MCBM and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review)
[2025] ARTA 583
•19 May 2025
MCBM and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 583 (19 May 2025)
Applicant:MCBM
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2024/7198
Tribunal:Deputy President K Dordevic (second review)
Place:Sydney
Date:19 May 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.
............................[SGD]............................................
Deputy President K Dordevic
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 subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Catchwords
DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION – Disability Support Pension (Blind) – compensation preclusion period – whether DSP (Blind) is a compensation affected payment – whether appropriate to cancel rather than suspend DSP (Blind) – special circumstances - decision under review affirmed
Legislation
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
G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229
Hanrahan and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1417
Hanrahan and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 1128
MacDonald v Secretary, Department of Family and Health and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1142
Morgan and Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 168
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Topp and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 99Yell and Secretary, Department of Social Services Australia [2023] AATA 2451
Secondary Materials
Australian Government, Guides to Social Policy Law, Social Security Guide
Statement of Reasons
This review concerns the cancellation of the Applicant’s disability support pension on 27 March 2024 after application of a compensation preclusion period.
At all relevant times the Applicant was in receipt of disability support pension - permanent blindness. Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) refers to this pension as disability support pension (blind) in its correspondence.[1]
[1] For example, T-Documents, folio 62.
On 27 March 2024 the Applicant was notified by Centrelink that following the application of a preclusion period to his disability support pension from 11 August 2022 to 11 September 2024 his disability support pension was cancelled with effect from 11 August 2022. The Applicant was advised that a charge of $25,104.40 would be released to Centrelink by the insurer as this was the amount of disability support pension the Applicant had received during the preclusion period.
The Applicant sought an internal review of the decision. On 22 June 2024 an authorised review officer of Centrelink affirmed the decision.
On 25 June 2024 the Applicant then applied to the Social Security and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an independent review of the decision. On 19 August 2024 the decision was affirmed.
Dissatisfied with that decision the Applicant lodged an application for review with the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 19 August 2024. From 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal. [2]
[2] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (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 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 hearing took place on 10 April 2025. The Applicant was represented by his daughter and the Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Serbian language. Centrelink was represented by Mr Andrew Campbell of Hunt & Hunt Lawyers. Both parties participated by MS Teams audio. The Tribunal had before it the hearing papers and the Applicant’s documents filed with the AAT, a statement and additional documents provided by the Applicant in addition to a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed by Centrelink.[3]
[3] The Tribunal acknowledges that, due to the Applicant’s vision impairment, it would have been preferable that the Respondent provided the relevant documents via an e-reader rather than by paper file.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act).
The issues requiring determination are whether:
(i)the compensation ordered by the Personal Injury Commission should be included in the calculation of the compensation preclusion period;
(ii)whether disability support pension - permanent blindness is a ‘compensation affected payment’ for the purposes of the Act; and, if so
(iii)should the disability support pension have been suspended and not cancelled.
CONSIDERATION
The relevant law
Subsection 1169(1) of the Act provides that where a person receives a compensation affected payment and receives a lump sum compensation payment the compensation affected payment is not payable in relation to any day in the lump sum preclusion period. Subsection 1169(2) of the Act states that a lump sum compensation payment does not include arrears of periodic compensation payments and periodic compensation payments converted into an entitlement to a lump sum.
Paragraph 17(1)(a) of the Act states that the term ‘compensation affected payment’ includes disability support pension.
Section 94 of the Act sets down when a person is qualified for disability support pension. Relevant to this application, a person’s impairments must attract 20 points under Impairment Tables and have a continuing inability to work. Section 95 of the Act sets down when a person is qualified for disability support pension -permanent blindness; there is no requirement to establish certain functional impairments or have a continuing inability to work.
Section 117 of the Act dictates how to work out a person’s rate of disability support pension, which involves consideration of their age, whether they have dependent children and whether or not they are permanently blind. The rate of disability support pension for a person who is above 21 years of age, does not have any dependent children and is permanently blind is worked out by using the Pension Rate Calculator B at the end of section 1065 of the Act. As opposed to the treatment of a person who is not permanently blind, a disability support pension recipient who is permanently blind is not subject to the income and asset test.
Section 17(2) of the Act includes in the definition of ‘compensation’ a payment under an insurance scheme that is made wholly or partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn arising from a personal injury.
Section 17(3) of the Act sets down what is the ‘compensation part of a lump sum compensation payment.’ It includes 50% of the payment in circumstances where the payment is made in settlement of a claim that is, in whole or in part, a settlement of a claim that relates to the injury and the claim was settled.
