The part which a governmental policy should ordinarily play in the determinations of the Tribunal is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, in the context of the particular case, informed by considerations of the desirability of consistency of administrative decisions, but balanced against the ideal of justice in the individual case (Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20: (2010) 182 FCR 115 at [43]). Further, it is well-established that the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it and that the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642-643 per Brennan J). The important matter is compliance with the terms of the relevant statute itself Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 69.

1. In the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, relevant executive policy in the Guide is a relevant factor for me to take into account in performing the review task and a lawful approach allows the adoption of appropriate policy as a guide but not so as to control the making of the decision.
2. Section 36 of the Administration Act requires that a claim for a social security payment be determined by either granting or rejecting the claim.
3. Pursuant to section 37 of the Administration Act, a claim may only be granted if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person is both qualified for the payment and that the payment is payable to the person. Pursuant to section 44 of the Act, age pension is not payable if a person's rate of payment would otherwise be nil.
4. Section 55 of the Act provides that the rate of age pension is determined in accordance with the Rate Calculator in section 1064. The method statement in the Rate Calculator, at point 1064-A1, sets out the income and assets test used to determine entitlement. The lower of the 2 rates calculated after applying these tests is the applicable rate of pension. When a person is a member of a couple, the income and assets of their partner are also taken in account in the rate calculation.
5. Various provisions in the Act deal with the treatment of assets and income for the purposes of assessing a person's assets and income.
6. In addition to taking into account assets and income owned or received by a person in their own name, Part 3.18 of the Act sets out a system for the attribution to individuals of the assets and income of private companies and private trusts in certain circumstances.
7. The asset test is the relevant test for consideration in relation to the Applicant's 3 April 2024 claim.
8. Assets are defined in section 11 of the Act as 'property or money' and include household contents, vehicles, money owed to a person, investments, real estate and business assets.
9. Section 1122 of the Act provides that loans are assets for social security purposes to the extent that the amount remains unpaid. That section provides as follows:

If a person lends an amount after 27 October 1986, the value of the assets of the person for the purposes of this Act includes so much of that amount as remains unpaid but does not include any amount payable by way of interest under the loan.

1. Financial assets and financial investments are defined in section 9 of the Act and include money owed to a person. That section provides as follows:

(i) an asset‑tested income stream (long term) that is an account‑based pension within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994; or

(j) an asset‑tested income stream (long term) that is an annuity (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) provided under a contract that meets the requirements determined in an instrument under subsection (1EA);

1. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's and his wife's combined assets as of 3 April 2024 comprised both personal assets and assets attributable to them under Part 3.18 of the Act. It was submitted that when combined, those assets exceeded the maximum assets limit of $1,012,500 for a homeowner couple on 3 April 2024, beyond which nil age pension is payable such that the 3 April 2024 claim must therefore be rejected. The Respondent's representative clarified at hearing that the reference in the Respondent's SFIC to the two types of assessable assets (personal and attributed) for the Applicant being in the alternative was incorrect and the submission was that the assets are cumulative and taken into account in total. In any event, it was submitted that the Applicant's financial assets alone as of 3 April 2024 exceeded the maximum assets limit.
2. The Applicant provided a detailed letter outlining the background to his claim for age pension when he lodged his claim. The letter includes details of fraud contended by his long-term business partner, the associated legal proceedings and the Applicant's and his wife's current financial hardship.[2]
3. The Applicant's first review application included the following:[3]

Our personal possessions are what we can fit into our car

Due to the fact that we have No Cash or Income, I have no option other than to represent ourselves

Due to the fact we have been homeless since 18 June 2024, has added additional difficulties for us with Centrelink

1. The Applicant's second review application included the following:

The "Decision" document contained information on pages 15 and 16 around "When a loan no longer exists"

I feel that I am now able to address some of issues around the "Unrealisable Assets" loans

1. The Applicant said at hearing he feels like he and wife will never get age pension but there is no money. The loans will not be repaid.

