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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the suspension of the applicant's age pension. The applicant had been granted an age pension as a returned resident but subsequently travelled outside Australia within two years of resuming residency. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was subject to portability restrictions under section 1220 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which would render the pension non-portable during periods of absence from Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant's age pension was correctly suspended while they were outside Australia between 21 April 2019 and 10 July 2019, and from 6 August 2019 onwards. This determination hinged on whether the applicant fell within the scope of the portability restrictions outlined in section 1220(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 1220 of the Act, which stipulates that if a person is granted an age pension as a returned resident and then leaves Australia within two years of resuming residency, the pension is not payable during any period of absence. The Tribunal noted that this provision is designed to prevent individuals from obtaining an Australian pension solely to take it overseas. The case law, including *Killick* and *Re Clifopoulos*, was referenced to explain that determining residency involves assessing various factors under section 7(3) of the Act, not in a mechanical way, but to ascertain the applicant's intention regarding their place of residence. However, the Tribunal emphasised that the intention to return is insufficient on its own and must be supported by all the evidence of the applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was subject to the portability restrictions as defined in section 1220(1) of the Act.