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

Donovan and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 299 (23 February 2022)
Division:General Division
File Number:2019/8146
Re:Janette Donovan
APPLICANT

Secretary, Department of Social ServicesAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member P J Clauson AM
Date:23 February 2022
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
....................[SGD]....................................................
Senior Member P J Clauson AM
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – low income health care card – whether card was cancelled correctly – whether new claim was lodged – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Social Security Act1991
Social Security (Administration) Act1999
Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018
CASES
Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Social Security Guide, Department of Social Services, version 1.290
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member P J Clauson AM
23 February 2022
INTRODUCTION

On 17 January 2018, the Applicant was granted a Low Income Health Care Card (LIC).
On 28 December 2018, the Department of Human Services (the Department), now Services Australia (the Agency) sent the Applicant an LIC renewal form.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, T15, pages 68 to 73.
On 15 January 2019, the Applicant started an online claim for a LIC.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, T5, pages 16 to 22.
On 6 March 2019, the Department cancelled the Applicant’s LIC as she did not submit the renewal form or the online renewal form - thus, her eligibility for a LIC lapsed.
On 30 August 2019, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) reviewed and affirmed the decision cancelling the Applicant’s LIC.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, T10, pages 39 to 45.
On 19 September 2019, the Applicant sought a review of that decision.[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, T11, pages 46 to 47.
On 5 November 2019, the AAT1 of this Tribunal reviewed and affirmed the decision.[5]
[5] Exhibit 1, T2, pages 5 to 8.
ISSUES
The issues for this Tribunal are whether:
(a)The Applicant’s LIC was cancelled correctly; and
(b)The Applicant lodged a new claim for LIC on 15 January 2019.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The legislation relevant to the issues in this matter is:
(a)Social Security Act1991 (Cth) (the Act); and
(b)Social Security (Administration) Act1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act).
Of relevance also, is the policy advice contained in the Guide to Social Security Law (the Guide).[6] Also to be considered, where a relevant policy is in place touching upon a decision-making process, as in this matter, the relevant policy should be followed unless cogent reasons exist to depart from that policy, so as to ensure consistency in decision-making.[7]
THE PARTIES CONTENTIONS
[6] Social Security Guide, Department of Social Services, version 1.290.
[7] Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
The Applicant’s Contentions
The Applicant contends that the information she provided “was not taken into account or was misinterpreted”.[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, T1, page 4.
The Applicant contends that she had made a valid claim, and that there was proof she had done so because:
(a)that if her claim did not fall within Centrelink’s definition of a “submitted claim”, it was, notwithstanding the Agency’s definition, a claim and clearly evidenced her intention;
(b)further, that the Applicant, at the time she attempted to make a claim, was a “vulnerable” person and thus, her attempted claim would be capable of constituting a “deemed claim” as she fell into that class of persons contemplated within sections 13(1)(aa), 13(2)(aa) and 13(3)(aa) of the Administration Act, defined in section 5 of the Determination,[9] being an instrument under section 14A of the Administration Act; and
(c)the Applicant further contended that, as both she and her partner had since received their LIC’s and that nothing had changed since she had made that first attempt at applying for LIC, then the LIC should have been granted at that time.[10]
[9] Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018 (Determination).
[10] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, page 2.
The Respondent’s Contentions
The Respondent concedes that the Applicant, between 17 January 2018 and 16 January 2019, was qualified to receive an LIC.[11]
[11] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [12].
The Respondent contends that where an LIC is granted for a period of 52 weeks,[12] the holder is sent a renewal form some four weeks prior to the date of expiry. This process is designed to allow the cardholder to take action to renew the card before the expiry date. The Guide also informs and provides that where a renewal application is not lodged, the LIC automatically lapses.[13]
[12] Social Security Guide, Department of Social Services, version 1.290 at 3.9.1.100.
[13] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [13].
The Respondent further contends that a holder of an LIC may claim for a further concession card before the expiry of the previously issued card pursuant to subsection 37A(3) of the Administration Act.[14]
[14] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [14].
Further, by way of the Agency’s operational blueprint (the blueprint), a person is allowed to apply for a renewal of their LIC up to 28 days before the card’s expiry date and up to 13 weeks after the card’s expiry date.[15] The blueprint also makes clear that a LIC renewal is considered to be a new claim and, therefore, all the general provisions attaching to the lodgement of a new claim apply.[16]
[15] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [15].
[16] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, Attachment “A”.
Sections 11 and 16 of the Administration Act provide respectively that:
(a)A person seeking (inter alia) a concession card must make a claim for that concession card; and
