The major charities in Australia should not be put in the position of being considered to be an alternate social security system. The current policy at 3.7.2.20 is without legislative basis and should be removed. Recommendation No. 1. The requirement to have attempted to obtain support from all possible alternative sources before being granted Special Benefit should be removed from the Guide to Social Security Law. Special Benefit homelessness requirement for school children Under the Social Security Act 1991, a child must be "homeless" in order to receive Special Benefit, if they are also a full-time student. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has read the definition of "full-time student" broadly to include even primary and secondary school education (Mokofisi and SDFACS 55 ALD 605). This means that in most cases where a parent is not residentially qualified for a payment, but they have an Australian citizen child aged between six and 16 in their care, the child will not receive Special Benefit unless they meet the "homelessness" criterion. The Act requires that a person meet the Youth Allowance definition of "unable to live at home" (UTLAH) in order to be treated as "homeless" for Special Benefit purposes. The application of the UTLAH provisions to cases involving the children of non-resident parents is clumsy. This is because those UTLAH provisions are clearly intended to apply to young people applying for Youth Allowance, who will be over 16 years old. UTLAH provisions are also primarily concerned with the reasons a young person cannot reside at the home of a "parent" and whether or not they are receiving any support from their parents. Linking the definition of "homelessness" to the UTLAH provision just does not fit. It simply cannot readily apply to situations involving child applicants for Special Benefit who are, as a matter of course, reliant on their parents and whatever little support the parents can garner for them through community organisations, family or friends. Recommendation No. 2. The "homelessness" requirement for school students should be removed. Parent cannot receive FTB if receives Special Benefit In situations where a child is residentially qualified for Special Benefit, but the parent is not, it should not be necessary for the parent to forego payment of Family Tax Benefit in order for the child to receive Special Benefit. This means that despite being in serious financial hardship, a family relying on Special Benefit in this way generally receives several hundred dollars per fortnight less than a family
The major charities in Australia should not be put in the position of being considered to be an alternate social security system. The current policy at 3.7.2.20 is without legislative basis and should be removed. Recommendation No. 1. The requirement to have attempted to obtain support from all possible alternative sources before being granted Special Benefit should be removed from the Guide to Social Security Law. Special Benefit homelessness requirement for school children Under the Social Security Act 1991, a child must be "homeless" in order to receive Special Benefit, if they are also a full-time student. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has read the definition of "full-time student" broadly to include even primary and secondary school education (Mokofisi and SDFACS 55 ALD 605). This means that in most cases where a parent is not residentially qualified for a payment, but they have an Australian citizen child aged between six and 16 in their care, the child will not receive Special Benefit unless they meet the "homelessness" criterion. The Act requires that a person meet the Youth Allowance definition of "unable to live at home" (UTLAH) in order to be treated as "homeless" for Special Benefit purposes. The application of the UTLAH provisions to cases involving the children of non-resident parents is clumsy. This is because those UTLAH provisions are clearly intended to apply to young people applying for Youth Allowance, who will be over 16 years old. UTLAH provisions are also primarily concerned with the reasons a young person cannot reside at the home of a "parent" and whether or not they are receiving any support from their parents. Linking the definition of "homelessness" to the UTLAH provision just does not fit. It simply cannot readily apply to situations involving child applicants for Special Benefit who are, as a matter of course, reliant on their parents and whatever little support the parents can garner for them through community organisations, family or friends. Recommendation No. 2. The "homelessness" requirement for school students should be removed. Parent cannot receive FTB if receives Special Benefit In situations where a child is residentially qualified for Special Benefit, but the parent is not, it should not be necessary for the parent to forego payment of Family Tax Benefit in order for the child to receive Special Benefit. This means that despite being in serious financial hardship, a family relying on Special Benefit in this way generally receives several hundred dollars per fortnight less than a family
nwrn-special-benefit-social-exclusion-and-poverty-traps.docx