In a much-publicised move, the Federal Government has announced refugees on temporary protection visas (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV) will now have a pathway to permanent residency.

Around 20,000 people on these temporary visas will now be able to apply for a Resolution of Status Visa. This is a permanent visa and comes with the right to access social security in Australia.

Holders of TPVs and SHEVs have had very little access to social security in Australia. Holders of these visas could only access Special Benefit and Family Tax Benefit, which come with strict eligibility criteria.

Permanent residents have access to all social security payments and concession cards. Holders of Resolution of Status Visas are considered refugees, and as such are subject to exemptions to waiting periods for social security. This means once receiving their Resolution of Status Visa, holders should immediately meet the residency requirements for social security payments through Centrelink.

This is a significant step forward for thousands of refugees who have lived for years without access to social security in Australia. We get many calls through our Worker Help Line from worried workers, who are supporting refugees without social security access.  We know that without access to basic social security, people struggle to meet their daily needs and enjoy a decent standard of living.

We recognise these changes do not apply to, nor address lack of access to, social security for all refugees subject to the temporary protection regime reintroduced in 2013.

Information about specific visas and social security eligibility can be found in the Social Security Guide here.

If you, or your client, is having trouble understanding their rights to access social security you can call us on our Legal Assistance Line at 03 9481 0355, Workers can call our Worker Help Line on 03 9481 0655.

Poverty is a growing problem in Australia, with one in eight people, including one in six children, currently living in poverty – and the first step in dealing with poverty is to better understand it. 

At the end of last year, the Federal Government directed the Senate Community Affairs References Committee to undertake an Inquiry into poverty in Australia. 

The Inquiry is due to report by 31 October 2023. 

Poverty is an issue our clients know too well, and our staff see its impact daily. That’s why SSRV is making a submission to the Inquiry.

For people living in poverty an issue arising with social security payments or a debt raised by Centrelink can be a mental and emotional load simply too great to bear. 

Often by the time a person calls us, a Centrelink issue has been left unactioned for some time, not because the recipient has been remiss, but because when your mind is on how you are going to feed your children tomorrow, everything else tends to fall by the wayside.  

For people experiencing poverty, actually working to resolve a Centrelink issue can be particularly difficult. For example, while Centrelink may send some correspondence through the MyGov app, other correspondence is required to be sent by post. People experiencing homelessness or moving from one temporary accommodation to another are at risk of missing important information and essential time limits.   

What we also know is that the social security system itself can exacerbate poverty.  

Often debt repayments are automatically set to unreasonably high fortnightly amounts. There is often little consideration given to the fact that Centrelink income support payments are often received by people living below the poverty line, and fortnightly deductions in addition can cause severe financial distress.  

Some income support payments also carry mutual obligations that the recipient is required to shoulder the financial burden of meeting, such as travelling to appointments with service providers.  

Other payments, such as the Disability Support Pension, have stringent eligibility criteria which rely upon doctor appointments being attended and medical evidence being obtained by the applicant.  

The Poverty Inquiry has been charged with examining the extent and nature of poverty in Australia with particular reference to: 

• The rates and drivers of poverty in Australia; 
• The relationship between economic conditions (including fiscal policy, rising inflation and cost of living pressures) and poverty; 
• The impact of poverty on individuals in relation to employment outcomes, housing security, health outcomes, and education outcomes; 
• The impacts of poverty amongst different demographics and communities; 
• The relationship between income support payments and poverty; 
• Mechanisms to address and reduce poverty; and 
• Any other related matters. 

SSRV is not able to share our submission to the Poverty Inquiry until it has been approved by the Inquiry, but when we can, we’ll let you know. 

Meanwhile, if you, or someone you are helping, have been issued with a Centrelink debt that you disagree with, if Centrelink has organised a payment plan causing you financial distress, or if you are having difficulty accessing a Centrelink payment, you can call us today. Most Centrelink decisions can be appealed and repayment plans can be negotiated to be more manageable. 

In 2020, when Khodar*, an Iranian refugee living in Australia, lost his job as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, his friends told him that the Australia government was assisting people who had been affected by COVID-19 and advised him to apply for JobKeeper.  

