The Applicant seeks review of a decision to suspend payment of his disability support pension (DSP) from 10 August 2024, which was 29 days after he departed Australia to travel to Sri Lanka on 13 July 2024. Centrelink resumed his DSP payments from 24 August 2024 on the basis the Applicant returned to Australia on that date. In this application, the Applicant seeks that DSP be paid for the period 10 August to 23 August 2024.
On 10 September 2024, an authorised review officer determined that DSP was not payable to the Applicant for the period 10 August to 23 August 2024 and, consequently, affirmed the decision to suspend payment from 10 August 2024. On 8 May 2025, the Tribunal on first review also affirmed this decision. The Applicant then applied for second review.
I conducted a hearing by telephone on 20 January 2026. The Applicant's primary contention is that the decision to suspend his DSP was affected by procedural unfairness and should be set aside on this basis. He did not find out about the suspension decision, which was effective from 10 August 2024, until a few days afterwards. His view was that Centrelink should have contacted him and given him an opportunity to be heard before it considered making any suspension decision. This was especially so, given he was on a payment based on having a disability. The context was very serious for him. He was left without funds whilst overseas which jeopardised his ability to pay for a return ticket and placed him in considerable difficulty. He suggested it would have been preferable for any period of non-payment to apply after he had returned to Australia.
In his evidence, the Applicant explained he had travelled to Sri Lanka to undergo Sinhalese herbal treatment which was not available in Australia. He has experienced severe depression for a long time and hoped this treatment would prove beneficial. He explained the treatment was performed by Indigenous healers; no medical practitioners were involved. He had expected the period of treatment to be four weeks but was intending to stay longer when an extended period of treatment was suggested.
The Applicant stated he had called Centrelink about two to three days before his departure. His identification was confirmed and he explained he would be absent from Australia for about four weeks. He said he was not alerted to any prospect of his DSP being stopped if he was away longer than this. Centrelink has no record of this contact by the Applicant. Given my view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider this issue further.
The Applicant left Australia on a one-way ticket with the intention of purchasing his return ticket once in Sri Lanka when there was more certainty as to when he wished to return. Once his DSP payments ceased, he did not have enough funds and had to enlist a friend's assistance. His friend borrowed the money for a return ticket for him. The Applicant had to make repayment, including significant interest costs. If he had the funds for a return ticket, he said he would have been on a plane back to Australia within a few days of speaking with Centrelink about the suspension of his payments (which was on 15 August 2024).
The Applicant also gave evidence of encountering some health-related problems later in his trip. He said he had suffered leech bites, he had a problem with his foot that took time to improve and he experienced dehydration due to the hot weather and humidity. He did not seek medical treatment and nor was he hospitalised in this context. He mainly rested for a week until he began to feel better. The Applicant submitted his circumstances should be considered under any humanitarian ground for relief in the legislation.
The Respondent Secretary's case is that there is no discretion available to extend the 28-day portability period in the circumstances of the Applicant's case. There is insufficient evidence to find any of the circumstances where extended portability might apply. It follows that the suspension decision was correctly made.
[2]
Division 2 of Chapter 4 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act) deals with portability of social security payments such as DSP in the context of a continued absence from Australia due to overseas travel. Generally, for an Australian resident DSP recipient such as the Applicant, the maximum portability period is 28 days in 12 months: see the table at the end of section 1217 of the Act. The 28-day period begins at the commencement of the period of absence and ends 28 days thereafter: subsection 1217(4) of the Act. There are limited circumstances where portability is unlimited: for example, where the Secretary has made a written determination under section 1218AAA of the Act that a person is a "severely impaired" recipient of DSP, or the person is a "terminally ill" DSP recipient. Neither of these exceptions apply here.
Importantly, in the circumstances of the Applicant's case, paragraph 1215(1)(b) of the Act provides that DSP is not payable for any period of absence after the end of his portability period. It is also relevant to note that, under the table at the end of section 1217, if the absence was to seek "eligible medical treatment" or for a "humanitarian purpose", the maximum portability period is four weeks at a time. "Eligible medical treatment" is defined in section 1212 of the Act to mean medical treatment of a kind not available in Australia. Section 1212B of the Act provides that an absence is for a "humanitarian purpose" at a particular time if the purpose of the absence is involvement in custody or certain legal proceedings, adoption of a child or for a purpose specified by regulation.
There is no medical evidence which indicates the Sinhalese herbal treatment the Applicant undertook was "medical treatment" in this context; certainly, no medical practitioners were involved. Nor was the Applicant's absence for a humanitarian purpose as defined. In any event, were his absence for one of these purposes, no practical difference would result since the consequent maximum portability period would be limited to four weeks at a time. This has the same effect as the general position of a 28-day maximum portability period within a 12-month period in this case.
The result here is that the Applicant's maximum portability period was 28 days, starting on 13 July 2024 and ending on 9 August 2024. Given he remained absent from Australia on and from 10 August 2024, his DSP was no longer payable. Subsection 80(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act) relevantly provides that, where the Secretary is satisfied DSP is no longer payable, there is a requirement to either cancel or suspend the payment. The determination made on 12 August 2024 to suspend, rather than cancel, was the most favourable outcome available in the circumstances. Had a decision to cancel DSP been made, the Applicant would have had to lodge a new claim on his return to Australia.
The only potential relief from the mandatory effect of these provisions in this case is found in section 1218C of the Act. An extension to the 28-day portability period is possible if the Applicant was unable to return to Australia because of a serious illness: paragraph 1218C(1)(b) of the Act. Whilst I am prepared to accept that the Applicant experienced some health-related issues whilst overseas, I do not consider a serious illness has been established. I note the Applicant did not see a doctor or attend a hospital when he was unwell. I am not satisfied the 28-day portability period can be extended.
I should add that I do not accept the Applicant's submissions based on any denial of procedural fairness or natural justice. He argued that Centrelink had reasonably contemporaneous access to Immigration Department systems and so was in a position to alert him to the potential suspension of his DSP prior to 10 August 2024. He relied on the failure to give him advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.
In my view, there was no obligation on Centrelink, either under the Social Security Law or general law, to provide advance notice or an opportunity to be heard before the suspension decision was made on 12 August 2024. Once the Applicant's maximum portability period of 28 days had been exceeded, a decision to either suspend or cancel his DSP was required under the Administration Act. There was no discretion available. Certainly, the Applicant's suggestion that any period of non-payment might have been applied after he returned to Australia is inconsistent with the relevant legislative provisions and would have been unlawful.
Finally, I note that Centrelink resumed paying DSP to the Applicant from 24 August 2024. However, the relevant immigration records show that the Applicant returned to Australia on 25 August 2024, the day after. Strictly, it seems payments should have recommenced from this date. However, the Applicant initially sought review of the original suspension decision made on 12 August 2024 and this decision has been affirmed on internal review and by the Tribunal on first review. The decision to resume payment was strictly a separate decision. In the circumstances, I do not consider the resumption decision is before me on this application.
For these reasons, the decision to suspend the Applicant's DSP from 10 August 2024 was correctly made.
[3]
Mr G Lozynsky, Litigation Branch, Services Australia
Legislation Cited (2)
Security (Administration) Act 1999
Security Act 1991
Cases Cited (1)
GHMH and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2026] ARTA 96 (29 January 2026)