Subsection 1170 of the Act states that where a person receives periodic compensation payments and a lump sum compensation payment, the lump sum preclusion period beings on the day following the last day of the periodic payments. The formula detailed in section 1170 of the Act determines the length of the preclusion period by dividing the compensation part of the lump sum by the income cut-out amount, which is defined at 17(1) of the Act as the amount worked out by application of subsection 17(8) of the Act as in force at the time when the compensation was received.
Section 1171 of the Act deems that where a person receives two or more lump sum payments in relation to the same event and at least one of those payments is made, in whole or in part, in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn the person is taken to receive a lump sum compensation payment in the sum of the multiple payments on the day that the person received the last of those multiple payments provided that any of those payments were not in respect to arrears of a periodic compensation.
Section 1184K of the Act allows for the reduction of the preclusion period by disregarding all or part of the compensation payment on the grounds of special circumstances. This has the effect of reducing the preclusion period.
There is extensive case law on what constitutes ‘special circumstances’. The Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have considered the issue of special circumstances on a number of occasions. In every case, the individual circumstances of the case were examined to determine whether the circumstances were such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for all or part of the preclusion period to be served and whether there are circumstances that would distinguish the case from the usual case. In considering this provision, the Tribunal also has regard to the purpose of the social security system and is also mindful of whether the exercise of this discretion in a particular case frustrates or achieves the objects of the Act.
Subsection 68 of the Administration Act applies to a person to whom a social security payment is being paid. Disability support pension is a social security payment. Subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act states that the Secretary may give the person in receipt of the pension a notice requiring them to inform the Department if there is a change to their circumstances or advise if there is a matter that might affect their social security payment.
Subsection 80(1) of the Administration Act states that if the Secretary is satisfied that a social security payment is being paid to a person to whom the payment was not payable, the Secretary is to determine that the payment is to be cancelled or suspended. Subsection 80(2) of the Administration Act states that subsection 80(1) of the Administration Act does not authorise the Secretary to make a decision if the social security payment has been cancelled by the operation of another provision of social security law.
Division 8 of Part 3 of the Administration Act is concerned with automatic cancellations. Subsection 93(1) of the Administration Act states that if a person is receiving a social security payment and is given notice under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act requiring them to inform Centrelink of an event or change in their circumstances within a certain period, then that event or change occurs and the person advises of that change and because of that change the person ceases to be qualified for the social security payment or that payment is no longer payable, the payment is cancelled by force of the subsection either at the end of the instalment period in which the change occurred or the end of the notification period.
Section 94(1) of the Administration Act states that if a person is receiving a social security payment and is given notice under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act requiring them to inform Centrelink of an event or change in their circumstances within a certain period, then that event or change occurs and the person does not inform Centrelink of that change and because of that change the person ceases to be qualified for the social security payment or that payment is no longer payable, the payment is cancelled by force of the subsection on the day that the event occurs.
The Guides to Social Policy Law - Social Security Guide[4] (the Guide) provides assistance to decision-makers in implementing the law. While I may be guided by this policy, I am not bound to follow it: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634. In the recent case of G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229 the Federal Court observed that it is clear from earlier authorities, that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account in performing its review task.
Findings of fact
[4] >
I make the following findings:
·the Applicant was granted disability support pension - permanent blindness on 5 October 2005;[5]
·on 12 July 2017 the Applicant sustained a work-related psychological injury;[6]
·the Applicant received periodic compensation payments from 13 July 2017 to 10 August 2022. During the same period he continued to received disability support pension;[7]
·on 30 May 2022 Centrelink wrote to the Applicant, reporting that it had been advised that he was about to receive a compensation affected payment in the amount of $0.00. The letter included notice that the Applicant must notify Centrelink within seven days if he received more than one payment in respect of the same compensable event. The letter went on to state that if he received a further compensation payment it can be added to other compensation payments for the same event to determine the preclusion period;[8]
·on 6 October 2022 the Applicant’s employer was ordered by the Personal Injury Commission to pay him a lump sum compensation payment of $41,610 in respect to the impairment arising from the work-place injury;[9]
·on 23 January 2024 the Applicant settled his workplace compensation claim for $220,000;[10]
·on 12 March 2024 the Applicant’s solicitors advised Centrelink of the lump sum payments totalling $261,610, neither of which included arrears of periodic compensation but the $220,000 payment included a component for economic loss;[11]
·on 27 March 2024 Centrelink advised the Applicant that due to the receipt of the compensation payments a preclusion period was applied to his disability support pension from 11 August 2022 to 11 September 2024 (the preclusion period) and was cancelled with effect from 11 August 2022.[12] Further, as the Applicant has received $25,104.40 in disability support pension during the preclusion period, that amount would be a charge to be paid by the insurer to Centrelink before the remaining compensation would be released;[13] and
·At the time that the Applicant received the lump sum payment the applicable divisor was $1,198.70.[14]
Application of the law to the facts
[5] T-Documents, folio 39.