When Khodar* was completing the JobKeeper application form, he noticed a question about his residency status. As his temporary visa allowed him to work lawfully in Australia, he believed that this meant he was an Australian resident and he incorrectly ticked that box.  

About a year later, Khodar received a letter advising that the ATO had raised a debt of $42,000 for overpayment of JobKeeper.  

When Maria*, a single mother supporting her family on Parenting Payment Single called the SSRV Legal Assistance Line, she had also been issued with a Centrelink debt. Centrelink had raised the debt following a decision that Maria was a member of a couple and not eligible for the payment. 

She wasn’t. Maria had temporarily moved into the house of her former partner and children’s father when she lost her rental. A tight housing market meant that it had been months before she was able to secure a new home. 

Khodar and Maria both called the SSRV Legal Assistance Line and received assistance to understand and resolve their social security legal issue.

Every person who calls SSRV’s Legal Assistance Line has a different reason for picking up the phone. They may have been turned down for a payment they believed they were entitled to; they may have been issued with a debt or had their payments reduced; they may be in a dispute with Centrelink and simply not know what their options are. 

What they all have in common is that when they call SSRV’s Legal Assistance Line, they connect with a supportive SSRV team member who can provide information and help the caller to determine what further assistance SSRV or other agencies can provide. Our services are provided without judgement and with the objective of providing support to plan a pathway forward. 

SSRV can provide callers with information, legal advice or legal assistance about: 

• – Review rights and options if you have been refused a Centrelink payment or had your payments suspended or cancelled and you do not agree with the decision
• – Centrelink debt waivers and debt recovery issues 
• – Disability Support Pension eligibility and review pathways
• – Seeking review of Centrelink decisions where you have been impacted by family violence
• – Centrelink payments are review rights for people who have been affected by a disaster, such as bushfire or flood
• – Compliance requirements, including income reporting, mutual obligation and program of support
• – Centrelink decisions relating to membership of couple issues
• – Centrelink decisions relating to income and assets issues
• – Jobkeeper debts objections
• – Status Resolution Support Payments debt waiver applications

Financial counselling 

SSRV regularly engages with clients who are experiencing a multiple, inter-connected and compounding financial difficulties. 

During legal advice appointments, SSRV lawyers will enquire whether the person may benefit from also meeting with our in-house financial counsellor.  

If so, and the person agrees, they may be offered an appointment with the in-house financial counsellor or referred to the National Debt Help Line. 

SSRV was able to work quickly to assist Khodar to seek the debt be reconsidered.  Ultimately, the entire amount of Khodar’s JobKeeper debt was waived.  

Need legal help? 

SSRV is a community legal centre that provides free legal services in relation to social security and Centrelink matters to people across Victoria. 

Legal Assistance Line 

Monday – Friday 
9am-1pm and 2pm-5pm 
Phone: 03 9481 0355 

*Clients have been de-identified for their privacy and safety. 

I first started with SSRV as a student volunteer in mid-2021 as a part of the Monash Clinical Placement Program. Being a third-year law student at the time, this placement was an invaluable step in my professional development.

SSRV staff provided a constructive environment to learn the foundations of social security law and their kindness and patience gave me a great appreciation for those working within the community legal sector.

My placement at SSRV taught me a lot about how Centrelink works (or doesn’t), but this was not my first experience with Centrelink. In 2017, I moved to Melbourne from Perth to pursue my studies. Before my work here, I supported myself by receiving Youth Allowance along with a series of insecure casual jobs. During this time, I became familiar with the failures of Centrelink and the terror and confusion you can feel when interacting with them.

A regular thought running through my head was, “Will this simple call to update my address be a quick five-minute affair, or will I be waiting two hours on hold to be informed that I have a $5,000 debt and that my payments have been permanently cancelled?”

On completion of the placement in late-2021, I was offered a position within SSRV’s intake and administration team where I have worked since. I work alongside our Operations and Intake Co-ordinator, Peter Horbury, as the first point of contact for individuals seeking legal information and advice regarding Centrelink issues.

When answering the phone, I make it my goal to clearly understand the caller’s circumstances and provide them with support that prioritises their primary concerns. Individuals accessing our services are often dealing with a myriad of other issues such as homelessness or family violence. It is paramount that we make an informed decision about whether we are able to address their most immediate concerns or whether another service is more appropriate.

