 15 March 2001 that she was entitled to parenting payment.
The applicant submitted that the SSAT had erred in applying the law. In backdating the payment of parenting payment to July 2000 the SSAT applied s15 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act), which provides:
15.(1)      For the purposes of the social security law, if:
(a)a person makes a claim for a social security payment; and
(b)the claim is an incorrect claim; and
(c)the person subsequently makes a claim for another social security payment for which the person is qualified; and
(d)the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable that this subsection be applied;
the person is taken to have made a claim for that other social security payment on the day on which he or she made the incorrect claim.
15.(2)      For the purposes of this section, a claim made by a person is an incorrect claim if:
(a)the claim is for a social security payment, other than a supplementary payment; and
(b)when the claim was made, the person was not qualified for the payment claimed but was qualified for another social security payment, other than a supplementary payment.
15.(3)      For the purposes of this section, a claim made by a person is an incorrect claim if:
(a)the claim is for a supplementary payment; and
(b)when the claim was made, the person was not qualified for the payment claimed but was qualified for another supplementary payment.
15.(4)      For the purposes of this section, a claim made by a person is an incorrect claim if:
(a)the claim is for a pension, allowance, benefit or other payment under a law of the Commonwealth, other than this Act or the 1991 Act, or under a program administered by the Commonwealth, that is similar in character to a social security payment, other than a supplementary payment; and
(b)when the claim was made, the person was qualified for a social security payment, other than a supplementary payment.
15.(5)      In this section:
supplementary payment means:
(a)carer allowance; or
(b)double orphan pension; or
(c)education entry payment; or
(d)employment entry payment; or
(i)mobility allowance; or
(j)pensioner education supplement.
The SSAT considered that the particular provision applying in the respondent's case was subsection 15(4). The SSAT also considered that there was inconsistency between subsections 15(1) and 15(4) of the Administration Act. It expressed the view that, if s15(1) was read as only applying when the incorrect claim was one for a payment under the social security law, as the commencing words of the s15(1) set out, there was no work for s15(4) to do as s15(4) operated only where the claim was not made under the social security law .
Provisions similar to s15 of the Administration Act have a long history in social security legislation. At the time the Social Security Act 1947 (the 1947 Act) was passed, s145 of that Act provided:
145 Where a person makes a claim to an officer, authority or Department of the Commonwealth for a pension, allowance, benefit or other payment under an Act other than this Act, or under a particular provision of this Act, and the circumstances are such that the claim might properly have been made under this Act, or under some other provision of this Act, as the case may be, the Director-General may, if he considers it reasonable to do so, and subject to the lodgment of a claim in accordance with the appropriate form, treat the first-mentioned claim, for the purpose of determining the date from which a pension, allowance or benefit is payable to that person under this Act, as a claim for whichever pension, allowance or benefit under this Act is appropriate in the circumstances and as having been lodged with the appropriate officer.
The provision (though in a later form in the 1947 Act) was examined by the Federal Court in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Cooper (1990) 21 ALD 155. In that case, the Court was considering whether a disability support pension could be paid to the date when Samantha Cooper became entitled on turning 16 (the required level of disability not being in issue). At age 16 she had lodged a claim for the continuation of the handicapped child allowance she had been receiving. In its reasons the Federal Court said (at p 160):
But there remain questions as to the construction of the subsection. In construing it importance should be attached to the fact that it operates by way of extension of the benefits conferred by beneficial legislation. It should be construed generously so that the palliation it offers of any rigidity in ss158 and 159 may be fruitful in favour of the disadvantaged persons with whose claims it is concerned. Its language should be applied, in accordance with the obvious intent, so that if possible a benefit which ought to have been received shall not be excluded by the failure of a disadvantaged person to put in the "right" claim in technical sense. To construe the words of the subsection in a narrowly technical spirit would be quite perversely contrary to its evident purpose. It is intended to overcome technicality and to have as broad an operation as its language would allow.
