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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision by the Department of Social Services. The Applicant contended that he had been impersonated at a Centrelink office on 16 November 2012, leading to him being wrongly removed from a parenting payment and placed on a Newstart allowance. He argued that he should have been in receipt of the parenting payment at all times. The Respondent opposed the application for an extension of time.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the Applicant an extension of time. In doing so, the Tribunal considered established principles, including whether there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay, whether the review had arguable merit, whether the Respondent would be prejudiced by granting an extension, and whether justice required the extension to be permitted. The Applicant’s explanation for the delay centred on his responsibilities as the sole carer for his son, who had serious health issues.

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's son suffered from a serious medical condition that required significant time and attention. However, it was not satisfied that these responsibilities wholly prevented the Applicant from making an application for review at an earlier time, noting the delay was almost 12 months. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had elected to await the outcome of a review concerning a debt decision before proceeding with this second review, or alternatively, chose to focus on one review at a time, which it did not consider a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Furthermore, even if a satisfactory explanation for the delay had been provided, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the extension should be granted because, irrespective of any alleged impersonation, the Applicant was no longer legally entitled to a parenting payment from 1 January 2013 due to legislative changes.

Consequently, after considering the relevant legal principles, social security law, and the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that it was not persuaded that an extension of time should be granted. The application for an extension of time was refused.