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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal by Mr Pullicin against a decision affirming the rejection of his claim for an age pension to be calculated without regard to the excess curtilage of his residence. Mr Pullicin sought to have this excess land treated as an "unrealisable asset" and to benefit from financial hardship provisions.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the excess curtilage surrounding Mr Pullicin's principal home constituted an "unrealisable asset" for the purposes of the social security legislation. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Pullicin would suffer severe financial hardship if the excess curtilage was not disregarded in the calculation of his assets for the age pension assets test.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which exempts a principal home from the assets test, but generally includes land exceeding two hectares. The Act allows for the financial hardship provisions to apply if a person has an unrealisable asset and would suffer severe financial hardship if it were not disregarded. Mr Pullicin's former partner, a joint owner of the property, had refused to consent to its sale, which was a significant factor in the assessment of whether the asset was unrealisable. The Tribunal found that Mr Pullicin had readily available funds, which meant he was not in severe financial hardship, and therefore the financial hardship provisions did not apply. The decision under review was affirmed.