This part of the judgment was applied by the SSAT in the respondent's case. Whilst the SSAT perceived drafting errors and inconsistencies between ss15(1) and s15(4), it considered that the concept of beneficial legislation allowed inconsistency to be resolved in the respondent's favour.
It is also worth noting however that the Federal Court in Cooper went on to say at p160:
That the draftsman of s159(5) was not thinking technically is at once apparent if attention is given to the use of the word "payment". The provision talks of a "payment to a person of a pension allowance benefit or other payment". This is to treat any benefit made available by social security legislation as a form of payment which is plainly a broad and loose use of that word.
After the Federal Court handed down this decision, substantial amendments were made to the social security legislation to confine the circumstances where a claim for one payment might be treated as a claim for another. At the time that Cooper was decided (under the 1947 Act) there were few definitions in the legislation that either limited or specified the meaning of the term "pension benefit or allowance". It has been noted in cases following Cooper, (Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Hissey (AATA 9042, 8 October 1993)) that after the decision by the Federal Court, the Annual Report, tabled by the Secretary to the Department of Social Security for 1991, recorded:
The power under the Act to treat a claim or a form for one type of payment as a claim for another is considerably broader than the Department realised, according to the Full Federal Court in Cooper. The decision ran counter to all the legal advice the Department had received for a considerable period. Amendments to the Act to overcome the potential administrative difficulties raised by the decision are under consideration.
The legislation now has numerous terms defined for purposes of interpreting the provision in its current form in s15 of the Administration Act. It could no longer be said, as the Federal Court had said in Cooper, that "payment" has a broad and loose usage in the legislation. Turning to those terms which now appear in s15 and that are defined in the Administration Act or in the Social Security Act 1991 (the 1991 Act) the first key term in 15(1) is the social security law. Section 3 of the Administration Act defines this as:
3.(3) A reference in this Act to the social security law (other than the reference in section 4) is a reference to this Act, the 1991 Act and any other Act that is expressed to form part of the social security law.
Subsection 3(2) states further that expressions used in the 1991 Act have the same meaning when used in the Administration Act. As pointed out in Re Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Quinn [2002] AATA 81, subsections 23(15) and 23(16) of the 1991 Act were enacted with effect from 20 March 2000 to mirror in the 1991 Act this reference to the social security law in the Administration Act. Other terms used in section 15 that are defined in the 1991 Act (all definitions below appearing in s23 of the 1991 Act) are:
"social security payment" means:
(a)a social security pension; or
(b)a social security benefit; or
(c)an allowance under this Act; or
(e)any other kind of payment under Chapter 2 of this Act; or
(f)a pension, benefit or allowance under the 1947 Act;
"social security pension" means:
(a)an age pension; or
(b)a disability support pension; or
(c)a wife pension; or
(d)a carer payment; or
(e)a pension PP (single); or
(ea)a sole parent pension; or
(f)a bereavement allowance; or
(g)a widow B pension; or
(h)a mature age allowance under Part 2.12A; or
(i)a mature age partner allowance; or
(k)a special needs pension;
"social security benefit" means:
(aa)widow allowance; or
(aab)youth allowance; or
(aac)austudy payment; or
(a)newstart allowance; or
(c)sickness allowance; or
(d)special benefit; or
(e)partner allowance; or
(ea)a mature age allowance under Part 2.12B; or
(f)benefit PP (partnered); or
(g)parenting allowance (other than non-benefit allowance).
The reference in the definition of social security payment to Chapter 2 of this Act results in the inclusion, apart from all the pensions and benefits named in the definition of social security pension and social security benefits, most other allowances and payments under the 1991 Act excepting such additional payments as health cards, student financial supplements, telephone and rent assistance (which appear in other Chapters of the 1991 Act). Certain of the pensions, benefits and allowances then are defined as supplementary payments in subsection 15(5) of the Administration Act, a term used in subsections 15(2),(3) and (4) the Administration Act.
