KWCS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review)
[2025] ARTA 1027
•11 July 2025
KWCS and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 1027 (11 July 2025)
Applicant/s: KWCS
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2023/2359
Tribunal:Senior Member Suthers (second review)
Place:Perth
Date:11 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
................[SGD]..................
Senior Member
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by
ss 201(1A)-201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY –– Pension Loans Scheme –– calculation and recovery of loan with charges and interest –– scope of permissible review
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)CASES
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16
Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Inc v Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services [1992] FCA 599; (1992) 39 FCR 225
McDonald v Director General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 31 ALR 666
Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167Telstra Corporation Ltd v Barrow (1994) 35 ALD 461
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Government, Guides to Social Policy Law, Social Security Guide
Statement of Reasons
SUMMARY
The Pension Loans Scheme (‘the Scheme’), in essence, allows pension recipients who are entitled to less than a full pension to receive regular amounts ‘topping up’ the payments they receive, up to a maximum rate, by way of a loan from the Commonwealth.
Compounding interest is applied to the sum of the loan payments received that exceed the pension entitlement, and the establishment costs. A participant in the Scheme may be required to provide security, by way of a charge that may be registered over real property, for the debt created by the loan (‘the Debt’).
After a long career as a licensed conveyancer, the Applicant became a recipient of the aged pension, but she was entitled to less than the full pension due to the value of her assets, as assessed at the time.
On 27 August 2010, she completed and signed a request form seeking payment under the Scheme, which was lodged through Services Australia (‘Centrelink’).
The Applicant nominated a property she owned at the time (‘the Initial Security’) as security for the loan. At that time, she already owed monies on the property under a mortgage to the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (‘ANZ’).
In answer to a question on the request form asking, ‘how much do you wish to receive as a loan each fortnight?’, the Applicant sought payments by way of loan ‘up to retired single pension per fortnight’.
In signing the request form, the Applicant declared, in part, that she was making a request under s 1136 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (‘the Act’) to participate in the Scheme.
She also acknowledged, by signing the request form, her understanding that:
(a)
the Initial Security would be taken as security against the loan and that a charge will be placed over the property with any cost incurred by the Commonwealth in registering the charge being payable by her in accordance with
s 1143 of the Act;
(b)interest will be charged on the balance of the loan and compounded fortnightly; and
(c)she could change her rate of payment or terminate her loan advances by written request to Centrelink, and either repay the loan in full or leave the Debt plus interest accruing to be recovered from her estate.
Between 22 September 2010 and 21 February 2019, the Applicant received payments under the Scheme, which varied in amount from time to time as her rate of entitlement to the pension varied.
After 21 February 2019, the Applicant was no longer eligible for payments under the Scheme, as she became entitled to a full pension.
On 4 September 2020, the Applicant requested that the caveat registered over the Initial Security be moved to her residential property (‘the Subsequent Security’) and Centrelink confirmed with her that the cost of doing so would be $1,203.86, which was added to her loan.
On 8 March 2022, as part of the sale of the Subsequent Security, the Applicant repaid her Debt under the Scheme, which Centrelink had (after an earlier correction) calculated at $78,279.65, in full. That total consisted of:
(a)principal;
(b)fees for lodgement and release of the caveat securing the Initial Security and the Subsequent Security; and
(c)interest.
In the meantime, the Applicant had become very dissatisfied with the extent of her Debt under the Scheme. From 2013, she began writing to various politicians asking them to resolve her concerns about the Scheme, or in her words to ‘get this stopped’.
On 24 March 2020, the Applicant sought a review of Centrelink’s decision to approve her involvement in the Scheme. By a decision of 21 April 2020, an Authorised Review Officer (‘ARO’) affirmed that decision. That decision is not before me to review. Similarly, whilst the Applicant has previously contended that her assets were at times overvalued by Centrelink, that issue is not before me to review and material in evidence shows that Centrelink took steps to revise its calculations after revaluations were undertaken.