(b)That such a claim must be in writing and in the appropriate form, or in a manner approved by the Secretary such as an online claim.
The Administration Act further provides at Clause 3, Part 2, Schedule 2 that, in the ordinary course, the start date of a person’s claim will be the date upon which it is lodged.
An earlier commencement date in respect of a claim for a health care card is provided for in Clause 37, Part 3, Schedule 2 to the Administration Act where professional services have been rendered prior to the date of the claim lodgement.
Section 13 of the Administration Act allows for the date of first contact, which may be the date a person makes an enquiry about making a claim, to be accepted as the date of claim in certain circumstances if the claim is lodged within 14 days of that date. It is a requirement that in each of the circumstances enunciated in section 13 that the person claiming must be qualified at the date of the first contact and for that contact to be acknowledged by the Agency in writing.
Section 13 also allows for the 14 day time limit to be extended to 13 weeks in circumstances where the person was suffering from a medical condition that impacted significantly and adversely on the person’s ability to lodge their claim earlier, or special circumstances existed which rendered it not reasonably practicable for the person to lodge the claim earlier. The Tribunal sets out in the following paragraph the terms of section 13.
Section 13 of the Administration Act provides:
Deemed claim--person contacting Department about a claim for a social security payment
(1)For the purposes of the social security law, if:
(a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment; and
(aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and
(b) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and
(d)the person lodges a claim for the social security payment within 14 days after the Department is contacted;
the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.
(2)      For the purposes of the social security law, if:
(a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment, other than crisis payment or special employment advance; and
(aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and
(b)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and
(d)the person lodges a claim for the payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i)throughout the period starting on the day on which the Department was contacted and ending on the day on which the person lodged the claim, the person was suffering from a medical condition; and
(ii)that medical condition, or circumstances related to that medical condition, had a significant adverse effect on the person's ability to lodge the claim earlier;
the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.
(3)       For the purposes of the social security law, if:
(a) the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person (the claimant) in relation to a claim for a social security payment, other than crisis payment or special employment advance; and
(aa)the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and
(b)the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and
(d)the claimant lodges a claim for the payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i)throughout the period starting on the day on which the Department was contacted and ending on the day on which the claimant lodged the claim, the claimant was caring for, or was the partner of, another person; and
(ii)throughout that period, the other person suffered from a medical condition; and
(iii)the medical condition, or circumstances related to the medical condition, from which the other person was suffering had a significant adverse effect on the claimant's ability to lodge the claim earlier;
the claimant is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.
(3A)     For the purposes of the social security law, if:
(a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment; and
(aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and
(b)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and
(d)the person lodges a claim for the social security payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that, in the special circumstances of the case, it was not reasonably practicable for the person to lodge the claim earlier;
the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.
(4)A reference in this section to the Department being contacted includes a reference to the Department being contacted by post or telephone or by the transmission of a message by the use of fax, computer equipment or other electronic means.
(5)       This section has effect subject to section 18.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant, in order to be able to enliven the “deeming” process for an application pursuant to sections 13(1)(aa), (2)(aa), (3)(aa),and (3)(A)(aa) of the Administration Act, must satisfy one of the 11 circumstances prescribed in section 5 of the Determination made pursuant to Section 14A of the Administration Act as enunciated below:
Class of persons to whom sections 13 and 14 of the Act apply
For the purposes of paragraphs 13(1)(aa), (2)(aa), (3)(aa) and (3A)(aa) and 14(1)(aa), (2)(aa), (3)(aa) and (3A)(aa) of the Act, a person is in a class of persons if the person is unable to lodge a claim on the contact day because, at any time during the relevant period, the person is:
(a)subject to domestic or family violence;
(b)homeless;
(c)hospitalised or suffering from a temporary incapacity arising from a medical condition;
(d)released from prison or psychiatric confinement;
(e)experiencing high stress associated with a relationship separation;
(f)a parent of a dependent child born during the relevant period;
(g)affected by the death during the relevant period of an immediate family member;
(h)a person who entered Australia during the relevant period as a humanitarian entrant to Australia;
(i)a person whose usual place of residence is in a remote area, and the person is physically present in the remote area;
