Thus, in the normal case, a social security payment becomes payable on the day on which the claim is made, which, in the case of a written claim, is when it is lodged. In turn, a written claim is lodged when it is "delivered".

There are some exceptions. Sections 12, 13 and 15 of the Administration Act provide (and provided) that a person may be deemed to have made a claim for an income support payment in certain cases, the relevance of which will become apparent.

1. In relation to 'exceptional cases', the Secretary referred to Topic 8.2.1 of the Social Security Guide which clarifies situations where a customer may be transferred from one payment to another where a claim is not required:

The Secretary or delegate may determine that a person be transferred from any income support payment to any other income support payment without making a claim provided that:

• qualification for the 2 payments is either overlapping or continuous

• there is nothing that would prevent the transfer being effected by the person claiming and being granted and paid the second payment over the same time frame as is provided for under the provisions for transfer without making a claim

• the backdating of the transfer is limited to 13 weeks from the date of the decision to transfer. That is, the transfer should be backdated to the date of qualification or 13 weeks, whichever is the later date. This applies only to decisions made on or after 1 January 2008, and

• it is not possible to transfer to a closed payment after 1 January 2008.

Apart from exceptional cases, a person must lodge a claim to transfer to DSP or CP. This is because the claim procedures for these payments are designed to ensure specific qualification requirements are met.

Explanation: Exceptional cases are limited to vulnerable people. Vulnerable people are those who have a mental health condition and either lack insight into their mental health condition or live in a remote community with little or no access to health services.