The Applicant made a complaint to Centrelink on 15 September 2021 regarding the fees of $1,203.86 that had been added to her Debt arising from the transfer of security. Centrelink treated her complaint as a request for a review.
On 17 February 2022, an ARO affirmed Centrelink’s decisions to:
(a)apply fortnightly interest charges to the balance of the Debt;
(b)continue to apply a caveat over the Subsequent Security for the Debt; and
(c)add $1,203.86 to the balance of the Debt for the cost of moving the caveat from the Initial Security to the Subsequent Security.
The Applicant then sought first review of the decision of the ARO made on 17 February 2022 in the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’).
During those proceedings, the AAT requested that the Secretary have Centrelink review its decision on the final amount recovered for the Debt, including its calculation of interests and other costs (such as the discharge of the caveat). This led to a further review of this decision by an ARO.
On 20 October 2022, an ARO affirmed the decision to recover the sum of $78,279.65 from the Applicant, as her Debt under the Scheme.
The Applicant then sought first review of the 20 October 2022 decision in the AAT, and a further hearing was conducted in respect of that issue.
On 7 March 2023, in a single decision, the AAT affirmed the ARO decisions of 17 February 2022 and 20 October 2022 (the ‘AAT’s Decision’).
The Applicant has sought second review of the AAT’s decision[1] which is the matter before me.
[1] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the ‘Transitional Act’), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’). The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
The Applicant now says that she did not understand, when she requested to enter the Scheme, that she would be required to pay compounding interest on the loan. She says she only discovered that in 2010, and that she then repeatedly tried to cancel the loan. She says that the fees for releasing and registering the caveats over the two properties she gave as security are exorbitant.
A hearing was conducted on 28 February 2025. The Applicant gave evidence and represented herself. The Secretary was represented by Mr Burgess, a solicitor. However, after it was subsequently discovered that there were issues regarding the constitution of the Tribunal, the parties agreed to have the matter determined on the papers by me, without a further hearing but with regard to the documents tendered in the proceedings and the transcript of the hearing conducted on 28 February 2025. As I was satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding could be adequately determined in the absence of the parties in those circumstances, I have proceeded to determine the matter on the papers.[2]
[2] See ss 106(1)-(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (‘ART Act’).
For the reasons that follow, I will affirm the AAT’s Decision.
Overview of legislative and policy framework
It is necessary to set out, to an extent, the law and relevant policy to be considered.
Centrelink administers social security, including the aged pension and the Scheme, under the provisions of, relevantly, the Act, and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the Administration Act’). It also does so by reference to the Australian Government’s ‘Guides to Social Policy Law, Social Security Guide’ (‘the Guide’), where relevant. The Guide contains governmental guidelines and statements of policy as to how the relevant legislation is to be applied.
Section 1136 of the Act provides that a person who wishes to participate in the Scheme must make a signed, written request to do so. The request must specify their property which is available for security for the loan, and the rate of loan payments (by way of advances) they wish to receive.
Section 1135 of the Act outlines how a debt is created through a person’s participation in the Scheme:
1If the rate of the pension payable by operation of the pension loans scheme is more than the rate that would have been received by the person but for the operation of the scheme, the person owes a debt to the Commonwealth.
…
3This is how to work out the amount of the debt owed by the person from time to time:
Method statement
Step 1. Work out the sum of the amount of pension received by the person from time to time under the pension loans scheme: the result is the primary loan amount.
Step 2. Add to the primary loan amount the amount of any registration costs payable by the person under subsection 1143(4): the result is the registration cost adjusted amount.
Step 3. Take away from the registration cost adjusted amount the sum of the amount of pension (if any) that would have been received by the person but for the operation of the scheme: the result is the basic amount of debt.
Step 4. Add to the basic amount of debt the amount of interest payable. The interest payable is compound interest at the rate fixed under subsection (4) and compounding fortnightly: the result is the total amount of debt.