1. The relevant claim for age pension in relation to this application is the Applicant's claim dated 3 April 2024.[4] The Applicant lodged an Income and Assets form[5] with the claim, a form used to collect information about a person's financial circumstances to assist in the assessment of a person's claim for a social security payment. One of the questions posed in the Income and Assets form is whether the person has been involved with a private company with the note that, if relevant, a Private Company Mod PC form is then required to be completed and returned. The Applicant also completed and lodged a Private Company Mod PC form dated 3 April 2024.[6] The form was completed in relation to a private company which will be referred to as YG Pty Ltd in these Reasons and included in response to question 36[7] that the company owed:

(a) $1,277,376.70 to the Applicant and his wife;

(b) $114,500 to the Applicant; and

(c) $10,950 to the Applicant's wife.

1. The Applicant in the Income and Assets form signed by him, in response to question 52,[8] states that neither he nor his partner had lent money to another person or organisation. At hearing the Applicant's evidence was that he doesn't think he ticked that response in the Income and Assets form. In any event, the Mod PC form clearly discloses loans to the Applicant and his wife which are not disputed.
2. Ordinarily, the best evidence of the liabilities of a company is as found in its financial statements. No financial statements were provided for YG Pty Ltd in relation to the Applicant's claim. The Applicant's evidence included that even though he and his wife are the sole directors of YG Pty Ltd, these documents are not available to them including because of pending court proceedings in relation to his business partner defrauding them and because of the abrupt dispossession of their house from under them in June 2024. In any event as already noted, the Applicant does not dispute that at the time of his 3 April 2024 age pension claim, YG Pty Ltd owed the specified amounts to him and his wife as stated in the Mod PC form. This has also been acknowledged by the Applicant in writing including at pages 43 and 49 of Exhibit R1.
3. I discussed with the Applicant that, as the loans were owed to him and his wife, they must be taken into account as financial assets in assessing his entitlement to age pension for his 3 April 2024 claim. I further noted that, based on those assets alone, without considering any other assets or any other associated entities, the assets limit would be exceeded for the purposes of age pension. The Applicant said he can see that in hindsight but no-one from Centrelink pointed that out to them at the time. I acknowledge the Applicant's concern in this regard and the understandable confusion that can arise in relation to how assets are assessed for the purposes of assessing a claim. However, the underlying issue, whether the Applicant's and his wife's assessable assets as at the date of claim exceeded the relevant limit, is to be answered having regard to the factual evidence and application of the legislation, regardless of what the Applicant's understanding may have been at the time.
4. The evidence establishes, and it is not disputed, that as of 3 April 2024, YG Pty Ltd owed $1,402,826.70 to the Applicant and his wife. I find accordingly. There is no basis for any liabilities that YG Pty Ltd may have to be offset against the loans as the Applicant has contended. Notably, in any event, there is no evidence of YG Pty Ltd's financial position before the Tribunal. Unless the loans to the Applicant and his wife can be disregarded on the basis that they no longer exist, or on the basis that they are unrealisable assets such that their value may be disregarded, the assessable assets of the Applicant for the purposes of assessing his 3 April 2024 claim for age pension exceeds the maximum limit beyond which age pension is not payable.
5. Pursuant to section 1122 of the Act, the value of the assets of a person includes so much of the amount of a loan as remains unpaid. Section 4.6.5.65 of the Guide states as follows in relation to a loan made to a company, trust or individual, giving guidance as to when a loan ceases to exist:

Legally, a loan ceases to exist at the time it is repaid, or when the debtor is formally released from the loan. A debtor is released from a loan contract under a bankruptcy or where the loan is forgiven.

For social security purposes, there are some other situations where a loan is also treated as no longer existing. Loans that no longer exist are sometimes referred to as irrecoverable loans, though this term is not mentioned in the SSAct. Although there is no longer a loan, there may be another type of asset, such as a debt.