The term social security law is used in the opening words to s15 of the Administration Act and elsewhere in the section, and it reflects legislative changes to the provision of social security payments and of payments to families which commenced on 1 July 2000. At that time the provision of assistance to families with children was simplified by reducing twelve types of assistance into three programmes, namely family tax benefit (Parts A and B) and child care benefit, (P Whiteford, D Stanton, M Gray: "Families and Income Security; Changing Patterns of Social Security and Related Policy Issues" (2001) Vol 60 Family Matters: 24-35). The legislation covering the provision of the new payments for families was the family assistance law. This is defined in the 1991 Act at s23:
family assistance law means any one or more of the following:
(a)the Family Assistance Act;
(b)the Family Assistance Administration Act;
(c)regulations under the Family Assistance Administration Act;
(d)Schedules 5 and 6 to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Act 2000.
Through these Acts, provision was made for family tax benefits, childcare benefits, and maternity and maternity immunisation allowances (payments claimed by the respondent in July 2000). Prior to the introduction of this new legislation for families, many of these payments or payments of a similar kind were found in the social security legislation in the 1991 Act. Thereafter, the family payments were clearly delineated as not being within the social security law.

Section 15 of the Administration Act was in operation from 20 March 2000, some months before the family assistance law came into effect in July 2000. Until the repeal of the payments for families under the 1991 Act in July 2000 when the family assistance law commenced, subsection 15(5) of the Act included in the definition of supplementary payments the following:
supplementary payment means:
(a)carer allowance; or
(b)double orphan pension; or
(c)education entry payment; or
(d)employment entry payment; or
(e)family allowance; or
(f)family tax payment; or
(g)maternity allowance; or
(h)maternity immunisation allowance; or
(i)mobility allowance; or
(j)pensioner education supplement.
The removal of (e)(f)(g) and (h) from the definition occurred through the A New Tax System (Family Assistance – Related Measures) Act 2000 Schedule 3. Only one of the payments claimed by the respondent in July 2000 had appeared as a supplementary benefit in the definition in s15(5) of the Act, and that was maternity allowance, though it had ceased to be included by the time of the respondent's claim.
The effect of the changes introduced by the family assistance law in July 2000 was that family tax benefit and maternity allowances claimed by the respondent were not part of the social security law. Nor were they social security payments within the meaning of that term in s15 at the time of her claim on 27 July 2000. So much was agreed by the SSAT. However the SSAT considered that 15(4) of the Act could be applied in the respondent's case, because the legislation that provided for the claimed family tax benefits was a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act or the 1991 Act and the SSAT considered the family tax benefit was similar in character to a social security payments generally and to parenting payment in particular (T2 para 12). The SSAT identified the similarity as being that both family tax benefit and parenting payment were payable to people with dependent children, and both were subject to means testing though tested on different bases.
Mr Todd submitted that family tax benefit is a payment to assist families with the cost of raising children. He submitted that it is not provided as a means of income support for either parent, whereas parenting payment is an income support payment paid to a person because the person is caring for a child and therefore less able to work. He submitted that family tax benefit was similar to other supplementary payments made to individuals designed to give additional assistance. He submitted that this was clear in Part 3. 5.1.130 of Centrelink policy guidelines. Part 3.5.1.130 is headed "Supplementary Benefits and Assistance for Parenting Payment Recipients" and includes in its reference, family tax benefits, maternity allowance, rent assistance, and other payments such as telephone allowance, and entry payments to employment and education. Mr Todd submitted that the level of payments for supplementary payments was lower per fortnight than payments designed as income support.
