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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Pietsch against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to treat him as a member of a couple for the purposes of calculating his age pension rate. The Department had initially advised Mr Pietsch on 1 April 2022 that he was ineligible for the single rate of age pension, a decision subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer. Mr Pietsch sought internal review, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision on 7 December 2022. Mr Pietsch then sought review of this decision by the General Division of the AAT.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Pietsch and his partner, Ms Montecalvo, were members of a couple under the criteria in section 4(3) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), and whether there were special reasons to treat Mr Pietsch as not being a member of a couple from 27 October 2020. During the proceedings, it became apparent that Mr Pietsch's trust income had not been fully updated since 30 June 2021, and the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration, directing the Respondent to specify the financial information required.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the need for accurate financial information to assess Mr Pietsch's eligibility for the single rate of pension, particularly concerning his financial circumstances and any potential special reasons for not being treated as a couple. The Respondent sought Profit and Loss statements, tax returns, and depreciation schedules for Mr Pietsch's discretionary trust, "The Prairie Trust," for the financial years ending 30 June 2022 and 2023, as well as personal tax returns for Mr Pietsch and Ms Montecalvo. Mr Pietsch contended that the cost of providing this information was prohibitive and that the trust was treated as a single business entity for accounting and tax purposes. He also submitted limited extracts from depreciation schedules, which the Respondent argued did not sufficiently demonstrate financial difficulty.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that a proper assessment of Mr Pietsch's net income and financial difficulties, which was central to determining whether section 24 of the Act should apply, could not be made without the requested financial information. Despite Mr Pietsch's submissions regarding the cost and his inability to provide the full documentation, the Tribunal concluded that the available evidence was insufficient to depart from the Respondent's decision. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision under review.