A loan no longer exists for social security purposes when:

• it is repaid
• the borrower is bankrupt
• the borrower enters a debt agreement under Part 9 or 10 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Commonwealth)
• the lender forgives the loan usually via a deed or gift of release (see explanation 1)
• the lender takes a loan contract to court to have it enforced and obtains a court order to allow collection of the money (see explanation 2)
• the lender takes a loan contract to court to have it enforced and is unsuccessful in court (see explanation 3)
• the lender seizes the asset against which the loan is secured (see explanation 4)
• the lender is bankrupt (see explanation 5)
• property against which the loan is secured is sold and the proceeds used to repay some or all of the loan
• the company (or trust) that borrowed the money is wound up (see exception)
• the company (or trust) that borrowed the money is in the process of irreversible winding up (see explanations 1 & 6)
• the period specified in the relevant state Statute of Limitations has elapsed since the date of the first breach of the loan contract (see explanation 7), or
• a company that borrowed the money is in administration and subsequently placed in liquidation, or loans to the company become subject to a deed of company arrangement. In these cases, the loan is taken to have ceased to exist from the date that the company was placed in administration (see explanation 8).

1. The Applicant's evidence at hearing included that there was no set date for repayment of the loans by YG Pty Ltd - the events that were expected to have occurred in mid-2023 in relation to the investment that would have meant the monies would be repaid have not occurred. They have given up hope of it ever happening. He and his wife have not pursued repayment of the loans from YG Pty Ltd because they know the company does not have any assets but YG Pty Ltd still owes them the money. He agreed that, as stated in response to question 54 of his 3 April 2024 age pension claim,[9] the loans have not been forgiven. I note that if an age pension claimant or recipient gives away assets (which includes forgiving a loan), the value of all or part of the assets given away may still count towards the assets test depending upon the application of 'gifting rules' in the legislation. Broadly speaking, any monies gifted in excess of $10,000 per financial year (limited, however, to $30,000 per any rolling 5-year financial period) continue to be assessable (sections 1126AC and 1126AD of the Act). The disposal provisions are often colloquially referred to as the "gifting rules". However, there is no evidence of any such action in relation to the loans.
2. The Applicant further agreed at hearing that, as shown in company searches for YG Pty Ltd dated 18 April 2024[10] and 7 October 2025,[11] YG Pty Ltd remained registered as of 3 April 2024 and has never been in external administration. He further agreed that none of the matters outlined in section 4.6.5.65 of the Guide applies to the YG Pty Ltd loans. The Applicant said that the only reason that the company hasn't been wound up is because they can't afford to do that.
3. I note that the Applicant has raised a number of concerns in relation to the inclusion of other assets, including attributed assets, in his assessable assets and the calculation of the total assets. I acknowledge those concerns however, as discussed at hearing and as canvassed in these Reasons, if the Applicant's financial assets related to the loans to YG Pty Ltd exceed the allowable asset limit for age pension to be payable in relation to his 3 April 2024 claim, the applicant's rate of age pension would be nil and therefore not payable pursuant to section 44 of the Act.
4. I am satisfied based on the evidence, and it was not disputed by the Applicant that YG Pty Ltd owes the Applicant and his wife loans totalling $1,402,826.70 as set out earlier of these Reasons. Those loans are financial assets of the Applicant and his wife assessable for aged pension purposes. The Applicant and his wife became non-homeowners on 18 June 2024 when their properties were repossessed. However, it is not disputed that as of 3 April 2024, the date upon which the Applicant's claim the subject of this application must be assessed, the Applicant and his wife were homeowners. The assets limit beyond which the rate of age pension payable is nil was $1,012,500 for homeowner members of a couple as of 3 April 2025 and $1,254,500 for non-homeowner members of a couple.[12] As the Applicant's and his wife's assessable assets as of 3 April 2025 were at least $1,402,826.70, their combined assets for the purposes of his 3 April 2024 claim exceeded the asset limit beyond which age pension is not payable. The rate of age pension that would be payable to the Applicant is therefore nil.
5. Although a number of other assets have also been included in the Applicant's total assets for the purposes of assessing his claim, including attributed assets pursuant to Part 3.18 of the Act, I have concluded that the Applicant's assessable assets exceeded the maximum limit based upon the loans to YG Pty Ltd alone. It is therefore not necessary to consider the Part 3.18 attribution issues and associated issues, any other assets or related submissions including the Applicant's submissions relating to double counting. Pursuant to section 53 of the ART Act, I have confined my consideration on this basis.
6. As the rate of age pension that would be payable to the Applicant is nil, age pension is not payable to the Applicant in relation to his 3 April 2024 claim. It follows that his claim must be rejected and that the decision under review to refuse to grant the Applicant's 3 April 2024 claim for age pension must be affirmed.

