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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant whose Newstart allowance had been reduced. The reduction was made by Centrelink following the applicant's receipt of a spousal pension from the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) after the death of her de facto partner. The applicant had initially claimed the pension under the governing rules of the CSS, established by the *Superannuation Act 1976* (Cth), and after initial rejections, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal had determined she was entitled to it. Centrelink then adjusted her Newstart allowance, applying an income test under section 1068 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) to account for the superannuation payments.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the spousal pension received by the applicant from the CSS constituted "ordinary income" for the purposes of the income test applied to her Newstart allowance. The applicant contended that the CSS was not a "complying superannuation fund" for the purposes of section 8 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) due to the provisions of section 45 of the *Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993* (Cth), and therefore, the pension payments were not subject to the income test. The respondent argued that the applicant's contention regarding the CSS not being a complying fund was not part of the reviewable decision made by the Authorised Review Officer and thus not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider.

The Tribunal reasoned that the correct approach involved examining the definitions of "income" and "financial assets and income streams" under sections 8 and 9 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). While the respondent conceded that the CSS payments were exempt from the asset test under section 9(1F) of the Act, the core dispute centred on whether these payments qualified as income under section 8. The Tribunal found that the applicant's argument that the CSS was not a complying fund, and therefore its payments were not subject to the income test, was an issue that did not form part of the reviewable decision. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the reduction in the applicant's Newstart allowance was upheld.