Step 5. From the total amount of debt take away any amount of the debt already paid to the Commonwealth: the result is the current amount of debt owed by the person.
4The rate at which compound interest is payable under subsection (3) is the rate fixed from time to time by the Minister by legislative instrument.
Pursuant to s 1138 of the Act, the property offered as security is subject to a charge in favour of the Commonwealth to secure the payment of the debt, and the charge continues until the debt is repaid or recovered, even if the person ceases to be part of the Scheme.
Section 1139 provides that for an individual participant in the Scheme, the Commonwealth is not generally entitled to recover the debt until after the person’s death, but s 1140 allows for recovery of the debt if the person ceases to own the real assets which are subject to a charge under s 1138 of the Act.
Section 1142 of the Act sets out how to withdraw from (that is cease participating in) the Scheme. It requires a request for withdrawal that is in writing, signed, and ‘lodged at an office of the Department’.[3]
[3] Section 1142(3) of the Act.
Section 1143 of the Act provides for the registration of a charge against a person’s real property and provides that the costs associated with the registration or discharge of the charge are payable by the person whose real assets are the subject of the charge. The Secretary may require the person whose real assets are to be subject to the charge to execute an instrument relating to the registration of the charge. Section 1143 also provides that, if the Commonwealth incurs costs associated with the registration or discharge of the charge, ‘those costs are payable by the person whose real assets are subject to the charge’.
Application can be made pursuant to s 142 of the Administration Act, for a first review of decisions by the Tribunal such as those made by the ARO under s 135 of the Administration Act (subject to carve outs, as per s 144 of the Administration Act, none of which apply to the present application).
A person whose interests are affected by a first review decision of this nature may seek second review in the Tribunal. The application for second review was filed within the prescribed time and I have jurisdiction and power to conduct this second review due to the combined effect of s 131D(1) of the ART Act, read with ss 12, 105 and 131C(h) of the ART Act.
There is no presumption that the AAT’s Decision is correct.[4]
[4] McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357.
I ‘stand in the shoes’[5] of the original decision maker, in that I am to determine for myself, on the material before me, the decision which can, and which I consider should, be made in the exercise of the power or powers conferred on the original decision-maker for the purpose of making the original decision. The Tribunal is subject to the same constraints as the original decision-maker.[6] However, as s 9 of the ART Act makes clear, the Tribunal makes its decision independently of the parties.
[5] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 31 ALR 666, 671 (Smithers J).
[6] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16, [51] discussing relevantly indistinguishable provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
ISSUES
Much of the Applicant’s evidence and submissions went to the question of whether she knew that she was applying for a loan, on which interest would be payable, when she entered into the Scheme. Broadly described, that raises the question of whether Centrelink’s decision to approve her involvement in the Scheme was correct. However, that issue is not before me. The Applicant did not seek first review of Centrelink’s decision on that issue, made on 21 April 2020. As a result, it was not open to be considered by the AAT, or by me on second review.
I will simply note that, in answer to questions asked of her by Mr Burgess at the hearing on 28 February 2025, the Applicant confirmed that:
(a)at the time she signed the request to enter the Scheme she knew that she was entering into a loan;
(b)she signed forms for her bank that enabled the registration of the caveat over the Initial Security;
(c)she knew that the caveat was security for the loan and that it would be released when the loan was paid back;
(d)She continued to receive loan payments under the Scheme after realising that interest was payable; and
(e)She received the principal as calculated by Centrelink under the Scheme.
The issues that do arise in this application are as follows:
(a)Should compounding fortnightly interest charges have been applied in calculating the Debt?
(b)Was it correct for Centrelink to register a caveat over the Subsequent Security as security for the Debt?
(c)Was it correct for Centrelink to add costs of $1,203.86 to the balance of the Debt for the cost of changing the caveat from the Initial Security to the Subsequent Security?
(d)Was the Debt correctly calculated and recovered?
