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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to suspend and subsequently cancel their disability support pension (DSP). The dispute arose from the applicant's failure to respond to notices issued by the Secretary, which sought information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for the DSP, particularly concerning their involvement in companies and significant cash deposits into a business account. The decision was made by Deputy President McDermott of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Secretary was justified in suspending and cancelling the applicant's DSP under sections 64 and 80 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) due to the applicant's failure to comply with notices issued under subsection 63(4) of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for not providing the requested information and whether the applicant had been properly served with the notices. The Tribunal also considered whether the Secretary was empowered to suspend or cancel the DSP under subsection 81(1) of the Act for failing to inform the respondent of specified events or changes in circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Secretary was justified in issuing the notices as the information sought was relevant to the applicant's DSP eligibility, particularly given their directorships and substantial cash deposits into a business account. The applicant's failure to fully respond to the initial notice, and then to provide documentation regarding company finances and cash deposits within the extended timeframe of the second notice, meant that the applicant had not provided a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the applicant, as the sole director, would have had access to or the power to obtain the requested documents. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had been duly served with the 9 November 2017 notice, as it was addressed to their permanent address and there was no evidence to suggest it was not properly posted.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Secretary was justified in suspending and cancelling the applicant's DSP.