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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision that affirmed an Authorised Review Officer's determination that the applicant owed the Commonwealth $38,170.74 due to an overpayment of his Disability Support Pension (DSP). This overpayment arose from undisclosed deposits made into accounts controlled by the applicant between September 2012 and December 2015. The applicant had sought review of the initial Centrelink decision, which was subsequently varied by an Authorised Review Officer, and then affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether certain undisclosed deposits constituted income for the purposes of the DSP income test under the *Social Security Act 1991* (the Act). It also needed to ascertain if these deposits resulted in an overpayment of DSP between August 2013 and December 2015, whether such an overpayment created a debt to the Commonwealth, and if any part of that debt could be waived or written off. The definition of "income" under the Act was central, encompassing any amount earned, derived, or received for the person's own use or benefit, including valuable consideration, personal earnings, or moneys, irrespective of their nature or source.

The Tribunal found that a series of 15 deposits totalling $66,150, made between August and December 2013, were not to be treated as income. These deposits were made by the applicant's son to facilitate the son's business operations, using the applicant's credit cards and accounts for stock purchases and associated expenses. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's explanation that he had no financial interest in the business at that time and that these funds were not for his personal use or benefit. However, subsequent deposits, referred to as the second through seventh tranches, were determined to be income for the purpose of calculating the applicant's DSP entitlement.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Authorised Review Officer's decision. The matter was remitted to Centrelink to recalculate the DSP overpayment for the specified period, excluding the first tranche deposits but including the subsequent tranches as income. Centrelink was also directed to reconsider the appropriateness of waiving or writing off any resulting debt once the precise amount had been determined.