BTQN and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review)

[2025] ARTA 380

BTQN and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 380 (15 April 2025)

Applicant:BTQN

Respondent:  Secretary, Department of Social Services

Tribunal Number:                2025/1613

Tribunal:Senior Member J Walsh (second review)

Place:Brisbane

Date:15 April 2025

Decision:The Tribunal refuses to grant an extension of time and, accordingly, dismisses this application for review.

Statement made on 15 April 2025 at 3:31pm

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – where Applicant failed to attend telephone extension of time hearing – where no reason given for significant delay in making ART application – where application for review had poor prospects of success – where Respondent consented to extension of time – extension of time refused and application dismissed.

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, s 19

Statement of Reasons

1. On 15 April 2025, the Applicant failed to attend a telephone hearing in relation to her application for an extension of time. Several attempts to contact her by telephone between 9.30 am (AEST) on 15 April 2025, the scheduled time of the proceeding, and about 9.46 am were unsuccessful. I proceeded with the matter in her absence.

2. The decisions under review concerned decisions to suspend and then cancel the Applicant’s jobseeker payment, made in June 2023 and July 2023 respectively.  The basis for each decision concerned the Applicant’s failure to enter into a Job Plan (referred to as an employment pathway plan in the legislation) which was a requirement for qualification for jobseeker payment. The Applicant’s case was that she was a genuine jobseeker; however, she did not consider it necessary or helpful to have to sign up to a Job Plan. The suspension and cancellation decisions were affirmed on internal review and, in December 2023, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on external review.

3. A notice of the AAT’s decision dated 14 December 2023 was sent to the Applicant by post; it included a copy of the AAT decision and reasons. The Applicant’s Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) application on 14 February 2025 indicated she received this notice on 14 December 2023, which could be correct if it was also emailed to her. I proceeded on the basis she should be taken to have been given notice of the AAT decision by late December 2023. She had 28 days thereafter to apply for further review. Her ART application in February 2025 is therefore more than 12 months out of time.

4. The Applicant’s application also included an extension of time application made using the standard Tribunal form. In answer to a question about her reasons for seeking an extension of time, she referred to a section of her substantive application which indicated she disagreed with the subject decisions and included reasons for this. The result is there is no explanation provided for the lengthy delay in making this further application. Given the extent of the delay, I would have been looking for a cogent explanation. Further, there is nothing in the material before me which indicates any particular reason why the Applicant should be exempted from the common requirement that she enter a Job Plan as part of her mutual obligations. Her preference not to do so, whilst understandable, is quite insufficient in this context. I can see no error in the AAT’s reasons on the point. It follows I consider the Applicant’s case to have only marginal prospects of success.

5. I note the Respondent, having initially opposed the extension application, now consents to an extension of time. In my view, this is not decisive. It is plain from section 19 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 that it is for me to be satisfied it is reasonable in all the circumstances to extend time. I am not so satisfied. There is a public interest in finality of review proceedings. To grant an extension of time where there is no explanation for the lengthy delay in making this application and substantive prospects on the merits are poor would be contrary to the interests of justice and the public interest.

6. In the circumstances, I am satisfied it is appropriate to refuse to grant the Applicant an extension of time and, accordingly, I dismiss this application for review.