Should compounding fortnightly interest charges have been applied in calculating the Debt?
As submitted by the Respondent, s 1135(3) of the Act, at step 4, provides that compound interest is to be to be applied in calculating the Debt, at a rate fixed under s 1135(4), compounding fortnightly.
Neither party could identify, and I am unable to locate, any provision that provides a discretion to the Respondent to choose not to impose interest on a fortnightly, compounding basis, at the prescribed rates, under s 1135(4).
The Respondent was correct to apply the interest on a fortnightly, compounding, basis.
Was it correct for Centrelink to register a caveat over the Subsequent Security as security for the Debt and was it correct for Centrelink to add costs of $1,203.86 to the balance of the Debt for the cost of changing the caveat from the Initial Security to the Subsequent Security?
Registration of an instrument, such as a caveat, over the property offered as security for the loan is provided for in s 1143 of the Act. However, the section provides, relevantly, that ‘the Secretary may lodge a notice in writing of the charge’ (at subs 1) and that the ‘Secretary may require the person whose real assets are subject to the charge to execute an instrument relating to the registration of the charge’ (at subs 3). I have emphasised the word ‘may’ in each case, as it supports a view that the Respondent has a discretion to exercise in respect of the lodgement of the charge.[7]
[7] Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 33 (2A).
The Applicant did not argue that any such discretion miscarried in her case, and given the obvious importance of the Respondent ensuring repayment of loans under the Scheme to protect public funds, together with the relatively modest cost it incurs for the participant in the Scheme, I am satisfied that the exercise of any such discretion to register the charge by way of caveat, over both the Initial Security, and then the Subsequent Security, was unexceptional, and correct, in this case.
In that regard, the Applicant wrote to Centrelink on 17 June 2020, stating, relevantly:
Further to you[r] telephone conversation yesterday yes I do have to move your Caveat over to the title of my home most reluctantly but I need to [borrow] funds to save my home I am going into as the roof is in bad shape and walls are getting wet and damaged and I have no other alternative.
I am not at all happy having to pay to have this Caveat mov[e]d and also having to put the caveat on my title is totally wrong.
I am also satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the Respondent’s requirement that she provide further security as a condition of her ongoing involvement in the Scheme and that she would be responsible for the costs incurred in respect of registration of the new charge.
As noted earlier, s 1143 of the Act provides that if the Commonwealth incurs costs associated with the registration of a charge, or the registration of the discharge of a charge, these costs are payable by the person whose real assets are the subject of the charge. In the evidence before me there is confirmation, by way of email dated 27 August 2020 from King & Wood Mallesons solicitors, that the Respondent incurred the costs that Centrelink added to the Debt to transfer the security provided by a caveat to the Subsequent Security. The Applicant does not dispute, and I am satisfied, that the Respondent incurred that cost in association with the registration of a charge, or the registration of the discharge of a charge in respect of the Applicant’s participation in the Scheme.
The Respondent was correct to incorporate that cost in calculating the Debt.
Was the Debt correctly calculated and recovered?
Applying s 1135 of the Act, the Debt comprised, relevantly, the amounts paid to the Applicant under the Scheme and the registration costs under s 1143 (less the amount of pension that would have been received by the Applicant but for the operation of the Scheme) and the interest, which is incurred on the sum thereby calculated, in accordance with s 1135(4). There is no dispute, and I am satisfied that the Debt was correctly calculated and recovered, if the Applicant remained a participant in the Scheme until the final payment to her under the Scheme was made in February 2019. The calculations are contained in a spreadsheet in evidence before me.[8]
[8] T23 pp 163–166; T31.
However, the Applicant contends that she requested to withdraw from the Scheme and therefore should not have been required to repay the Debt (it is not apparent that the Applicant concedes that anything should be repayable, irrespective of when she purportedly sought to withdraw from the Scheme). She relies upon the correspondence she sent to various Members of Parliament and to Centrelink in that regard.
The Respondent’s position is that none of that correspondence constituted a request to withdraw from the Scheme which complied with the strict requirements of s 1142 of the Act and that, even if the Applicant had requested withdrawal from the Scheme in accordance with s 1142 of the Act (which is not conceded), and the continued payments she received under the Scheme were made in error, the Applicant nonetheless enjoyed the benefit of the payments. The Respondent also points out, correctly, that there is no provision under the Act for the waiver or write off of a Debt resulting from payments under the Scheme that are received in error. I also accept the Respondent’s submission that there is no evidence that any of the relevant correspondence sent by the Applicant was ‘lodged at an office of the Department’.
The Respondent also submits that I do not have jurisdiction to review whether the Applicant sought to withdraw from the Scheme, because that would have to be something that, first, was considered by an ARO, and then dealt with on tribunal first review before I could consider it on second review. I do not agree with that submission. Whilst it is attractive at first blush, and in conformance with first principles and authority,[9] Centrelink has made no specific decision as to whether the Applicant sought to withdraw from the Scheme that carried with it unexercised review rights. There is, then, currently no explicit decision that the Applicant could seek to have reconsidered by an ARO or take on review. The question of whether the Applicant sought to withdraw from the Scheme is otherwise relevant to determining whether the Debt was correctly calculated, noting the first step set out in s 1135 of the Act is to ‘[w]ork out the sum of the amount of pension received by the person from time to time under the pension loans scheme’ (emphasis added). If a person had withdrawn from the Scheme, subsequent payments made to them would, arguably, not have been made ‘under’ the Scheme. On that basis, I think the better view is that the ARO and the AAT must have implicitly decided whether the payments to the Applicant were made under the Scheme, that is whilst the Applicant was a participant in it, in their respective considerations. I am satisfied that I can consider the issue on review because I will, in doing so, stay within the bounds of addressing the same question that was before the ARO and the AAT.[10]
[9] Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167, 175; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419.
[10] Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Inc v Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (1992) 39 FCR 225, 234; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Barrow (1994) 35 ALD 461.
For that reason, I will consider the nature of the correspondence that the Applicant sent in respect of the Scheme and the Debt, up until she received the last payment under the Scheme on 21 February 2019. After that, withdrawal from the Scheme could not affect the calculation of the Debt in the absence of earlier repayment.
The Applicant asserts that she had, variously, asked to ‘stop the Debt,’ ‘get this stopped’ or ‘get this matter cancelled’ in her correspondence. For completeness, whilst none of the copies of the correspondence in evidence were signed by the Applicant, I accept her evidence that she provided copies that had been saved to her computer and had signed the originals before posting them. I will not refer to correspondence sent by the Applicant prior to her addressing the issue of the raising of the Debt.
In a letter to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, dated 5 July 2013, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
In the end our Government - whom you represent - decided I would get $270 per fortnight in my own right and they would lend me the rest to bring it up to the single pension which at that time was $300 per week. I would have to pay that back when I sold my home.
This is so unfair as I worked to keep myself and my husband he never went on pension - when my children were out of work I did not allow them to go on the dole and I kept them and when I needed help where was my government.
I do not see why I should have to pay back the little I get each fortnight to exist when [other recipients of public funds] get so much - millions and millions of dollars whereas I only get a few dollars each year - I have tried to sell my property many times but things are too hard - I only bought the other place because I had an offer on this property I live in and it fell through after I bought the other place so I was stuck with it and have tried very hard to hang on to it so I will have somewhere to go when I shift as I am on my own… so I want you to have the repayment quashed you have the power to do that instead of wasting many millions on these people…
In a letter to then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, dated 20 May 2014, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I wrote to you many months ago and was extremely disappointed in the way my letter was handled. It would have taken you under ten minutes to do what I had asked instead you handed the letter to some clerk … and she wrote nothing but gibberish - I am really disappointed in you Mr Abbott…
You only had to pick up the phone to the Minister of Social Services and issue an instruction that I did not have to repay my loan nor any interest…
As the PRIME MINISTER of my country I expected you would assist one of the Senior citizens that contributed more than her fair share and yet cannot now get the full pension without having to repay plus expensive COMPOUND INTEREST. Well show us your mettle.
The prior correspondence referred to is not in evidence before me, but I note there is no suggestion that it contained notice of withdrawal from the Scheme.
In a subsequent letter to then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, dated 6 September 2015, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
… I am not asking for millions but just that the debt for the few thousands I have been debited with - copy of my pension details enclosed - I am just asking you to look after your own countrymen (or ladies) first.
In a letter to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, dated 6 December 2015, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I voted for you and [D]on Randall and now I am appealing to you to use your authority and cancel my having to repay the money the pension has provided me to live on in my old age and interest thereon.
…
Please have the loan repayment cancelled and the interest - its horrific and would be such a help for me as the economy is down and I have to repay my mortgage and other loans that I have had to take to stay on top of things, it’s been a big worry…
I am asking for a small total to you of under $40,000 to be wiped off for repayment and interest - compound at that to be removed so I can have a bit of a start. Consider what the Govt wastes that is not much to ask.
In a letter to ‘Centrelink, Canberra’, dated 15 June 2017, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I was receiving a pension due to me with a small loan to make up the difference but I would try to survive on what pension is due and not have a loan as I had written to the Prime Minister to ask him if he could cancel what was owing under the loan plus interest as I would have nothing left when I eventually do sell the property but not to cancel my pension as I would have nothing to live on and both roofs need fixing badly on both homes and quite a lot of money needs to be spent on both properties when I sell.
None of this correspondence can be properly construed as seeking to withdraw from the Scheme, insofar as it related to the Applicant receiving ongoing payments. Rather, it contemplated the Applicant being excused from the consequence of entering into the Scheme, being the eventual repayment of the Debt.
In a letter to Andrew Hastie, the then Member for Mandurah, dated 2 November 2017, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I did arrange to meet you and gave you a letter for Malcolm Turnbull, current Prime Minister, as you told me you would see him in Canberra in a week or so at the time.
To this day I have heard nothing whatsoever from you nor from him. I asked him in my letter not to delegate it out to his lackeys but to handle the matter himself as he had the power to cancel the repayment of my pension advance and the interest which is horrific at 5% compounded.
All that has happened to me is It’s gone through the crap channels that I asked it not to - they have deducted my pension and instead of the loan balance being $100 per fortnight its now $300 plus -so thanks very much to you and Turnbull for making my life so much harder. I now have no alternative but to cancel the loan and try to live on less than $200 per week and with high electricity, water, shire rates and all the other Govt charges does not leave me any way out. (Emphasis added.)
The section of this correspondence I have emphasised is the only reference I can find in a relevant period to the Applicant mentioning a proposal to cease receiving advances under, and thereby arguably to withdraw from, the Scheme. However, it does not constitute notice that she is doing so. In fact, as the next relevant piece of correspondence makes plain, in a section I have emphasised, the Applicant acknowledged that she could not afford to stop receiving advances under the Scheme in a letter addressed to ‘Dept Human Resources, Old Age Pension Dept.’, dated 29 January 2018:
All I wanted was to reduce the huge loan you have taken upon yourselves to bump up - I cannot possibly live on less than I get now. For some reason known only to yourselves you reduced the figure of my pension down from $600 and something to four hundred and something and bunged the other two hundred on my loan which with the interest rate you charge compound added to what I already owe is stupendous. I have had to reduce the price of my house by one hundred thousand dollars and it is on the market but so far no one has even bothered to look as things are very hard to sell as I am sure you are well aware…
I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to cancel the loan repayment and interest as I have paid tax from 14 years old until after 70 … but the Prime Minister could not have cared less and bunged the letter onto your crowd. So if you want to know more - then ring me instead of resorting to writing I am sick of contacting you.
