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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the appeal of Ms Lin against decisions of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. Ms Lin was in receipt of a Disability Support Pension (DSP), which had been cancelled due to her annual income exceeding the allowable limit. A debt had also been raised against her for undisclosed income that was not taken into account when calculating her DSP rate. Furthermore, her application for a Job Seeker payment was rejected because her income was above the allowable limit. An authorised review officer affirmed these three decisions, and a First Review also affirmed the authorised review officer's decisions. Ms Lin sought a Second Review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the decisions to cancel Ms Lin's DSP, raise a debt, and reject her Job Seeker payment application were correct. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Ms Lin's income exceeded the allowable limits for these social security payments during the relevant periods, and whether the significant deposits into her bank accounts constituted income for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The Tribunal also considered whether to admit further material provided by Ms Lin after the hearing had concluded and the decision was reserved.

The Tribunal found Ms Lin's evidence regarding the sources of her income to be unconvincing and lacking in corroboration. Despite receiving over $3.7 million across numerous bank accounts over an eight-and-a-half-year period, her explanations, such as money being "recycled" from a 2013 compensation payment, were considered frail and did not adequately account for the volume of transactions. The Tribunal applied the broad definition of "income" under the Act, which includes amounts credited to bank accounts for the recipient's use and benefit, provided they are not shown to be exempt. The Tribunal noted that Ms Lin had ample opportunity to explain her income sources but failed to do so satisfactorily. Regarding the additional material provided after the hearing, the Tribunal declined to consider it, citing fairness to the respondent and the desirability of finalising matters, as Ms Lin had not made specific submissions about its relevance and had already had ample opportunity to submit documents.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.