Editors --- "Youth allowance debt: whether failed to notify of mother's employment" [2006] SocSecRpr 25; (2006) 8(3) Social Security Reporter, Article 2

• KOSTER and SECRETARY TO THE DEST
• Background
• Discussion
• Formal decision

---

Youth allowance debt: whether failed to notify of mother's employment

KOSTER and SECRETARY TO THE DEST

(2006/546)

Decided: 23rd June 2006 by M. Short

Background

Koster applied for youth allowance on 12 August 1999 and the payments were made into her mother’s, Ms Scobie’s, account. In February 2000 Scobie advised Centrelink of an increase in her income and surrendered her entitlement to parenting payment and family tax benefit. These details were not recorded on Koster’s file and Centrelink continued to pay the youth allowance into her mother’s account from 3 February 2000 until 17 October 2001. The total amount of the debt raised was $7048.53.

The SSAT affirmed the decision to raise the debt but decided that recovery should be delayed for 12 months. This period had elapsed and Koster argued that the debt should be waived altogether mainly because her mother had provided her income details to Centrelink and neither she nor her mother realised that she no longer had an entitlement to youth allowance.

Discussion

The AAT considered the debt arose as a result of lack of entitlement and that Koster was not entitled to receive youth allowance paid for the period under review, and consequently the debt was recoverable.

Koster argued that the debt should be waived on the grounds of sole administrative error or special circumstances. She argued that as the payments were made into her mother’s account, it was her mother who had the obligation to advise Centrelink of any relevant changes and her mother had, in fact, done so.

The AAT followed the cases of Secretary to the DFaCS and Rowe [2001] AATA 152 and Secretary to the DFaCS and Ringin [2002] AATA 281, stating that the onus rested upon the ultimate recipient of the benefit, that is, the child, to notify Centrelink of any relevant changes so that, even if another person (such as Koster’s mother in this case) attempted to advise Centrelink of any relevant changes on the child’s behalf, that did not alleviate the recipient child of the responsibility.

The AAT also reiterated and endorsed the Tribunal’s view in Ringin that the legislation permits Centrelink to issue notices to a minor in circumstances where the payments are being made to a bank account controlled by the parent, and that the child is also the ‘recipient’ for the purposes of the debt creation provisions.

As Koster did not advise Centrelink of the changes to her mother’s income, the AAT considered that it could not be said that the debt arose solely as a result of administrative error.

In relation to waiver under special circumstances, Koster relied upon the case of Primo and Anor and Secretary to the DFaCS [2003] AATA 664 where, in similar circumstances, the AAT decided that unusual or uncommon circumstances arose out of Centrelink’s failure to record information on all files in which that information may have been relevant. The AAT in this instance considered that a ‘different conclusion in relation to special circumstances was reached in Ringin’ (Reasons, para. 11) and the Tribunal did not consider that special circumstances arose out of the way in which the debt occurred in this case. The AAT did not consider that the existence of a significant HECS debt amounted to special circumstances given Koster’s ‘reasonable financial position’.

Formal decision

The AAT affirmed the decision under review.

[S.P.]