Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1. The Secretary seeks dismissal of Mr KLPD's application for second review of a decision of the Tribunal dated 28 October 2024 on the grounds that the application is frivolous and lacks reasonable prospects for success.
2. By way of relevant background, Mr KLPD received disability support pension (DSP) from 9 December 2008 until it was cancelled on 28 February due to Mr KLPD having departed Australia and exceeded his allowable portability period. Mr KLPD returned to Australia on 19 September 2026.
3. On 27 September 2016, the applicant applied for newstart allowance. Mr KLPD's newstart allowance claim was subsequently granted. Also on 27 September 2016, and again on 23 December 2016, Mr KLPD contacted the Department expressing an intention to claim DSP, and on each occasion Centrelink wrote to Mr KLPD acknowledging his contact. No claims were forthcoming in relation to DSP until a claim was lodged on 21 April 2017 (the first claim).
4. On 8 September 2017, Centrelink rejected the first claim. What then transpires is a matter of conjecture. Mr KLPD contends that at some stage thereafter he requested review of that decision, either by seeking and obtaining a blank claim form for a new DSP claim, or by writing a letter to Centrelink, or both. Mr KLPD could not be precise as to when this took place, and could not point to any records that corroborate this contact. The Secretary's position is that there were no relevant contacts with Centrelink before 14 November 2018.
5. On 14 November 2018, Mr KLPD lodged a second claim for DSP (the second claim). Centrelink rejected the second claim on 25 November 2018, but eventually the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at second review made a decision with the consent of the Secretary on 5 January 2021 to effectively grant the claim from 14 November 2018. In this way, for present purposes, the second claim can be treated as granted with effect from the date that claim was lodged, albeit a number of years elapsed before that outcome came to pass.
6. On 9 May 2024, Mr KLPD put the correct start date of his DSP in issue through a contact with Centrelink. Ultimately, that contact led to an authorised review officer's decision affirming the decision to reject the first claim. Mr KPLD applied to the Tribunal for first review. The Tribunal identified two decisions before it: namely,
   • The decision to reject the first claim; and
   • The decision to grant Mr KLPD's DSP (that is, the second claim) from 14 November 2018 and not an earlier date.
7. The Tribunal affirmed both decisions on 28 October 2024. Mr KLPD applied for social services second review on 29 November 202: the instant proceedings.
8. On 10 September 2025, following a telephone directions hearing to prepare the matter for hearing, the Secretary applied in writing to have the application dismissed pursuant to section 101 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. I directed that the application would be heard at the commencement of the substantive hearing on 30 September 2025. The Secretary subsequently filed and served written submissions in support.
9. The Secretary submits that the application is frivolous and has no reasonable prospects of success because, among other grounds, even if the Tribunal were to make a favourable determination in relation to Mr KLPD's qualification for DSP in respect of the first claim, it would deliver no practical benefit to Mr KLPD because of the limitation on arrears provided for in sections 107 and 109 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
10. The Secretary contends that any arrears would be limited to 9 May 2024 by which time Mr KLPD was already in receipt of DSP, thus rendering any review futile and of no potential practical benefit to anyone, including Mr KLPD. In this regard, the Secretary contends that Mr KLPD did not seek review of the decision to reject the first claim until 9 May 2024. Subsection 109(2) of the Administration Act limits the date of effect of any favourable outcome of the review to the day on which the application for review was made if the person is given a notice informing the person the of the original decision, and more than 13 weeks elapses before the person applies to the Secretary for review.
11. In this regard, I note that the Tribunal papers contain a notice given to Mr KLPD advising him of the rejection of the first claim dated 8 September 2017. The notice also informs Mr KLPD of the effect of subsection 109(2) of the Administration Act.
12. It is possible that in the course of a review the Tribunal might identify an earlier occasion on which Mr KLPD requested review, and to that end, I observe that any such earlier date of request for review must pre-date 14 November 2018 for any practical benefit to flow to Mr KLPD should the review be favourable. The Secretary accepts that in some circumstances, the lodgement of a second claim for DSP could be interpreted as a request for review of an earlier rejection, but even that generous interpretation would not assist Mr KLPD in circumstances where he has been paid DSP from the date he lodged his second claim.
13. The key question therefore, on the issue of offering the potential for any practical benefit to Mr KLPD, is whether there is any evidence that Mr KLPD requested review of the decision to reject his first claim prior to 14 November 2018, being the date from which he is paid DSP in any event.
14. The Secretary contends there is no such evidence. The Secretary draws attention to one recorded contact in which medical certificates are discussed (17 November 2017) but contends that the content of that contact cannot be construed as a request for review of the decision to reject the first claim. I accept the Secretary's contention in that regard, and do not accept that the contact, which relates to the non-acceptance of medical certificates for newstart allowance purposes, can be reasonably construed as a request for review of the decision to reject Mr KLPD's first claim.
15. Mr KLPD gave evidence that he was sure he had questioned the rejection of his first claim. He described attending Centrelink offices and being advised to both lodge a second claim and to send a letter disagreeing with the rejection of his first claim. Mr KLPD could not point to any records in the Tribunal papers or supplementary Tribunal papers corroborating his recollections in that regard.
16. In exploring this matter further with Mr KLPD, I questioned whether perhaps he was recalling the circumstances in which he did in fact lodge his second claim, placing the timing of his recollections more approximate to 14 November 2018, and less approximate to 8 September 2017. Mr KLPD did not think so, but as mentioned above he could not identify any specific date or point to any corroborating records.
17. In reply, the Secretary drew attention to records suggesting that from a date approximate to 14 November 2018, Mr KLDP commenced attending a different Centrelink office, more consistent with the evidence he had given of his recollections regarding putting the decision on his first claim in issue.
18. Ultimately on this issue however, for the purpose of the application made by the Secretary to dismiss the application, my finding is that Mr KLPD did not request review of the rejection of his first claim before 14 November 2018. I am satisfied to accept the Secretary's contention that even a wholly favourable finding on the question of his qualification for DSP at the time of his first claim (which is not conceded by the Secretary, and in respect of which there are also real questions to whether there would be any prospect of success) would offer no practical benefit to Mr KLPD. I am satisfied in that sense that Mr KLPD's application for review is practically futile, and has no reasonable prospect of success.[1] His application for review insofar as it pertains to the review of the rejection of his first claim should be dismissed.
19. In relation to the review of the start date of DSP arising from his second claim, there is likewise no evidence I can identify that establishes that Mr KLPD made contact with the Department expressing an intention to lodge the claim he ultimately lodged within 13 weeks prior to 14 November 2018. The Secretary contends that there is therefore no evidence on which sections 12, 13 or 15 of the Administration Action might operate to deem the lodgement of a claim earlier than the date when it was in fact lodged, and from which Mr KLPD has been paid DSP.
20. I accept the Secretary's contentions in this regard, and agree that Mr KLPD's application for review, insofar as it raises the correct start date of his second claim, enjoys no prospects of success and should be dismissed.
21. Furthermore and in any event I accept that even if an earlier start date could be established based on a deemed claim, Mr KLPD did not seek review of the decision to pay his DSP from the date of the actual lodgement of the claim within 13 weeks of being notified on 13 January 2021, and the limitation on the date of effect would likewise operate on this aspect of the decision which may be construed as a rate increase determination, rendering any favourable outcome of no practical benefit to Mr KLPD.
22. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr KLPD's application for review of the decision of the Tribunal of 28 October 2024 has no reasonable prospects of success, and I dismiss the application for review.

[1] Reddish and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AATA 721 at [24] and at [33], and Re Williams and Australian Electoral Commission [1995] AATA 160; [1995] 38 ALD 366