[6] T-Documents, folio 21.
[7] T-Documents, folios 22, 31 to 37.
[8] Supplementary documents, S4 (as marked by the Tribunal at hearing).
[9] T-Documents, folios 21 and 29.
[10] T-Documents, folio 22.
[11] T-Documents, folios 20 to 38.
[12] T-Documents, folios 66 to 68.
[13] T-Documents, folios 69 to 70.
[14] T-Documents, folio 46.
The Applicant contentions are summarised as follows:
a)the compensation ordered by the Personal Injury Commission should not be included in the calculation of the preclusion period;
b)disability support pension - permanent blindness is not a ‘compensation affected payment’ for the purposes of the Act; and
c)if the pension is a compensation affected payment it should have been suspended and not cancelled.
When does the preclusion period start and end?
Before determining whether there is a preclusion period, I must address the Applicant’s first two contentions.
The Applicant contends that Centrelink was incorrect in determining there is a preclusion period or, in the alternative, the quantum of that preclusion period.
I have already set down subsection 17(1) of the Act, which states that disability support pension is a ‘compensation affected payment’. This subsection does not distinguish between disability support pension and disability support pension - permanent blindness. There are no other legislative provisions that support the Applicant’s contention that the recipients of disability support pension who are permanently blind are not in receipt of a compensation affected payment.
I have also carefully considered the Guide; there is no reference in the Guide that even suggests that disability support pension paid to a person who is permanently blind is not properly characterised as a compensation affected payment.
I accept the Act dictates that a person who is permanently blind is manifestly qualified for disability support pension[15] and the Act dictates different rates of payments when a person is permanently blind.[16] However, these provisions simply relate to qualification and the rate of payment. These provisions, in and of themselves, do not mean that a permanently blind recipient of disability support pension is not in receipt of a compensation affected payment.
[15] See section 94 of the Act cf section 95 of the Act.
[16] See section 117 of the Act.
I conclude that disability support pension – permanent blindness is a compensation affected payment for the purposes of subsection 17(1) of the Act. My conclusion is consistent with the decisions of the AAT in Morgan and Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 168 and Yell and Secretary, Department of Social Services Australia [2023] AATA 2451.
I next considered the contention that the compensation ordered by the Personal Injury Commission should be excluded from the calculation of the compensation preclusion period.
I have already determined that the compensation payment made by GIO Insurance included a component for lost earnings. As outlined above, section 1171 of the Act requires that if a person receives separate payments arising from a single event their compensation payments are the sum of those multiple payments provided that any of those payments were not in respect to arrears of a periodic compensation.
Therefore, Centrelink was correct to apply section 1171 of the Act and treat the two compensation payments as a single lump sum. It follows that the application cannot succeed on this ground.
Application of the applicable divisor to the formula set down in subsection 1170 of Act means that Centrelink correctly imposed a preclusion period of 109 weeks for the period 11 August 2022 to 11 September 2024.
Should all or part of the compensation payment be treated as not having been made?
The Applicant contends that all or part of the preclusion period should be waived pursuant to section 1184K of the Act.
I make the following findings on the basis of the Applicant’s submissions, medical evidence and his, and his daughter’s, testimony at hearing.
I accept the Applicant’s evidence regarding his current and historical financial circumstances. From the GIO Insurance settlement he repaid $25,104.40 to Centrelink, reflecting the disability support pension paid to him during the preclusion period. He also was required to contribute $22,000 to Medicare. After payment of all legal fees the applicant received $142,895.60.[17] As at 9 April 2025 Centrelink records indicate that he has savings of $164,148 and managed investments of $135,566.
[17] A2 to A3.
The Applicant explained that prior to the compensable event he was second in charge of a charitable organisation and lead a team. He attempted to secure alternate work, but eventually an employment provider deemed him unemployable. His vision continues to deteriorate and he cannot even read documents as he once did. This is affecting his mental health as well.