1. The Secretary contends Mr Orloff had been in receipt of jobseeker payment since August 2023 and Centrelink subsequently made a new decision on 16 September 2024 that Mr Orloff became qualified for disability support pension, whilst in receipt of jobseeker payment. Mr Orloff's circumstances warranted him to be transferred over from jobseeker payment to disability support pension pursuant to section 12 of the Administration Act, which is what occurred. There was no section 126 of the Administration Act review in this case.
2. The Secretary submitted the provisions under Subdivision B of the Administration Act make it clear that there are circumstances where a claim is not necessary and can be deemed to have been made, such that a new and separate disability support pension claim was not required for Mr Orloff to be transferred from jobseeker payment to disability support pension from 17 June 2024. It was submitted that it was reasonable for the Secretary to have used section 12 of the Administration Act as the mechanism to transfer Mr Orloff from jobseeker payment to disability support pension without requiring him to make a claim.
3. The Secretary contends the original decision to grant the Mr Orloff disability support pension from 17 June 2024 was therefore made pursuant to section 12 of the Administration Act, which was noted by the original decision maker in the online documentation record, dated 8 August 2024, as well as subsequent document records dated 15 August 2024 and 16 September 2024. The documentation shows that a referral was made to the customer critical response team in relation to a section12 transfer, and that disability support pension was granted from a section 12 transfer.
4. The Secretary submitted Centrelink did not undertake an own motion review of the earlier decision to reject Mr Orloff's 2022 disability support pension claim, under section 126 of the Administration Act. As no decision was made by the Secretary under section 126 of the Administration Act this was not a matter before the Tribunal.
5. In relation to the start date of disability support pension, the Secretary referred to subsection 12(2) of the Administration Act which provides the start date must not be earlier than 13 weeks before the determination is made. Based on the available medical information and the JCA dated 8 August 2024, Centrelink accepted Mr Orloff was vulnerable at the time of he was deemed to have claimed for disability support pension on 17 June 2024, which was 13 weeks prior to the decision date on 16 September 2024. Pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the Administration Act, the start date cannot be prior to 17 June 2024 and the original decision to grant disability support pension from 17 June 2024 should therefore be affirmed by the Tribunal.
6. The Secretary submitted the decision to reject Mr Orloff's earlier claim for disability support pension in 2022 is not currently under review before the Tribunal. The ARO decision dated 19 October 2022 affirmed the decision to reject the 2022 claim on the basis that Mr Orloff's psychiatric disorder was not permanent. Mr Orloff sought review of the rejection decision with the AAT, and his application was dismissed and therefore the authorised review officer's decision of 19 October 2022 remains in effect.
7. The Secretary noted Mr Orloff's contention that his medical conditions had not changed from 2022 to 2024 in relation to his qualification for disability support pension. The Secretary responded that since Mr Orloff's earlier claim in 2022 there have been changes to the Impairment Tables (from 1 April 2023) including the assessment criteria under Table 5 - Mental Health Conditions, and Mr Orloff's circumstances may have changed (and may have impacted on his qualification for disability support pension). For example, when Mr Orloff claimed jobseeker payment, he stated he was employed as a labourer from January 2023 until July 2023 and only ceased work due to there being a shortage of work. Regardless, the Secretary contends that consideration of Mr Orloff's qualification for disability support pension in relation to his 2022 claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal accepts, Mr Orloff was in receipt of disability support pension at various times from 2002, and his disability support pension had been cancelled for various reasons on numerous occasions, including when he was incarcerated in 2019.
9. The Tribunal has found Mr Orloff was released from prison in August 2022 and claimed disability support pension on 5 September 2022. On 25 September 2022 this claim was rejected and Mr Orloff sought review by the AAT (Review Number: 2022/M176681) and on 22 March 2023 the application was dismissed by the AAT, on the basis that Mr Orloff did not attend the listed hearing on 6 March 2023. On 20 September 2023, Mr Orloff applied to the AAT for reinstatement of his application for review in relation to Review Number 2022/M176681, and on 10 October 2023, this application for reinstatement was refused. The Tribunal accepts that matter is not before this Tribunal and it is not within the jurisdiction of the current Tribunal.
10. Mr Orloff then contacted Centrelink on 17 June 2024 in relation to disability support pension. At the time Mr Orloff was in receipt of jobseeker payment, and there is no dispute that he sought to be paid disability support pension. In this context, Centrelink took Mr Orloff's contact as seeking to claim payment of disability support pension and Mr Orloff subsequently commenced an online claim on 15 July 2024, which the Tribunal accepts was not completed.
11. When he contacted Centrelink, Mr Orloff was in receipt of jobseeker payment and provided a medical certificate for a temporary incapacity and was homeless. On this basis Centrelink accepted Mr Orloff was a vulnerable claimant who could not make or lodge a claim (for disability support pension) when he contacted Centrelink because of his circumstances of being homelessness and temporary incapacity. On 16 September 2024, Centrelink deemed Mr Orloff lodged a claim for disability support pension on 15 August 2024 under section 12 of the Administration Act, and that claim was lodged within 13 weeks of his contact on 17 June 2024. The Tribunal accepts, in the circumstances Mr Orloff was a vulnerable claimant and it was reasonable for Centrelink to apply section 12 of the Administration Act such that Mr Orloff was taken to have made a claim for an income support payment, being disability support pension on 15 August 2024 and transferred him from jobseeker payment to disability support pension effective from 17 June 2024.
12. There is no dispute that Mr Orloff had previously been in receipt of disability support pension and this was cancelled in 2019 as a result of his incarceration. The Tribunal accepts the cancellation of disability support pension was for non-medical reasons. After Mr Orloff's release from incarceration, the Tribunal found Mr Orloff claimed disability support pension on 5 September 2022, and that claim was rejected on 25 September 2022. That is not a matter before the current Tribunal.
13. The general rule is that payment is made from the date of claim, and in limited circumstances a new claim may be backdated. The Tribunal concluded that Centrelink correctly applied section 12 of the Administration Act in Mr Orloff's case to allow payment of disability support pension from 17 June 2024.
14. On 7 October 2024, the original Centrelink decision (of 16 September 2024) was affirmed by an ARO, on the basis that Mr Orloff was not qualified to be paid disability support pension prior to 17 June 2024. On 19 September 2024, Mr Orloff requested a review of the decision, seeking disability support pension to be paid from the earlier date of 5 September 2022.
15. Generally, a person who is affected by a Centrelink decision can apply to have it reviewed by an ARO: subsection 129(1) of the Administration Act. The Tribunal accepts this is what occurred in Mr Orloff's case and the ARO affirmed the original decision dated 16 September 2024, to pay Mr Orloff disability support pension from 17 June 2024, and not an earlier date.
16. On 8 October 2024, Mr Orloff lodged an application with the AAT for an independent review of the ARO's decision dated 7 October 2024, which is the matter before the Tribunal.
17. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Orloff lodged an application for review of the earlier Centrelink decision to reject his claim for disability support pension dated 5 September 2022. That application was dismissed by the AAT on 22 March 2023, and on 10 October 2023, the AAT refused Mr Orloff's request to have his application for review reinstatement. That is not a matter before this Tribunal and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review that matter.
18. While this internal review was determined by an ARO on 7 October 2024, a consideration in this review application, is whether the Tribunal has the power to consider a review of this matter under section 126 of the Administration Act, which provides a discretion for the Secretary to consider initiating a review on their own accord.
19. Section 126 of the Administration Act states:

(1) The Secretary may review, subject to subsection (2), a decision of an officer under the social security law if the Secretary is satisfied that there is sufficient reason to review the decision.

(a) whether or not any person has applied for review of the decision; and

(b) even if an application has been made to the ART for review of the decision.

