1. The essential facts which are relevant to this matter are not in dispute. It is agreed that Mr JVJY lodged a claim for age pension on 27 April 2022 and the claim was rejected. Mr JVJY confirmed receipt of the notification letter, which was sent electronically to Mr JVJY's myGov account, on 15 June 2022 rejecting his claim for age pension.[6] It is also not in dispute that he subsequently lodged a second claim on 15 March 2024.[7]
2. The rejection letter sent to Mr JVJY on 15 June 2022 stated as follows:

We cannot pay you Age Pension because we have not received the documents we requested. If you still want to claim Age Pension, you need to provide all the documents we requested within 13 weeks from the date you received this letter.[8]

1. The letter further states that 'If you do not agree with a decision we have made, contact us as soon as possible. It is important to ask for a review within 13 weeks of being notified about the decision.' The letter then explains that if the request is more than 13 weeks after being notified and the decision can be changed, the entitlement may only be from the date you requested the review.
2. Mr JVJY told me that he went with his wife to the Agency's local office to make his application for age pension. At the time he spoke to a delegate of the Agency, he gave information about his wife and her financial circumstances and when he left the office, he was assured that he had done everything that was required. After about three months, he received a text message which said that his age pension claim had been rejected. At the time, he and his wife were travelling and he assumed, as he had stated previously, that his claim had been rejected on the basis of his financial circumstances.
3. He only made enquiries about the decision to reject the claim when his wife applied for age pension and was found to be qualified for the payment. He could not recall having contacted the Agency between the rejection of his first claim and the second claim for age pension. He thinks that the original rejection was invalid because the information about his wife had already been provided, the online claim he lodged on 27 April 2022 could not have been submitted if he had not completed his wife's information. Mr JVJY states that he attended a Centrelink office after he was notified of the rejection of his claim, however there is no record of an attendance or a record that he sought review of the decision.
4. I note that the ARO decision states that on 25 June 2022, Mr JVJY's partner confirmed their relationship, however, the Agency records note that the online confirmation was completed on 25 June 2024. The Tribunal on first review also sought submissions from the Agency in support of the ARO's statement, and these submissions confirmed that there were no supporting documents which record this assertion and that the date appears to have been a typographical error. The Agency further confirmed that Mr JVJY's partner confirmed the relationship online on 15 March 2024 and also in a document lodged on his record on 25 June 2024.
5. The Secretary also contends that Mr JVJY's partner did not confirm the relationship prior to 15 March 2024, which is the date Mr JVJY was granted age pension based on his second claim and again on 25 June 2024. Furthermore, the Secretary contends that review of the decision on 15 June 2022 was sought on 27 August 2024, after Mr JVJY had been granted the age pension.
6. As submitted by the Secretary, the operation of section 107 of the Administration Act is clear. It does not provide a discretion or an exception to the requirement to seek review of the notification of a rejection notice given to a person within 13 weeks of receiving the notice.
7. In Bagh v Secretary, Dept of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 128 the AAT stated:

The general rule in relation to payment of social security entitlements is that if a person is qualified for a payment on the date upon which they lodge a written claim for that payment and their claim for the payment is granted, then they are paid the relevant entitlement from that day.

Even where a person's claim is rejected, they may still be paid from the date they lodged their claim if they challenge the decision rejecting their claim within 13 weeks of being notified of it, and that challenge is successful. However where a person seeks review of a rejection decision more than 13 weeks after being notified of that decision, then any decision granting their claim only takes effect from the date they sought review of the rejection decision. (Emphasis added and citations omitted)[9]

1. In Bendovska and SDFHCSIA [2013] AATA 134, the AAT relevantly summarises the cases that have dealt with section 107 of the Administration Act. The AAT in Bendovska concluded that there are no exemptions to this rule. I agree with these conclusions that there is no exemption or discretion available under section 107 of the Administration Act.
2. I am satisfied that Mr JVJY requested a review of the decision to reject his age pension on 27 August 2024, more than 13 weeks after being notified of the decision to reject the first claim on 15 June 2022. As a consequence, subsection 107(3) of the Administration Act applies, and therefore any decision to grant age pension can only take effect from the date Mr JVJY requested review of the decision.
3. I agree with the proposition put to me by Mr JVJY and his representative that the information regarding Mr JVJY's wife was included in his online claim form lodged on 27 April 2022.

I also accept that Mr JVJY's partner may have confirmed this information when he attended the Agency's office to make his claim for age pension in 2022. However, it would seem that the Agency proceeded to make its decision on the basis that his partner had not provided confirmation of the relationship and rejected the claim. A notice was sent to Mr JVJY on 15 June 2022 through his myGov account, and a text message advising of the rejection was also sent. There is nothing before me which confirms he sought review within 13 weeks of the notification of the rejection. As he was subsequently granted age pension from 15 March 2024, and he sought review of the decision after this date, it is not possible for Mr JVJY to be paid age pension prior to 15 March 2024. 4. I have discussed with Mr JVJY the prospect of making a claim under the Compensation under the Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme (the CDDA Scheme). I cannot determine such a claim, but it is open to Mr JVJY to refer such a claim to the Agency for consideration. This is a separate and distinct process to the matter I am able to review.

[1] Exhibit R1 - Hearing Bundle, pages 1 to 139; Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions prepared by the Respondent.

[2] MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767 at [17].

[3] Age pension is a social security payment as defined under subsection 23(1) of the Act.

[4] Subsection 107(2) of the Administration Act.

[5] Subsection 107(3) of the Administration Act.