The Applicant is in receipt of age pension and reported that he receives a part pension from his superannuation. The Applicant and his wife live in their own home over which there is a mortgage of between $75,000 to $100,000. At hearing the Applicant reported that monthly repayment are about $650 and “not a big deal”. He does not intend to use the lump sum to clear the mortgage as he relies on these savings to meet his daily expenses. He reported that after meeting all necessary costs he and his wife are usually short about $1,000 per month. They make the shortfall up from their savings and receive financial support from their children.
The Applicant was asked specifically at hearing about costs associated with his disability. He reported that he regularly receives acupuncture treatment and supplements. He reported that he also requires assistive technology and mobility aids. He estimates that the costs associated with his disability are about $5,000 per annum. Further, his ophthalmologist had suggested procedures to stimulate his retina cells, but he does not know the cost of such procedures. He had previously travelled to Canada to receive treatment (at a cost of about $15,000 each trip) which he reported was very beneficial. He can no longer afford to undertake this treatment.
The Applicant and his wife were in receipt of New Zealand payments, based on their period of residency in that country.[18] As a result of his disability support pension being cancelled, his and his wife’s New Zealand payments were also cancelled and a debt raised in the amount of NZD$635.28. A debt was also raised in his wife’s name. Repayment of the debt has been placed on hold until the outcome of this review is known.
[18] A4 to A5.
At hearing the Applicant explained that he is now in receipt of age pension; as a consequence of the cancellation of his disability support pension upon the preclusion period ending he was no longer qualified for disability support pension. This has impacted on him financially, primarily because the age pension is subject to the income and asset test. He also testified that because his disability support pension was cancelled his wife was no longer entitled to carer payment and now must wait to be eligible for age pension.
The medical evidence before me indicates that the Applicant suffers from severe visual dysfunction from retinitis pigmentosa,[19] with a date of onset being 9 September 1999.[20] He also suffers from depression.[21] I accept the Applicant’s evidence that his wife suffers from anxiety and must attend counselling. Additionally, he was not well after his injury and this placed her under a lot of pressure.
[19] S1.
[20] S2.
[21] S3
I had regard to the relevant case law, including the AAT decision of Topp and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 99 (Topp) where Senior Member Taylor determined that permanent blindness may not be sufficient to justify the exercise of the discretion in section 1184K of the Act.[22] However, if the blindness was not related to the compensable injury, the additional costs arising from that disability will not be met by the compensation payments. Therefore, if the former recipient of disability support pension – permanent blindness has no other income or assets their blindness, together with other considerations, may give rise to a finding of special circumstances.[23] I understand Topp to enunciate the principle that blindness together with other factors, including no other income or assets to meet the costs associated with the person’s disability, may result in a finding of special circumstances.
[22] Topp, [111]
[23] Ibid, [113]
The Applicant relies on the matter of Hanrahan and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 1128 (Hanrahan 1). Like Mr Hanrahan, the Applicant was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa; therefore, their blindness was not caused by the compensable event.[24] The Tribunal determined that blindness is a disability that imposes particular costs upon an individual[25] and that a strict interpretation of the statutory requirements would mean that the Applicant’s necessary costs would interfere with his independence and so special circumstances existed.[26] In the decision of Hanrahan and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1417 (Hanrahan 2) the Tribunal determined that Mr Hanrahan was disadvantaged when compared to other disability support pension recipients because the compensable event resulted in him no longer receiving the pension,[27] that he was provided incorrect information from Centrelink, his expenses exceeded his income[28] and there were other factors[29] that led to the finding that in their totality, his circumstances were special to warrant deciding that the whole of Mr Hanrahan’s compensation payments are to be treated as not having been made.
[24] Hanrahan 1, [19]
[25] Ibid, [21]
[26] Ibid, [23], [25] and [28]
[27] Hanrahan 2, [32]
[28] Ibid, [27].
[29] Ibid, [45].
I am not persuaded that the totality of Applicant’s circumstances give rise to a finding of special circumstances. It is not apparent that the Applicant’s circumstances are consistent with those of Mr Hanrahan. Instead, they can be distinguished. Whilst his evidence was such that his expenses exceed his income and so he must draw on his compensation funds, he still has significant funds available to him. Putting aside the fact that he did not provide corroborating evidence as to his overall financial position including that his expenses exceed his income or that he is in receipt of financial support from his children, the Applicant is in receipt of age pension and has significant liquid assets (aside from his managed investments). The financial investment summary provided by the Respondent[30] indicates that the Applicant and his wife’s combined assets are below the pension asset threshold for homeowners.[31] Therefore, he is in receipt of the full rate of age pension. Whilst I acknowledge that the costs associated with his disability are about $5,000 per annum and that, through no fault of his own, the compensable event meant that he no longer entitlement to receive disability support pension upon the preclusion period ending I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to exercise the discretion.