(j)a person whose principal place of residence was lost or sustained major damage during the relevant period as a result of an extreme circumstance, or
(k)subject to other special circumstances beyond the person’s control.
Note: A person may be considered to be physically present in a remote area during temporary absences (see subsection 14(2) of the Social Security Act).
The Respondent submitted that section 106A of the Administration Act provides that where a person ceases to be qualified for the card, that card is cancelled on the day the person ceased to be qualified. Thus, the Applicant, in order for her card to not be cancelled, was required to submit her renewal within 52 weeks of the initial issuance of the card (being 16 January 2019) or within 13 weeks of that date (being 18 April 2019).[17]
[17] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [24].
The Respondent also submitted that the Applicant would have been at liberty to apply for a new LIC.
In addition to the Respondent’s contentions above, it is further contended that a renewal form was sent to the Applicant on 28 December 2018.[18] There is, however, no evidence that this renewal form was lodged with the Agency by the Applicant.
[18] Exhibit 1, T15, pages 68 to 73.
The Respondent also acknowledged that, on 15 January 2019, the Applicant commenced an online application for an LIC renewal.[19] However, it is the contention of the Respondent that this renewal claim was never lodged and thus, the Applicant’s eligibility for the LIC lapsed as the Applicant had not submitted her renewal form by 16 January 2019 or within 13 weeks thereof, nor had she lodged a new claim for an LIC.[20]
[19] Exhibit 1, T5, pages 16 to 22.
[20] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [24].
The Respondent noted that the Applicant’s written submissions[21] stated that the Applicant had started to complete an online renewal form but was not able to submit it because she did not have the necessary proof of identity documents for her partner and that the Applicant subsequently submitted the relevant proof of identity documents as required on 11 April 2019.[22]
[21] Exhibit 1, T9, page 35.
[22] Exhibit 1, T8, pages 28 to 29.
The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s written submissions indicate that the Applicant’s understanding was that, because she had submitted the proof of identity documents to the Agency within the 13 week period alluded to above, this action would automatically cause the claim to be lodged.[23]
[23] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [25].
The Respondent, however, contends that the lodging of the proof of identity documents with the Agency did not constitute a claim made in the approved form or in a manner approved by the Secretary and thus, the Applicant did not lodge the renewal form or a new claim. Thus, as no claim form had been lodged within the 13 weeks, the deemed claim provisions of section 13 of the Act could not, therefore, be enlivened.[24]
[24] Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [26].
Applicant’s Evidence
The Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that:
(i) She did submit a claim;
(ii)That if her claim failed to fall within Centrelink’s interpretation of the term “submitted”, the intention that it was a claim was clearly indicated by her actions;
(iii)That she fell within the definition of “vulnerable person” within the meaning of section 13 of the Act;
(iv)That the circumstances applying to her and her partner which qualified them to make a claim for LIC on 15 January 2019 have not changed. She and her partner have been granted LICs since and thus, the LIC should have been granted at that time.[25]
[25] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
The Applicant also contends that because the terms “return”, “lodge” and “submit” are not specifically defined in the Act or subordinate legislation or policy statements, they are used interchangeably therein. Thus, the Applicant contends that it should be that a reasonable person would conclude that the Dictionary definition should apply to such words as and when they appear.[26]
[26] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
The Applicant submitted that, as an example of such interchangeability, in an extract from the Guide, which is quoted in the T documents bundle,[27] the Guide uses the term “returned” for a renewal application form that is lodged, and the words “not lodged” for a renewal application that is not lodged.[28]
[27] Exhibit 1, T4, page 15.
[28] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
The Applicant further submitted that because Centrelink was able to determine that the Applicant would have been eligible for an LIC if she had lodged a claim, this meant that Centrelink had examined the content of her claim and applied a judgement to it. The Applicant’s contention is, therefore, that because the Agency had conducted an assessment of her material, she had “returned”, “lodged” or “submitted” it.[29]
[29] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
The Applicant also propounded that she should be granted a LIC as and from the date she began her online application, namely 15 January 2019, because she lodged her requested partner’s proof of identity documents within the relevant 13 week period.[30]
[30] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
The Applicant in her material before the Tribunal contended that her medical condition placed her into that category of persons contemplated by section 13 of the Administration Act as she suffered from a medical condition that had an adverse effect on her ability to lodge the claim earlier, or where she was the subject of special circumstances making it not reasonably practicable for her to lodge the claim earlier.[31]
[31] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
It is the Applicant’s further contention that:
“The Secretary has the power to accept a claim in whatever form he/she permits (Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, Part 3 Division 1, Subdivision B 12 and Subdivision C 1, 7, and 8).”

