Editors --- "Parenting payment debt: meaning of 'income' and 'for personal use or benefit'" [2006] SocSecRpr 26; (2006) 8(3) Social Security Reporter, Article 3

• SECRETARY TO THE DEWR v RICHARDS
• Background
• The legislation
• Formal decision

---

Parenting payment debt: meaning of 'income' and 'for personal use or benefit'

SECRETARY TO THE DEWR v RICHARDS

(2006/412)

Decided: 12th May 2006 by P.E. Hack

Background

Richards was employed under a certified agreement as manager of the TAB agency at the Wellington Point Hotel in Brisbane. It was a collateral oral term of her employment that she would personally repay any till shortfalls. This was a usual condition of such employment in Brisbane. Richards received parenting payment and regularly reported her income to Centrelink. She did not include sums she was from time to time required to repay to her employer for till shortages.

In April 2005 at the request of Centrelink her employer provided details of wages paid to her for the period September 2003 to April 2005. There was a discrepancy of approximately $3000.00 between the employer’s wage records and Ms Richards’ income declarations to Centrelink. An overpayment of $1341.87 was raised and Ms Richards sought review of the decision.

The SSAT found in favour of Ms Richards. That Tribunal decided to set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the Secretary with a direction that the respondent’s income for the purposes of determining parenting payment entitlement should exclude amounts paid to make good till shortages.

The Secretary appealed against the decision of the SSAT.

The legislation

‘Ordinary income’ defined in s.8(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) relevantly to be:

(a) an income amount earned, derived or received by the person for the person’s own use or benefit...

Findings

The Tribunal approached the matter from the perspective of whether the amounts Ms Richards provided to make good the till shortages were for her ‘own use or benefit’. The Tribunal found that whilst there was at best nominal receipt by Ms Richards of the monies she was obligated to pay to her employer to make good till shortfalls, it could not be said that in any real sense she earned, derived or received those sums or that she had the use or benefit of them. The Tribunal observed that the Secretary was unable to identify any benefit derived by Ms Richards by payment of the monies beyond the benefit of retaining her employment, and that, in its view, this was not a benefit of the type contemplated by the s.8 definition.

Formal decision

The decision of the SSAT was affirmed.

[I.T.]