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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for an extension of time to lodge a review of a decision concerning a Parenting Payment debt. The applicant, who had been granted a Parenting Payment, was advised by the Department of Social Services (the Agency) that a debt of $27,186.11 had been raised for the period between February 2017 and September 2018. Following an internal review and a subsequent review by the AAT, the debt was varied but affirmed. The applicant then sought a review of the AAT's decision, lodging an application for an extension of time to do so.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable, in all the circumstances, to grant an extension of time for the applicant to lodge her application for review. This determination was to be made in accordance with section 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied of reasonableness. In assessing this, the Tribunal considered established principles, including the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, the merits of the substantive application, and the availability of alternative avenues of relief.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received the relevant decision on 1 April 2020, and the deadline for lodging an application for review was 29 April 2020. The application for an extension of time was lodged on 2 July 2020, representing a delay of over two months. While the applicant did not dispute the existence of the debt, she contended that Centrelink should bear more responsibility. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a statutory obligation under section 68(2) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) to report changes in circumstances, including earnings, which she had not complied with. Although the Agency had made an error in recording the applicant's income, the Tribunal found that this error was not "solely attributable" to administrative error, as required by section 1237A of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) for a debt to be waived. The Tribunal referred to case law, such as *Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Sekhon*, which established that administrative error must be the single or sole cause of the debt, not merely one of multiple causes.

The application for an extension of time was refused.