[30] S4.
[31] >
Taking all these factors into account I am not persuaded that the Applicant’s current financial and personal circumstances amount to special circumstances so as to warrant the exercise of the discretion contained in section 1184K of the Act. Therefore, there are no grounds upon which all or part of the compensation payments as not having been made.
Should the pension have been suspended or cancelled?
The Applicant contends that the disability support pension should have been suspended and not cancelled.
Again, there is no legislative provision that supports the Applicant’s contention. Certainly, if considering subsection 80(1) of the Administration Act in isolation, such a discretion exists. However, subsection 80(2) is clear; subsection 80(1) does not apply if the payment has been cancelled by the operation of another provision of social security law.
The relevant provisions in this matter are sections 93 and 94 of the Administration Act, which result in ‘automatic’ cancellations; that is, there exists no discretion to suspend a payment rather than cancel it.
It is apparent that Centrelink accept that the Applicant did comply with his reporting requirement in notifying Centrelink of the change to his circumstances.[32] At hearing the Applicant stated that he did not receive the letter dated 30 May 2022. Whether the Applicant did or did not notify of his receipt of a compensation affected payment has no practical effect in this case; it would simply change the date of the cancellation and not the cancellation.
[32] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [75].
Sections 93 and 94 of the Administration Act both dictate that the payment must be cancelled, they simply state that the date of cancellation is different. Even if I were to determine that the Applicant did notify Centrelink of receipt of the compensation payment within the notice period, it would simply mean that the payment would be cancelled at best at either the end of the disability support pension instalment period when the change occurred or at the end of the notification period.
I have determined that there is no scope in this matter to suspend the Applicant’s disability support pension. This finding is consistent with Ryan J’s conclusion in MacDonald v Secretary, Department of Family and Health and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1142:[33]
In this case, Mr MacDonald’s DSP ceased to be payable upon its automatic cancellation pursuant to s 93 of the Administration Act by force of his having given notice of a specified event or change of circumstances. There was no scope for the Secretary to have determined, pursuant to s 80(1) of the Administration Act, that Mr MacDonald’s DSP was to be suspended because s 80(2) expressly provides that: (2) Subsection (1) does not authorise the Secretary to make a determination if: (a) the payment of a social security payment to a person has been cancelled or suspended by the operation of another provision of the social security law; and (b) the determination would take effect at or after the time at which the cancellation or suspension referred to in paragraph (a) would take effect.
[33] MacDonald, [29].
I conclude that Centrelink correctly cancelled the Applicant’s disability support pension pursuant to section 93 of the Administration Act.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
Date of hearing: 10 April 2025 Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr A Campbell, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers Appendix
Social Security Act 1991
1168 Application
A provision of this Division that refers to a person receiving or claiming
a compensation affected payment and receiving a lump sum compensation
payment has effect regardless of whether the lump sum compensation
payment was received before or after the person received or claimed the compensation affected payment.1169 Compensation affected payment not payable during lump sum
preclusion period(1) If:
(a) a person receives or claims a compensation affected
payment; and
(b) the person receives a lump sum compensation payment;
the compensation affected payment is not payable to the person in
relation to any day or days in the lump sum preclusion period.(2) In this section:
lump sum compensation payment does not include a lump sum
payment:(a) to which section 1164 applies; or
(b) that relates only to arrears of periodic compensation
payments.1170 Lump sum preclusion period
(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a person receives both periodic
compensation payments and a lump sum compensation payment,
the lump sum preclusion period is the period that:(a) begins on the day following the last day of the periodic
payments period or, where there is more than one periodic
payments period, the day following the last day of the last
periodic payments period; and(b) ends at the end of the number of weeks worked out under
subsections (4) and (5).(2) If a person chooses to receive part of an entitlement to periodic
compensation payments in the form of a lump sum, the lump sum
preclusion period is the period that:(a) begins on the first day on which the person’s periodic
compensation payment is a reduced payment because of that
choice; and
(b) ends at the end of the number of weeks worked out under
subsections (4) and (5).(3) If neither of subsections (1) and (2) applies, the lump sum
preclusion period is the period that:(a) begins on the day on which the loss of earnings or loss of
capacity to earn began; and
(b) ends at the end of the number of weeks worked out under
subsections (4) and (5).(4) The number of weeks in the lump sum preclusion period in relation
to a person is the number worked out using the formula:Compensation part of lump sum
Income cut-out amount
(5) If the number worked out under subsection (4) is not a whole
number, the number is to be rounded down to the nearest whole
number.