In coming to a decision in this matter the Tribunal takes into account the submissions of the parties and the documentary evidence. The overriding provision of the Act is that to be granted a social security payment a person must make a claim (s11 of the Administration Act). Some claims may be deemed from earlier dates if ss13, 14 and 15 apply. The discretion that one claim can be treated as another is provided for in s15(1). Section 15 of the Administration Act requires that several preconditions must exist cumulatively, before the decision maker turns their mind to the question of exercising the discretion available (Calderaro v Secretary Department of Social Security 1991 24 ALD 556). The cumulative preconditions are that a person makes a claim for a social security payment and that the claim is an incorrect claim and that the person is qualified subsequently for a claimed social security payment. What will be an incorrect claim for the purposes of the section is set out in subsections 15(2), 15(3) and 15(4).
Effect must be given to the legislative changes reflected by the change of words when s15 of the Administration Act came into operation in March 2000. Prior to this, provisions equivalent to s15 of the Administration Act were to be found in many of the types of payment for pensions and benefits covered by Chapter 2 of the 1991 Act. Thus, prior to the Administration Act coming into force, where a person sought the payment of parenting payment from an earlier date on the basis of a prior claim, the backdating provisions were to be found at s500K(3) of the 1991 Act, with other provisions relating to parenting payment. The subsection then used the words:
Initial incorrect or inappropriate claim followed by claim for parenting payment
500K.(3) If:
(a)a person makes a claim (in this subsection called the initial claim) for:
(i)a social security or service pension or a social security benefit; or
(ii)a pension, allowance, benefit or other payment under another Act, or under a program administered by the Commonwealth, that is similar in character to parenting payment; and
(b)on the day on which the person makes the initial claim, the person is qualified for parenting payment; and
(c)the person subsequently makes a claim for parenting payment; and
(d)the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person;
the person's provisional commencement day is the day on which the person made the initial claim.
It is important to note that the wording in the 1991 Act, prior to the introduction of s15, used the term initial claim rather than, as presently in s15 of the Act, incorrect claim. In the provision in the 1991 Act at 550K it was only the heading that conveyed that the claim was incorrect for some reason. Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that a construction that would promote the purposes of an Act is to be preferred. When the history of the provision is traced it can be seen that the legislative provision has been refined to identify with greater particularity those claims that are susceptible to backdating. The new provision in s15 of the Administration Act clearly spells out by the change of wording that the first claim is actually an incorrect claim.
Each of subsections (2), (3) and (4) deem what will be in incorrect claim within ss15(1)(b). The Macquarie Dictionary defines "incorrect" as meaning :
Adj.    1.       Not correct as to fact
2        Improper
3        not correct in form or manner
Subsection 15(2) deals with claims made under the social security law that are not supplementary payments. The subsection requires that the person lack qualification under the first claim at the time it is made. The subsection matches social security payments (as first claims) to other social security payments (as second claims) and deals only with claims made under the social security law. Therefore, for instance, a supplementary payment cannot be backdated from an initial claim for a social security payment. Subsection 15(3) performs the same function in regard to the supplementary payments under the social security law. In other words both ss15(2) and (3) identify the incorrectness as lack of qualification at the time of the claim, a meaning closest to the first of the meanings in the Macquarie definition.
Subsection 15(4) of the Act refers only to those payments that are similar to social security payments (apart from supplementary payments) though not claimed under the social security law. The subsection does not require that the person lack qualification for the first payment claimed. Nor does s15(1) require that this be so. If s15(4) required that a person lack qualification on the first claim it would have been quite simple for the legislators to say as much, as they did in the deeming provisions in 15(2) and 15(3).
The absence of a clear requirement in s15(4) for the person not to be qualified for the first payment claimed must be taken to mean that the deeming provision establishes incorrectness in the fact that the person has not applied under the 1991 Act or the Administration Act, where he or she is qualified (as required by s15(1)(c)) on the subsequent claim made under the social security law.