(c) set a decision aside and substitute a new decision.

(a) the Secretary sets a decision aside under subsection (3); and

(b) the Secretary is satisfied that an event that did not occur would have occurred if the decision had not been made;

the Secretary may, if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, determine that the event is taken to have occurred for the purposes of the social security law.

1. Section 126 of the Administration Act provides that the Secretary may review a decision under social security law if satisfied there is sufficient reason to do so, whether or not any person has applied for a review of the decision, even if an application has been made to the Tribunal for review of the decision. A favourable decision following a review under section 126 of the Administration Act does not have the date of effect restrictions which apply under section 107 of the Administration Act.
2. Section 129 of the Administration Act provides that a person affected by a decision of an officer under social security law may apply to the Secretary for a review of the decision.
3. Section 107 of the Administration Act then provides that if the application for review under section 129 of the Administration Act is within 13 weeks of the person being given notice and, as a result of the review, a favourable decision occurs, the favourable decision takes effect on the date the determination embodying the original decision takes effect. If the application for review is more than 13 weeks after the person is given notice of the decision and, as a result of the review, a favourable decision occurs, the favourable decision takes effect on the date of the application for review.
4. In this case, Mr Orloff submitted that section 126 of the Administration Act permitted the Secretary to review a decision without regard to the time limits set out in section 129 of the Administration Act and that that provision should instead apply in this matter, and a Secretary initiated review under section 126 of the Administration will allow payment of disability support pension from 5 September 2022 given Mr Orloff lodged a claim on that date and was subsequently found to be medically qualified from (at least) that date.
5. There is no evidence that the Secretary undertook an own motion review of the earlier decision to reject Mr Orloff's 2022 disability support pension claim under section 126 of the Administration Act or that Mr Orloff was transferred to disability support pension as a result of section 126 of the Administration Act review. Section 126 of the Administration Act applies only to Secretary initiated reviews and so cannot have application in the present matter, as this review was not initiated by the Secretary, but rather by Mr Orloff.
6. Section 142 of the Administration Act states:

(1) Subject to section 144, application may be made to the ART for review ( ART review ) of:

(a) a decision of the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or an authorised review officer made under section 126 or 135; or

(b) a decision under this Act made personally by the Secretary or the Chief Executive Centrelink.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the decision made by the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or the authorised review officer is taken to be:

(a) if the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or the authorised review officer affirms a decision--that decision as affirmed; and

(b) if the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or the authorised review officer varies a decision--that decision as varied; and

(c) if the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or the authorised review officer sets a decision aside and substitutes a new decision--the new decision.

1. The Tribunal's powers to review decisions of Centrelink are contained in the Administration Act. In considering what constitutes a decision of Centrelink, the function of the Tribunal is to review 'decisions made under enactment'. As the High Court explained in Australian Broadcasting Authority v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, decisions in that context mean operative decisions or final decisions and not steps along the way, or decisions made along the way leading to that final or operative decision.
2. In Mr Orloff's case, the operative decision is the decision by the ARO (of 7 October 2024) to affirm the original decision (of 16 September 2024) to grant disability support pension from 17 June 2024 in relation to Mr Orloff's claim of 15 August 2024. The application for review was under section 129 of the Administration Act and the Tribunal has found that there is no Secretary initiated review under section 126 of the Administration Act before the Tribunal.
3. As to whether there are any other legislative provisions that permit the backdating of a person's claim, there are general exceptions that apply to most social security payments (although none of the general exceptions apply in this case), set out in Schedule 2 to the Administration Act. However, these provisions are not applicable in Mr Orloff's circumstances.
4. Therefore the Tribunal must conclude that Centrelink's decision is correct under the legislation which means that the start day for disability support pension in Mr Orloff's case cannot be earlier than 17 June 2024.

Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration

1. The Tribunal notes, that there may be other avenues of redress due to defective administration (such as the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration) (CDDA),[1] or an act of grace payment,[2] but such matters are beyond the scope of this review and the Tribunal.
2. If Mr Orloff believes Centrelink made mistakes that caused him financial loss, that is, a failure or omission on Centrelink's part caused him to incur costs or miss out on payments that he would have otherwise not incurred or been entitled to receive; he may wish to claim compensation under the CDDA scheme or an act of grace payment. This is a matter Mr Orloff to pursue directly with Centrelink and is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

[1] https://www.finance.gov.au/individuals/act-grace-payments-waiver-debts-

commonwealth-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda/scheme-compensation-detriment-caused-defective-administration-cdda-scheme

[2] https://guides.dss.gov.au/social-security-guide/1/3/6