Section 500S — Social Security Act 1991: Multiple entitlement exclusion
Text of the provision Official document
(1) Parenting payment is not payable to a person if the person is already receiving a service pension or a veteran payment. (2) If: (a) a person is receiving parenting payment; and (b) a social security pension other than a pension PP (single) or a social security benefit other than a benefit PP (partnered) or a service pension or a veteran payment becomes payable to the person; parenting payment is not payable to the person. Note 1: Another payment type will generally not become payable to the person until the person claims it. Note 2: For social security pension and social security benefit see subsection 23(1). (3) Parenting payment is not payable to a woman if: (a) the woman is an armed services widow; and (b) the woman is receiving a pension under Part II or IV of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act at a rate determined under or by reference to subsection 30(1) of that Act. Note: For armed services widower see subsection 4(1). (4) Parenting payment is not payable to a man if: (a) the man is an armed services widower; and (b) the man is receiving a pension under Part II or IV of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act at a rate determined under or by reference to subsection 30(1) of that Act. Note: For armed services widower see subsection 4(1). (5) Parenting payment is not payable to a person if: (a) the person is an armed services widow or an armed services widower; and (b) the person is receiving the weekly amount mentioned in paragraph 234(1)(b) of the MRCA (including a reduced weekly amount because of a choice under section 236 of the MRCA) or has received a lump sum mentioned in subsection 236(5) of the MRCA. Note 1: For armed services widow and armed services widower see subsection 4(1). Note 2: For MRCA see subsection 23(1).
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →