Librizzi and Secretary, Department of Health (Social services)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Authorised Review Officer of the Department of Human Services, which rejected the applicant's claim for financial hardship assistance for residential aged care. The applicant, who had since passed away and was represented by her daughter as executor of her estate, had initially been granted financial hardship assistance from May 2015 to April 2017, based on her Fremantle property being considered an unrealisable asset. Upon re-application in April 2017, this assistance was denied, with the Department deeming the property a realisable asset.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's Fremantle property should be included as an assessable asset for the purposes of residential aged care, and whether it qualified as an unrealisable asset. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the provisions of the *Aged Care Act 1997* and the *Fees and Payments Principles*, particularly concerning the definition of financial hardship and the criteria for an asset to be considered unrealisable. The Secretary contended that the property's value exceeded the threshold for financial hardship and that it could reasonably be used as security for borrowing, thus not meeting the definition of an unrealisable asset.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's daughter and her family had resided in the Fremantle property for over 20 years, and the applicant could not reasonably be expected to sell or realise the asset under certain conditions, the critical factor was the ability to use the asset as security for borrowing. Citing previous case law and the Secretary's submissions, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided evidence demonstrating why the property could not be used as security, for example, through a reverse mortgage. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant was receiving an increased rate of age pension due to financial hardship provisions under the *Social Security Act*, and that the Fremantle property, valued at approximately $900,000, could alleviate her financial difficulties if realised.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Authorised Review Officer, finding that the Fremantle property was a realisable asset. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the criteria for financial hardship assistance, as her assessable assets exceeded the prescribed limit. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that she was unable to use the property as security for borrowing, and that the policy intention of social security law was for individuals to utilise available assets for their financial support.