Read this way there is no inconsistency between s15(1) and s15(4). Subsection 15(4) is a provision which deems as a claim under the social security law that which is not such a claim. The subsection requires that the claim be similar in character to a social security payment, but excludes those named supplementary payments in s15(5). The provision in s15(5) would perhaps more clearly express its purpose if the opening words read:
For the purposes of this section, a claim made by a person is an incorrect claim for a social security payment if …

However, when read this way the section is not ambiguous, nor is there inconsistency between s15(1) and s15(4) of the Administration Act that might make the provision unworkable.

Applying s15(4) to the claim made by the respondent in July 2000, being a claim under the family assistance law, it was a claim for a benefit or payment under a law of the Commonwealth other than the [Administration] Act or the 1991 Act. However the claim had to be one similar in character to a social security payment - as defined in s23 of the 1991 Act.
In Calderaro the Federal Court said that the question of whether a payment is similar in character to another is primarily a question of fact. To consider the issue the Court said it is necessary to ascertain the features of the payments being compared. It is then necessary to make a comparison of the essential features to see if there is sufficient similarity, applying the tests as set out in Cooper (at p.161) namely that more importance is to be placed on similarity in some respect than on the presence of some dissimilarity; that consideration be given to whether each payment is equally suitable to meet the circumstances that give rise to the application for it; and that attention be paid to practical realities rather than legal technicalities. In Re Favara and Department of Social Security (1988) 16 ALD 64, the Tribunal said that it is relevant to consider the use to which it is intended that payments should be put, as well as criteria of eligibility and administrative classification used by the administering Department. In Favara the Tribunal observed that throughout the Act there was a distinction between mainstream payments, those that provide income support and supplementary payments, those that assist with other needs or are one-off payments. In that case the Tribunal decided that a family payment in existence at that time (family income supplement) was not similar in character to an invalid pension.
Family tax benefit and similar payments (such as for child care) are paid to people on low to middle incomes to help them meet the cost of raising dependent children and young adults. (M Raper, The Independent Social Security Handbook 4th ed, Pluto Press Australia, 2001). These payments are different from income support payments such as parenting payment. The difference in the income support nature of a parenting payment, as against family tax benefit, is reflected in the choice that can be made in the case of the latter to have the payment paid fortnightly or at the end of the tax year. Parenting payment is paid to the person, it is not merely an allowance for children. It is paid to only one person in relation to a child whereas family tax benefit can be a shared payment. Its attachment to the person and its nature as income support is reflected also in the fact that if the person receives compensation moneys the payment is affected whereas family payments are not affected by the receipt of compensation, as they are payments for children. Family tax benefits are not asset tested and the rates of payment are dependent on the age of the dependent child, which points to the focus of the payment being on identified requirements of children for different levels of support at different ages. There are many differences of detail in the rates and the way that the payments are calculated.
Some assistance to understanding the essential differences between payments of family support and those of income support, however, is to be gained by understanding the history of earlier types of family payments, similar to the current family tax benefit and other payments under the family assistance law. That history is to be understood by looking at the provisions that they have replaced (see para 22 above). Prior to the repeal of the provisions in the social security law dealing with payments for children, s15(5)(e)(f)(g) and (h) of the Administration Act named as supplementary payments the family payments now found in the family assistance law and therefore excluded them from the backdating provisions in 15(4).
For these reasons the Tribunal decides that the claim made by the respondent in July 2000 whilst it was a claim for a payment under a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act or the 1991 Act was not a claim for a payment similar in character to the claim for parenting payment made in March 2001. The claim made in July 2000 therefore was not an incorrect claim within the meaning of s15(1) of the Administration Act and therefore the discretion in that subsection cannot be exercised in the respondent's case.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that parenting payment is not payable to the respondent prior to 15 March 2001.
I certify that the forty-one [41] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
M.J. Carstairs, Member
(sgd)       Catherine Thomas
              Clerk
Date of Hearing:  15 October 2001
Date of Decision:  12 April 2002
Solicitor for the applicant:           Nil — Mr M. Todd, Advocate with Centrelink
Solicitor for the respondent:        Nil — self-represented