Bogomaz and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Bogomaz, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to suspend and subsequently cancel his Newstart allowance. The dispute arose from the applicant's alleged failure to comply with the mutual obligation requirements of his employment pathway plan (EPP) and his subsequent failure to satisfy a reconnection requirement within four weeks of receiving cancellation advice. The decision was made by Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a reasonable belief that his EPP had been amended, thereby relieving him of his reporting and job search requirements, and whether he had satisfied the reconnection requirement within the stipulated timeframe following the cancellation of his allowance. The applicant contended that a conversation with a Centrelink employee named Mr Mann led him to believe his EPP had been amended.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's argument regarding the amendment of his EPP. While acknowledging a clause in the EPP that allowed for review and amendment, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the conversation with Mr Mann constituted grounds for a reasonable belief that an amendment had actually occurred. The Tribunal noted the applicant's previous unsuccessful attempts to amend his EPP on medical grounds, which should have indicated that amendment was not a simple process. Furthermore, a file note indicated the importance of stressing to the applicant that the EPP remained in effect despite his health concerns. The Tribunal concluded that the conversation with Mr Mann did not relieve the applicant of his obligations under the EPP. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to comply with his EPP and, after receiving cancellation advice, failed to reconnect with the Department within the required four-week period, despite providing information about his taxi driving work after this period had expired.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.