1. The Applicant in his written submissions,[13] refers to the definition of an unrealisable asset. That definition must be read in the context of the relevant sections of the legislation that refer to that term, sections that are often referred to as the hardship provisions. In certain circumstances these provisions allow the value of an unrealisable asset of a person or their partner to be disregarded in working out their social security pension rate. However, before consideration may be given to those provisions in relation to a person's personal assets, a request that the relevant section apply must be lodged in the approved form pursuant to paragraph 1129(1)(d) of the Act. Section 1129 of the Act provides as follows in that regard:

(i) a social security pension is not payable to a person because of the application of the assets test; or

(ii) a person's social security pension rate is determined by the application of an assets test; and

(i) sections 1108 and 1009 (disposal of income) and 1124A, 1125, 1125A, 1126, 1126AA, 1126AB, 1126AC and 1126AD (disposal of assets) do not apply to the person; or

(ii) the Secretary determines that the application of those sections to the person should, for the purposes of this section, be disregarded; and

(c) the person, or the person's partner, has an unrealisable asset; and

(d) the person lodges with the Department, in a form approved by the Secretary, a request that this section apply to the person; and

(e) the Secretary is satisfied that the person would suffer severe financial hardship if this section did not apply to the person; the Secretary must determine that this section applies to the person.

the Secretary must determine that this section applies to the person.

1. If section 1129 of the Act applies, pursuant to section 1130 of the Act, the value of the unrealisable asset may then be disregarded.
2. The Applicant lodged a request that section 1129 of the Act apply on 5 August 2024 and 14 April 2024. However as discussed with the Applicant at hearing, and consistent with the submissions of the Respondent at paragraphs 6.30 to 6.32 of its SFIC, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to this application to consider the refusal of those requests. Decisions made by Centrelink in relation to those requests have associated review rights including internally within Centrelink, and to the Tribunal if relevant, should the Applicant wish to separately pursue those review rights.

1. For the reasons canvassed, the decision under review to refuse to grant the Applicant's 3 April 2024 claim for age pension must be affirmed.
2. The Applicant in his comments for hearing, Exhibit A4, refers to a number of concerns including in relation to a subsequent age pension claim which he acknowledges is not part of this application. The Applicant also canvasses a number of matters relating to forcible seizure of his home and other property on 18 June 2024 with the result that he and his wife are now homeless, couch surfing, with personal assets that fit into a car and with no income or cash, living off the generosity of their children and friends. As discussed at hearing and as already canvassed, this application relates to assessment of the Applicant's 3 April 2024 claim for age pension and although subsequent evidence now available as to his asset position as at that date may be taken into account, any subsequent changes to the Applicant's position cannot be taken into account in considering the position as of 3 April 2024. I further acknowledge the Applicant's request for guidance as to what to do. I recognise the difficulties confronting the Applicant and his wife. However, as discussed with the Applicant at hearing, it is not the role of the Tribunal to provide guidance or advice. I do not diminish in any way the difficulties and challenges impacting the Applicant and his wife. However, I am bound to apply the legislation as enacted based on the factual findings I have made. It is a matter for the Applicant should he wish to follow up other options he may have, whether with Centrelink or otherwise.

[1] Services Australia delivers social security payments and services and is overseen by the Department of Social Services. The Respondent is responsible for the overall management and administration of the Department of Social Security. Centrelink is the Government Agency that delivers social security payments and services as part of Services Australia and as the Agency with whom pension and benefit applicants/recipients interact, the Respondent may be variously referred to as Centrelink or the Respondent throughout these Reasons.

[12] A guide to Australian Government payments