Outside of work, I live with my partner and two cats and aim to complete my studies and start practising as a lawyer in the community sector within the next two years.

Sometime last century I commenced with SSRV as a volunteer member of the Board. Back then, SSRV was called the Welfare Rights Unit (WRU), and was a tiny but mighty community organisation.

I was then a senior financial counsellor and a regular witness to the way WRU made a difference helping Centrelink recipients find solutions to social security issues. After around ten years I decided to put that law degree to some use and ceased volunteering as a Board member to take up a role as a lawyer.

I returned to SSRV in 2022 to work on our Disaster Preparedness and Response Project. In my time away, I had gathered deep experience in consumer and insurance law, worked across a range of human rights legal issues, and even helped to develop Victoria’s Disaster Legal Help model in 2009.

I hope my involvement with the Disaster Preparedness and Response Project helps SSRV and other community organisations build capacity to support people impacted by disasters and who need help to successfully interact with Centrelink.

To help me switch off my lawyer’s brain, I try cooking, growing things in the garden to eat (or for bees to enjoy) and watching almost anything the sports channel serves up… preferably with an adoring cat on my lap.

Anyone who has contacted SSRV about appealing a Centrelink decision will know that we go to great lengths to stress the importance of time limits.

Read our article ‘Time limits: why they matter’ to learn more about when and how time limits apply to appealing Centrelink decisions.

Time limits are always important, but are particularly important when appealing an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Social Services and Child Support Division (‘SSCSD’) decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, General Division (‘General Division’). Failure to meet this time limit may mean you lose the ability to appeal to the General Division.  This time limit applies to all decisions, including debts.

What happens when you miss a time limit? 

Time limits are critical at each stage of the appeal process as they can impact your right to back payment if an appeal is successful. However, you can still lodge an Authorised Review Officer review (‘ARO’) or SSCSD appeal if you miss the 13-week time limit.  Missing the time limit often means that, if successful, the date you can be back paid changes to the date you lodged the appeal, often resulting in less back pay.  

A strict 28-day time limit applies to appeal an SSCSD decision to the General Division.    

Once the 28-day time limit expires, you will need to lodge an extension of time application to the General Division, asking them to allow you to appeal.    

There is no guarantee an extension will be granted as the General Division will consider a range of factors in deciding whether to allow you to appeal out of time.  In fact, it is very difficult to obtain an extension of time to appeal.  If the General Division refuses your application, you will not be able to appeal the SSCSD decision to the General Division. 

The legislation  

The power to grant an extension of time comes from section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It states that the General Division may grant an extension if ‘satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances.’  

The case of Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment 1984 outlines the following list of factors as a guide to assist the Tribunal in making their decision whether to grant an extension of time application:  

1. Special circumstances need not be shown, however, the Court will not grant the application unless positively satisfied that it is proper so to do [and] … there is an “acceptable explanation of the delay” and it is “fair and equitable in the circumstances” to extend time.  

2. Action taken by the applicant, other than by making an application for review under the Act, is relevant to the consideration of the question whether an acceptable explanation for the delay has been furnished.  
3. Any prejudice to the respondent… however, the mere absence of prejudice is not enough to justify the grant of an extension.  

4. The merits of the substantial application are properly to be taken into account in considering whether an extension of time should be granted.  
5. Considerations of fairness as between the applicants and other persons otherwise in a like position.  

Case studies 

There are a number of cases where an extension of time was refused despite being lodged just one day after the 28-day time limit expired.    

However, extensions aren’t always refused.  In Reilly and Secretary, Department of Social Serivces (Social services second review) [2019], the impact of family violence was a key factor in the General Division granting an extension of time.  

In Anastasis and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018], the General Division granted an extension of time that involved a delay of over two years, complex personal circumstances for the applicant and a determination that there was merit to the substantial application.    

If you want to appeal an AAT SSCSD decision, lodge your application within the 28-days of receiving the SSCSD decision.  If you miss the time limit, you can make an extension of time application but it may not be successful, which will prevent you from appealing the SSCSD decision to the General Division.  

Need legal help? 

SSRV is a community legal centre that provides free legal services in relation to social security and Centrelink matters to people across Victoria. 

Legal Assistance Line 

Monday – Friday 
9am-1pm and 2pm-5pm 
Phone: 03 9481 0355 

In any given year, around a quarter of SSRV’s clients are involved in a Centrelink dispute about the rate of their social security payments. We now know that a disaster can directly cause these kinds of disputes.

For example, after his house burnt down in a bushfire, our client Alex* moved into temporary accommodation with his ex-partner.  Alex updated Centrelink about his circumstances, and Centrelink subsequently determined that Alex was now a member of a couple. Alex’s age pension and that of his ex-partner were reduced.  Alex told us that he had not reconciled with his ex-partner; that they did not share finances; and that they considered themselves to be house mates. 

SSRV can provide legal advice and assistance for people seeking to appeal Centrelink decisions that do not properly consider the impacts of a disaster. We understand the importance of correct decision-making regarding payments in the stressful times following a disaster.

SSRV also recognises the impact on Centrelink recipients of having to appeal such decisions, especially in the face of a disaster where there are many competing pressures and stresses. We believe Centrelink need to take a disaster-informed approach to their decision making and make correct and informed decisions in the first instance. 

In Alex’s case, this may have avoided the need for Alex to pursue an appeal and argue that he was not a member of a couple. His time and energy could have been vested into rebuilding and recovering post disaster.

With disasters being declared six to ten times a year in Victoria, we think social security legislation needs to be disaster informed, and social security policy needs to guide correct decision making in the first instance. This year, we’re looking for ways to bring this issue to the attention of law and policy makers.  

Find out more about SSRV’s Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan and read more from our Did You Know? series.

 *Name changed

Sam* had applied for Jobseeker payment but his claim was rejected. When he phoned Centrelink, he was told that they had mailed a notice requesting further information, and when they had not received that information, they had mailed him another letter advising his application was rejected.  

Sam had not received either of the letters because his house was damaged by the bushfires and he was no longer living there. ​

To make matters more complicated, Sam had lost the documents requested by Centrelink in the bushfire. ​Because Sam hadn’t received the letters, and he contacted Centrelink more than 13 weeks after the rejection, he was no longer entitled to back payments.

It’s always a good idea to keep Centrelink updated about your current mailing address, and to look for ways to protect your important documents from being damaged or lost in a disaster.

The legislation as it stands allows for Centrelink to rely upon correspondence which is mailed to disaster-affected regions. This can have big impacts on social security payments. With disasters being declared six to ten times a year in Victoria, we believe social security legislation and policy needs to be more disaster-informed. In the coming year, we’ll be looking for ways to bring this issue to the attention of law and policy makers.

Find out more about SSRV’s Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan and read more from our Did You Know? series.

*Name has been changed

Anyone who has called our Worker Helpline wanting to appeal a Centrelink decision will know that one of the first things we advise about is time limits. It’s essential to be aware of applicable time limits because they can have a significant impact on your entitlement to back pay and right to appeal further, and it’s our job to let you know.

The case of Hodges-Fong and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 3102 (23 September 2022) demonstrates the importance of time limits in regards to entitlement to back pay.

Background

The applicant, who we will refer to as HF, lodged an application for the Age Pension on 11 April 2019. On 24 August 2019, Centrelink rejected her application and sent her a letter advising of this decision.

HF stated she never received this letter and contacted Centrelink on 24 April 2020 about the status of her claim. As her application had been rejected, Centrelink logged this contact as a review request (internal review).

An internal review affirmed the decision to reject her Age Pension application on the basis that she did not respond to a notice for further information.

On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support Division) (‘AAT SSCSD’) decided that the basis for rejecting her application was incorrect as she had provided further information as requested by Centrelink. 

The AAT SSCSD remitted the matter back to Centrelink to re-assess her eligibility and determined that HF was to be back paid from 24 April 2020 (the date Centrelink entered the review request). Centrelink granted her Age Pension application and paid her from the 24 April 2020.

HF appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (General Division) (‘General Division’) as she believed she was entitled to back payment from the date she lodged her claim on 11 April 2019.

