Atzil and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal by Mr Atzil against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to refuse his claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Atzil met the residency requirements for the DSP at the time he first became unable to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr Atzil was an Australian resident at the time he first satisfied the requirements of section 94(1)(c) of the relevant Act, which pertains to the inability to work. Secondly, if he did meet the residency requirements, the Tribunal needed to consider whether section 1173 of the Act, concerning the effect of periodic compensation payments, would reduce any DSP payable.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the interpretation of section 94(1)(e)(i) as established in *Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Michael*. This interpretation requires determining when the impairment first prevented the applicant from doing any work within the two-year period specified in section 94(1)(c). Mr Atzil conceded that he was unable to work from the date of his workplace injury on 25 March 2009. This was contrary to submissions made on his behalf suggesting a later date for his continuing inability to work. The Tribunal found that Mr Atzil was not an Australian resident at the time he first satisfied the criteria for an inability to work. Consequently, the second issue regarding the impact of compensation payments did not need to be considered.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.