The Applicant also contends that her circumstances are such as to enliven the considerations in the Guide at 1.3.1 regarding beneficial administration of the Act so that she should have been granted a LIC from the time she commenced her online application.[32]
[32] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
CONSIDERATION
The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal at the hearing of the matter by telephone and represented herself and gave sworn evidence.
The Tribunal accepts that the Respondent and the Applicant agree that the Applicant was qualified for a LIC between 17 January 2018 and 16 January 2019.
The Tribunal finds also that the Agency sent the Applicant a LIC renewal form on 28 December 2018.[33]
[33] Exhibit 1, T15, pages 68 to 73.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant did, on 15 January 2019, commence an online claim for a LIC.[34]
[34] Exhibit 1, T5, pages 16 to 22.
The Applicant, when she commenced the online form, was unable to complete that document as proof of identity documents of her partner were required to complete the form. The Applicant acknowledged this requirement in her undated submission letter seeking a review of the decision.[35]
[35] Exhibit 1, T9, page 35.
The Applicant’s evidence confirms that she knew that proof of identity documents were required as she acknowledges the fact in her evidence and confirmed the fact in her evidence to the Tribunal that her partner had to go to a Centrelink office with his driver’s licence to prove his identity.[36] It is also clear from the material before the Tribunal that the Applicant and her partner had to produce evidence of his identity in 2018 when she had first applied for a LIC and was granted it.[37]
[36] Transcript of Proceedings, pages 7 and 8.
[37] Exhibit 1, T9, page 35.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was aware, therefore, that it was necessary to establish her partner’s proof of identity in order to complete the online application for a LIC. It is accepted by the Respondent that, on 25 March 2019, in the Department’s response to the Applicant’s letter of complaint, that the Applicant’s partner’s identity should have been “confirmed” when the LIC was renewed in 2018. Unfortunately, it was not and thus, it was required to be confirmed for the 2019 renewal.[38]
[38] Exhibit 1, T7, pages 26 to 27.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant then provided the required identification documents on 11 April 2019, a date that fell within the relevant 13 week period following 15 January 2019, being the date upon which she commenced her online claim.
The Applicant contended that, as she had uploaded the proof of identity documents, it would automatically complete the application she had started on 15 January 2019. This was unfortunately not the case as the online claim was not completed on that day and submitted as required.
The Applicant’s argument in support of her claim that she had made a valid claim on 15 January 2019 and agitated the assertion that the terms “submit”, “lodge” and “return” were used in the relevant legislation interchangeably and thus, caused ambiguity and, by implication, confusion.
The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence in the substantive hearing, adjourned the hearing to allow itself to seek further information as it is empowered to do so pursuant to section 33(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) to inform itself of the procedures set for online preparations and lodgement of a claim for a LIC.
The Tribunal undertook this step because the Applicant had submitted that the relevant website could have changed (and, in fact, in certain respects had) between the time she commenced her online application for a LIC in 2019 and the hearing. It was her assertion that the website provided by the Respondent was of little utility in ascertaining the process for lodging a claim between January 2019 and April 2019.
Although the Applicant did refer the Tribunal to the material relating to the procedure in 2018, one year earlier, she did not have material upon which the Tribunal could safely conclude the process for the period currently in consideration.
The Tribunal considered that there may, therefore, have existed available evidence which might be of importance to help determine if the Applicant had, in fact, lodged her claim on 15 January 2019.
The Tribunal enlisted the assistance of its library to carry out research as to whether it could establish if there was any ability to access historical snapshots of the Centrelink website in order to establish the process to lodge an application existing between January and April 2019.
The library advised the Tribunal that the National Library of Australia takes snapshots of such websites, one of which is the Centrelink website, and adds such snapshots to its Trove Archive. This is done from time to time, but only intermittently.
These investigations revealed that the Centrelink Claim a Payment online webpage which was captured on 10 October 2018 and 9 February 2019 demonstrated to the Tribunal that:
·providing identification information, if necessary, was a required task prior to submission of a claim;
·a claim could not be submitted until that information was provided; and
·information was provided that the usual process would require that a person then submit their claim.
Further, the Tribunal’s investigations which related specifically to the Centrelink Low Income Health Care Card webpage captured respectively on 10 October 2018, 9 February 2019 and 16 April 2019 demonstrated to the Tribunal that:
·providing supportive documentation was a step required to be completed prior to the submission of a claim;
·once the claim had been submitted, it could be tracked; and
·the process outlined on the Centrelink LIC webpage is consistent with the process outlined for the previously mentioned Claim a Payment online webpage.