The decision

1. Did Centrelink notify HF of the decision to reject her Age Pension claim?

The General Division explained that under section 237 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999 (‘the Administration Act’) “if a notice of decision is sent by prepaid post to the postal address of the person last known to the Agency, then notice of the decision is taken to have been given to the person at the time at which the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of the pose unless the contrary is proved. A similar provision can be found in Section 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).”

The General Division also noted that previous tribunal decisions have determined that notice is considered given “provided the letter was correctly addressed and posted…even if the Tribunal were satisfied that the Applicant did not actually receive the notice.”

2. On what date did HF request an internal review?

HF’s contact with Centrelink on 24 April 2020 was the first contact she had with them since July 2019. She detailed to the General Division her personal circumstances which became barriers to her following up with Centrelink prior April 2020. As such, she did not suggest she had requested a review prior to this date either. The General Division determined a review was to be taken as requested on 24 April 2020, which was more than 13 weeks after the notice of rejection.

3. What date can HF be paid Age Pension from (to determine any entitlement to back pay)?

Section 107(3) of the Administration Act states that if someone requests a review of a decision to reject their payment application more than 13 weeks after they have been notified of that decision, and the review results in a decision to grant their claim, then they can only be back paid from the date they requested the review.

Ultimately, the General Division decided that HF was deemed to have been notified of the decision to reject her Age Pension application by way of the letter dated 24 August 2019. Because she had been notified of the rejection decision, and she requested a review more than 13 weeks after being notified, she could only be back paid to the date she requested the review – 24 April 2020.

The Tribunal noted in their reasons that the legislation provided no discretion to backpay HF further than this date.

Why is this AAT General Division decision important?

Time limits apply at each stage of the appeal process. Complying with time limits preserves entitlement to back pay should someone be successful in their appeal.

Appealing Centrelink decisions can also take a long time – sometimes up to 18 months or more. This can make complying with time limits confusing. HF didn’t request an internal review of the decision to reject her payment application within the strict time limits. As a result, she missed out on approximately 12 months back pay from April 2019 to April 2020.

You can still appeal most decisions outside the strict time limits, however it is important to note that you will only be back paid from the date you requested the appeal – as was the case for HF.

Time limits don’t just apply to decisions about payment applications. Time limits apply to almost all decisions Centrelink make about someone’s social security entitlement, including but not limited to cancellation, suspension and variation. There are no time limits to appeal a decision about a debt to an internal review, but time limits do apply once at the AAT.

Finally, this decision addresses an equally important issue regarding notice of decisions. If the letter is correctly addressed and posted, or sent to MyGov, then it is considered received unless it can be proven otherwise. As this decision demonstrates, proving otherwise is not an easy thing to do.

If you are awaiting a decision by Centrelink it is important to regularly follow up with them, check your Centrelink App or MyGov account. Doing this will help to prevent missing important time limitations.

Resources

For more information on applicable time limits for different types of Centrelink payments, take a look at the table at the end of Economic Justice Australia’s fact sheet ‘Appealing a Centrelink decision’ available on our website here.

If you need information or advice about a decision Centrelink have made, then please contact our Legal Assistance Line on (03) 9481 0355 or Worker Helpline on (03) 9481 0655.

While I started at Social Security Rights Victoria in September 2021 as a Community Lawyer working on disaster preparedness, I have since moved into the role of Principal Lawyer.

Prior to joining SSRV, I practised in the community legal sector in the areas of family violence, family law and child protection, in Victoria and in the Northern Territory. I then moved into administrative law before joining the team at SSRV to assist clients with navigating the complex social security system we have in Australia.

I am passionate about the work we do here at SSRV, as well as the community legal sector more broadly, and I am very proud to be part of the team at SSRV. Every day I see up close, and am encouraged by, our team’s passion for social security and assisting our clients. The legal work we do day-to-day can be complex, but we are driven by our common goal of holding the government to account and pursuing correct and just decision-making.

The work we do at SSRV is underpinned by social security being a human right. I believe providing the community with access to lawyers who specialise in social security is a pivotal part of increasing access to justice in the social security space.

Besides my passion for administrative law and social security, I am an avid animal lover and enjoy cooking. On the weekends you’ll find me at the local park or beach with my four-legged furry best friend.