1171 Deemed lump sum payment arising from separate payments
(1) If:
(a) a person receives 2 or more lump sum payments in relation to
the same event that gave rise to an entitlement of the person
to compensation (the multiple payments); and(b) at least one of the multiple payments is made wholly or
partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn;
the following paragraphs have effect for the purposes of this Act
and the Administration Act:(c) the person is taken to have received one lump sum
compensation payment (the single payment) of an amount
equal to the sum of the multiple payments;(d) the single payment is taken to have been received by the
person:(i) on the day on which he or she received the last of the
multiple payments; or
(ii) if the multiple payments were all received on the same
day, on that day.(2) A payment is not a lump sum payment for the purposes of
paragraph (1)(a) if it relates exclusively to arrears of periodic
compensation.
1184K Secretary may disregard some payments
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the Secretary may treat the whole or
part of a compensation payment as:
(a) not having been made; or
(b) not liable to be made;
if the Secretary thinks it is appropriate to do so in the special
circumstances of the case.
(2) If:
(a) a person or a person’s partner receives or claims a
compensation affected payment; and
(b) the person receives compensation; and
(c) the set of circumstances that gave rise to the claim for
compensation is not related to the set of circumstances that
gave rise to the person’s or the person’s partner’s receipt of,
or claim for, the compensation affected payment;
the fact that those 2 sets of circumstances are unrelated does not
alone constitute special circumstances for the purposes of
subsection (1).
Social Security (Administration) Act 1991
80 Cancellation or suspension determination
(1) If the Secretary is satisfied that a social security payment is being,
or has been, paid to a person:(a) who is not, or was not, qualified for the payment; or
(b) to whom the payment is not, or was not, payable (other than
because of the operation of Division 3AA);the Secretary is to determine that the payment is to be cancelled or
suspended.
Note: Division 3AA is about compliance with participation payment
obligations for persons who are not declared program participants.
(2) Subsection (1) does not authorise the Secretary to make a
determination if:(a) the payment of a social security payment to a person has
been cancelled or suspended by the operation of another
provision of the social security law; and(b) the determination would take effect at or after the time at
which the cancellation or suspension referred to in
paragraph (a) would take effect.93 Automatic cancellation—recipient complying with
subsection 68(2) notice(1) Subject to subsection (2), if:
(a) a person who is receiving a social security payment is given a
notice under subsection 68(2); and(b) the notice requires the person to inform the Department of
the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances within
a specified period (the notification period); and(c) the event or change of circumstances occurs; and
(d) the person informs the Department of the occurrence of the
event or change of circumstances within the notification
period in accordance with the notice; and(e) because of the occurrence of the event or change of
circumstances:(i) the person ceases to be qualified for the social security
payment; or
(ii) the payment would, but for this section, cease to be
payable to the person; and(f) the social security payment is not cancelled before the end of
the instalment period for the person that is current when the
event or change of circumstances occurs;the following paragraphs have effect:
(g) if the social security payment is cancelled during the
instalment period (the first period) following the instalment
period in which the event or change of circumstances occurs,
the payment is payable to the person until the end of the
instalment period in which the event or change occurs, and is
then cancelled by force of this subsection;(h) if the payment is not cancelled during the first period, the
payment is payable to the person until the end of the
notification period, and is then cancelled by force of this
subsection.94 Automatic cancellation—recipient not complying with
subsection 68(2) notice(1) Subject to subsection (2), if:
(a) a person who is receiving a social security payment is given a
notice under subsection 68(2); and(b) the notice requires the person to inform the Department of
the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances within
a specified period (the notification period); and(c) the event or change of circumstances occurs; and
(d) the person does not inform the Department of the occurrence
of the event or change of circumstances within the
notification period in accordance with the notice; and(e) because of the occurrence of the event or change of
circumstances:(i) the person ceases to be qualified for the social security
payment; or
(ii) the social security payment ceases to be payable to the
person;the social security payment is cancelled, by force of this
subsection, on the day on which the event or change of
circumstances occurs.
0
6
0