SOCIAL SECURITY - Age Pension - early claim - overseas when reached pension age so early claim not valid - new claim subject to portability restrictions as a returned former resident - must be an Australian resident and in Australia at time of claim - decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. Mr Sorenson is [an age]-year-old age pensioner who has a history of medical treatment in [Country 1].
2. Mr Sorenson lodged an early claim for age pension (AP) on 6 December 2024 (he reached pension age on [day] March 2025). His claim was initially granted on 23 December 2024, but this decision was reversed on 14 January 2025, when Centrelink became aware that Mr Sorenson was overseas when he reached pension age and qualified for AP. The second decision was affirmed on 18 March 2025, following internal review by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO).
3. On 23 April 2025, Mr Sorenson applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decision in respect of the claim for AP that he lodged on 6 December 2024.
4. Mr Sorenson was granted AP when he lodged a new claim after returning to Australia. However, his AP was subject to portability restrictions on the grounds that he was a returned former resident.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Admin Act).
2. Pursuant to section 29 of the Admin Act a person claiming a social security payment must be an Australian resident and in Australia at the time of claim. If these requirements are not met the claim is taken as not having been made. There are certain exceptions to these requirements, but none are relevant to the matter before me.
3. Pursuant to subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Admin Act, a person who makes an early claim for a social security payment (a claim made before the person becomes qualified), and, as a result of the passage of time, the person becomes qualified within 13 weeks of submitting the claim, the claim is taken to have been made on the first day the person became qualified.
4. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mr Sorenson can be granted AP in respect of the claim he submitted on 6 December 2024.

1. The evidence before me in this matter consists of:

(i) The documents provided by Centrelink as representing the evidence it relied upon at the time of the original decision and at the time of the internal review (the hearing papers).

(ii) Sworn evidence and oral submissions provided by Mr Sorenson, who attended the hearing, provided sworn evidence and made oral submissions.

(iii) Oral submissions made by Mr Sorenson's daughter, [Ms A], who accompanied Mr Sorenson.

(iv) A written submission provided by Mr Sorenson.

1. Centrelink's position is set out in the decision statement of the ARO. The ARO found that Mr Sorenson was overseas when he qualified for AP. This meant that his claim was not valid and AP could not be granted in response to this claim.
2. Mr Sorenson told me that he accepted that he was overseas when he reached pension age. He said that he was in [Country 1] receiving necessary treatment for complex medical conditions. Mr Sorenson said that he lodged his claim while in Australia and that he did not understand why AP had not been granted in response to that claim. Mr Sorenson told me that he lodged a further claim when he returned to Australia but that this had been granted with portability restrictions that impeded the continuation of his medical treatment in [Country 1]. He said that he had expected this decision to be reviewed by the Tribunal and not just the decision to reject his initial claim. Mr Sorenson also said that Centrelink did not advise him of the outcome of his initial claim. This has financially disadvantaged him because, had he known that the claim had not been accepted, he could have returned to Australia earlier and lodged a new claim.
3. [Ms A] endorsed and elaborated on her father's submissions.

Can AP be granted in respect of the claim submitted by Mr Sorenson on 6 December 2024?

1. It is not in dispute that Mr Sorenson was in [Country 1] on [day] March 2025, when he reached pension age and first qualified for AP. This means that, while he submitted his claim when he was in Australia on 6 December 2024, pursuant to subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Admin Act, he is taken to have claimed on [day] March 2025.
2. As Mr Sorenson was not in Australia on [day] March 2025, pursuant to section 29 of the Admin Act, his claim is taken not to have been made. Pursuant to section 11 of the Admin Act, AP cannot be granted AP in the absence of a claim.
3. It follows that AP was not payable to Mr Sorenson in respect of the claim he submitted on 6 December 2024 as this claim is taken not to have been made.
4. I must therefore affirm the decision before me.

1. I am unable to review the decision made regarding the portability of the AP subsequently granted to Mr Sorenson. Mr Sorenson showed me a copy of a decision following internal review of this matter. An internal review allows this Tribunal jurisdiction, but the application before me concerns only Centrelink's decision to not grant Mr Sorenson AP in respect of the claim he submitted on 6 December 2024. Centrelink has not provided the Tribunal or Mr Sorenson with documents pertaining to the portability decision. It remains open to Mr Sorenson to apply to this Tribunal for external review of the portability restrictions that currently apply to his AP. The matter can then be listed, once the Tribunal is in possession of all the documents that Centrelink is required to make available.
2. I have no jurisdiction in respect of any loss Mr Sorenson suffered if Centrelink did not notify him that the claim for AP that he submitted on 6 December 2024 had been treated as not having been made. It is open to Mr Sorenson to seek compensation for any loss he incurred under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (the CDDA Scheme). The CDDA Scheme is administered by the Department of Finance. Further information is available online or through Centrelink.

[Ms A] made submissions but did not formally represent Mr Sorenson.