In another letter to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, dated 28 April 2018, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
[I] have always voted LIBERAL BUT I WRITE TO YOU AND YOU TOTALLY IGNORE ME AND HANDBALL MY LETTERS TO Social Security who cannot do anything but I am advised you can make a decision to cancel the $60,000 odd bill with the huge interest…
SO PLEASE WOULD YOU TAKE THIS MATTER IN HAND AS REQUESTED- YOU CAN CANCEL THE DEBT IN A FLASH.
In a letter addressed to the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, dated 26 August 2018, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I just wanted our Prime Minister to cancel the debt I have with a pension loan of about $60,000. I was getting about $700 a fortnight pension July last year and a small loan to make up the pension so I could live. But the Govt here put the value of property up which was wrong as my duplex was worth more 10 years ago than now so it’s ridiculous and now they have lowered my pension and make up the difference as a pension loan and are charging me 5% compound interest and now the loan and interest has jumped to over $60,000 so I am asking you, and you have the ability to cancel this wipe out the loan and interest because when I eventually sell where I am now I have to put a new roof on duplex as all the walls have water damage and I have to spend a lot…
So could you please cancel what I owe I have done the hard yards and would like to have a decent holiday but there is never enough money.
There can be no proper suggestion that these letters were a notice of withdrawal from the Scheme.
In another letter addressed to the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, dated 15 October 2018, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
I wrote to you as soon as you were elected quite some months ago and sent my letter by express post which cost $7 and am really surprised and disappointed that you have not even bothered to spend half hour of your time to answer my letter.
I asked you to cancel the money that I owe and the interest its somewhere up around $70,000 which is a fortune. I do not know why in July 2016 my pension was dropped and they put something like #80 into a loan which I never agreed upon and never knew they were going to charge me over 5% compound interest to boot… I know you have a lot but you do get a lot of helpers would you now have a look at my case as you have the power and cancel the amount outstanding and the huge interest and do not give me any pension loan in the future. (Emphasis added.)
As the section of that correspondence I have emphasised makes plain, the Applicant was not purporting to withdraw from ongoing participation in the Scheme, but rather referring to a power that she perceived to reside with a Prime Minister to ‘cancel the amount outstanding and the huge interest and [to] not give [her] any pension loan in the future’.
In a further letter addressed to the then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, dated 1 December 2018, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
…for two years I have been asking them not to send me money under a pension loan and charging me some sixty thousand dollars with their huge five percent plus compound interest as my property was being OVERVALUED by $135,000 plus my bank account was not 9,500 but $2000 if I was lucky…
I ASKED YOU TO CANCEL THE AMOUNT OWING AS I HAVE BEEN WRONGED AND WIPE OFF ANY DEBT AND ALTER THE VALUES AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN -YOU AND Turnbull have dragged this on for two years…
Again, this correspondence refers to not being sent money ‘under a pension loan’ and does not indicate that the Applicant does not want to receive the amount of the full pension but rather that she does not wish to be responsible for a Debt accruing under the Scheme.
In a letter addressed to ‘Pension People’, dated 1 December 2018, the Applicant stated, relevantly:
Please cancel this debt you have with the huge compound interest as I never knew this was happening.
In a letter addressed to the ‘Minister for Human Services’ at a Western Australian address, dated 26 February 2019, the Applicant stated, relevantly, that:
Where you are charging me for a loan should be on the AGE PENSION for the past 7 years, so please sort this out and cancel the huge loan and interest because of your depts. Actions…
As can be seen, in these items of correspondence the Applicant was again clearly seeking to be excused from the Debt, and not withdrawing from the Scheme.
On that basis, the decisions of the ARO, as affirmed by the AAT’s Decision, was that which is correct and preferable.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 75 (seventy-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Suthers
................[SGD]..................
Associate
Dated: 11 July 2025
Date of hearing: On the papers Applicant: Self-represented Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Ashley Burgess, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0
7
0