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

This matter concerned an application by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services for an extension of time to apply for a review of a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1 Decision). The application was heard by M Evans-Bonner SM of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to exercise its discretion under s 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to grant the Secretary an extension of time to lodge an application for review. In considering this, the Tribunal was required to weigh various factors, including the length of the delay, the Secretary's awareness of appeal rights, the explanation provided for the delay, potential prejudice to the applicant (Mr Dawson) and the general public, and the merits of the substantive application. A secondary issue arose regarding an application for a stay order, which was contingent on the reviewable nature of the AAT1 Decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delay was only three days and there were no other apparent avenues of relief for the Secretary, several factors weighed more heavily against granting the extension. These included the Secretary's unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, described as an "administrative oversight" stemming from a misunderstanding between internal teams, and the Secretary's clear awareness of appeal rights and the 28-day time limit. The Tribunal also considered the prejudice to Mr Dawson and the public if entitlements were not paid in a timely manner, given the beneficial nature of the legislation. Crucially, the Tribunal noted the Secretary's conduct in stating that regardless of the outcome of the extension application, they would not implement the AAT1 Decision, which the Tribunal characterised as "poor conduct" and an "ultimatum." The Tribunal emphasised that the Secretary is not above the law and that the appropriate course would have been to appeal within the prescribed time.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused to grant the Secretary's application for an extension of time, finding it was not reasonable in all the circumstances. As the AAT1 Decision was therefore not reviewable, the Secretary's application for a stay order was dismissed. The Tribunal also indicated its intention to publish its reasons due to public interest in transparency and accountability in government decision-making.