The Tribunal notes that the processes outlined above relate only to the issue of what was required in order to lodge a claim under the Centrelink processes prevailing at that point in time.
This information was provided to both parties for their consideration and the provision of any response, if so desired, to be provided to the Tribunal.
The Applicant provided a written response reflecting her contentions already before the Tribunal and the Respondent advised the Tribunal that no further submissions would be provided and they would be relying upon their Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions document and the other material before the Tribunal.
The screenshots obtained by the Tribunal indicate clearly the steps that are required to be taken in order to make a claim for a Centrelink payment or a concession card.
The steps are clearly shown in the following order and description:
Step 1:            Get started.
Step 2:            Tell us your personal circumstances.
Step 3:            Tell us about your situation and finances.
Step 4:            Review claim.
Step 5:            Submit supporting documents.
Step 6:            Submit claim.
Step 7:            Sign out.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the Applicant made the steps up to the point of submitting the supporting documents, namely the proof of identity documents for her partner, but did not lodge them online.
The Tribunal finds also that, prior to the expiry of the relevant 13 week period, the Applicant did arrange for the proof of identity documents to be provided to Centrelink as required.
The Applicant’s contention regarding the interchangeability of the terms “submit”, “return” or “lodge” is noted. However, it is clear to the Tribunal that the online instructions leave no doubt that a positive action at Step 6 requires the Applicant to “submit claim”.
The Tribunal also finds that, at Step 5 of the online instructions to “submit supporting documents”, is unequivocal as to this requirement being a prerequisite to Step 6.
The Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that when she had ultimately complied with Step 5, she had assumed that that action would constitute completion of her claim application, thus obviating the requirement for her to complete Step 6.
The Applicant has contended that the Act is beneficial legislation and that it is described as such in the Guide at 1.3.1, and that it should be interpreted in her favour because the terms “return”, “lodge” and “submit” are used interchangeably, and thus creates an ambiguity in the mind of the Applicant.
The Applicant has relied upon the requirement that if an Applicant posts in an application for a LIC with the proof of identity documents for a party, they do not need to attend in person for that application. The Applicant’s contention was that there was nothing “on the on-line form which clearly indicated that he had to appear in person…”[39] The Tribunal’s investigations of the online forms; however, indicated in the Online Guide to Completing an Online Claim at Step 5 stipulate that provision of documents confirming identity to be a required step and it is noted further:
“These must be original documents provided in person. Please visit humanservices.gov.au/identity for more information.”
[39] Exhibit 1, T9, page 35.
The Applicant lodged the required documentation on 11 April 2019.
The Tribunal is unable to accept the Applicant’s contention in relation to her claim that this was not a clear requirement accessible on the Online Guide to Completing an Online Claim. The Tribunal has decided that the beneficial approach to interpretation is, therefore, not enlivened in this matter.
The Tribunal is unaware as to whether the Applicant, after completing all the steps to Step 4, saved her commenced online claim application using the “Save” facility pending the provision of the required proof of identity documents. In any event, when after the proof of identity documents had been provided and the Applicant had heard nothing further from the Agency following the end of the 13 week period, the Applicant made a telephone enquiry regarding progress of the claim. It was, at this point, she was informed that her claim had not been submitted. The commenced claim also had been removed from her online account.
It is clear to the Tribunal that for a claim to be made for a LIC, it must be submitted, and to be submitted, it must contain all the required information requested by the Agency. Although the Applicant may have believed she had lodged her claim when the proof of identity documents were provided, for it to be accepted, it was necessary to be submitted within the 13 weeks. Unfortunately, lodgement of the proof of identity documents did not constitute the submission of the claim. That required a further step to be taken by the Applicant. Thus, the Agency was not in possession of a claim by the Applicant in the proper form as required by section 16 of the Administration Act, either in writing or in such other manner as an online form as approved by the Secretary, within the relevant 13 weeks.
The Tribunal has noted that the Applicant alluded to her health condition from which she was suffering at or about the time she started the claim process. The Tribunal does not diminish the severity of this issue, but cannot accept that the condition at the time the Applicant commenced her online claim had created an adverse effect on the Applicant’s ability to lodge the claim as the Applicant’s contentions were that she had in fact “returned”, “lodged” or “submitted” her claim.[40]
[40] Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 74 (seventy-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member P J Clauson AM

..............[SGD]..........................................................
Associate
Dated: 23 February 2022

Date of hearing:

Date final submission received:

26 March 2021

31 August 2021

Applicant:

By phone

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Chris Murphy

[2022] AATA 299

23 February 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction