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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding the commencement date for the applicant's Age Pension. The applicant contended that his Age Pension should have commenced from 13 August 2020, rather than the date determined by the Department. The applicant's primary argument was that he had provided the necessary information and forms to the Department from late August 2020, and crucially, that he had received misleading advice from a Centrelink officer on 13 August 2020, suggesting he would be eligible from that date regardless of when he returned the forms. The applicant also disputed the Department's finding that his claim was lodged on 12 October 2020, arguing that further information was requested even after that date.

The Tribunal was required to determine the effective date of the applicant's Age Pension claim. This involved assessing whether the applicant had made a valid claim on or before 13 August 2020, or if any circumstances existed that would permit the Age Pension to be paid from an earlier date than the lodgement of the completed forms. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertions regarding misleading advice received from a Centrelink officer and the completeness of the information provided at various stages.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's concerns regarding the conduct of the Department's officers and potential breaches of the APS Code of Conduct were outside the scope of its jurisdiction. These matters were identified as avenues for the applicant to pursue separately, such as through a complaint to Centrelink or a claim for compensation under the Scheme for Compensation for detriment caused by Defective Administration. Regarding the Age Pension claim, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had made his claim on 12 October 2020 and did not meet any of the criteria that would allow for payment from an earlier date. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.