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

Drum and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 742 (3 April 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/5403
Re:Secretary, Department of Social Services
APPLICANT

Mr Daniel DrumAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke, Member
Date:3 April 2018
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that Mr Drum does not qualify for youth allowance as he does not satisfy section 1067D of the Social Security Act 1991.
[sgd]........................................................................
Ms Anna Burke, Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – youth allowance – whether need to live away from home to get secondary education – whether need to bypass local school to attend private school for great educational opportunities – whether special circumstance exists because of intellectual ability based on offer of scholarship to attend private boarding school.
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991
Cases
P v Child Support Registrar [2012] FCA 1398
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Thomas-Angelo and Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 699
Secondary Materials
Guide to Social Security Law, Department of Social Services, Version 1.242 - Released 20 March 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Anna Burke, Member
3 April 2018
INTRODUCTION

The Secretary, Department of Social Services (the Applicant) is seeking a second tier review of the decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1) to grant Mr Daniel Drum (the Respondent) youth allowance pursuant to the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
On 10 November 2016 Centrelink found that Mr Drum was not entitled to youth allowance as he did not meet the requirements of the Act. Centrelink is the service provider for the Department of Human Services. On 9 August 2017 the AAT1 found Mr Drum was required to live away from home to study and therefore was eligible for youth allowance.
The application was heard on 13 March 2018. The Secretary, Department of Social Services was represented by Mr Tim Noonan, government lawyer in the Freedom of Information and Litigation Team, Department of Human Services and Mr Gavin Simmons of Simmons Advisory Services appeared for the respondent.
THE ISSUE IN CONTENTION
The issue in contention is whether Mr Drum qualifies for youth allowance based on his need to live away from home bypassing a local school to get a secondary education.
BACKGROUND
On 31 October 2016 Mr Drum lodged a claim for youth allowance, at the time he was 16 years of age, in year 11, boarding at Ballarat Clarendon College (BCC) on a half scholarship and his permanent address was in Haven, a small town 5km outside of Horsham.
On 10 November 2016 Centrelink notified Mr Drum that his application for youth allowance had been rejected as he was under 18 years of age, dependent, living at home and enrolled in full-time study.
On 29 March 2017 an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) of Centrelink conducted an internal review and affirmed the original decision to not grant youth allowance to Mr Drum as he had not demonstrated:
·a need to live away from home to study;
·a requirement to live away from home to undertake full-time studies as a secondary student; or
·a need to bypass the local secondary school to attend a non-local school.
On 9 August 2017 the AAT1 set aside the ARO decision finding that Mr Drum was required to the live away from home to study and meet the eligibility requirements for payment of youth allowance. In the decision the member stated:
17. The Tribunal found Mr Daniel Drum aspires to study law at Swinburne. To do so he requires a high ATRA for two reasons. The ATRA for a law degree is unusually high. The higher the ATRA at Swinburne, the greater the annual fee discounts. Given his family circumstances it appears that obtaining a discount may be the only way that Mr Drum will be able to study law.
18. Mr Drum previously attended Murtoa College, a small school 30 km from the regional town of Horsham in Victoria. In 2014 Mr Drum was offered a half scholarship to attend BCC. BCC is a high achieving school which ranks number 8 of 560 schools in Victoria. According to the head of Senior School, the average ATAR for the school is 86.The ATAR for a Bachelor of Laws at Swinburne in January 2016 was 93.1.
19. Mr Drum is described as having above average intellectual abilities and head of Senior School indicated that he would do very well in his VCE. His abilities resulted in the award of a half scholarship.
…
21. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Drum’s academic needs would not be met by Murtoa college; that a facility like BCC is not available to him locally; that he is an above average student with aspirations to become a lawyer; that BCC can provide him with the academic environment to be able to achieve a high ATAR to be accepted by the Law Faculty and to obtain much-needed fee discounts; and that BCC is fostering his abilities and talents were as a small regional school would not have the facilities to do so.
On 6 September 2017 the Secretary sought a review of the AAT1 decision by this division of the Tribunal, as they disagree with the decision stating: “the AAT1 erred in finding that Mr Drum was required to live away from home on the basis that his educational needs cannot be met by the local state school.”
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND ISSUES
Section 540 of the Act provides that a person is qualified for Youth Allowance if:
(a) either of the following applies:
(i) throughout the period the person satisfies the activity test (see Subdivision B) or is not required to satisfy the activity test (see Subdivision C);
(ii) the person is a CDEP Scheme participant (see section 1188B) in respect of the period;
(b) throughout the period the person is of youth allowance age (see Subdivision D); and
(c) throughout the period the person satisfies any requirements relating to Youth Allowance Employment Pathway Plans that apply to the person under Subdivision E; and
(d) throughout the period, the person:
(i) is an Australian resident; or
(ii) is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7).
Section 543 of the Act defines a person is of youth allowance age if the person:
(a) has attained the minimum age for youth allowance (see section 543A); and
(b) has not yet attained the maximum age for youth allowance (see section 543B).
Section 543A of the Act defines the minimum age for youth allowance:
General
(1) Subject to this section, the person has attained the minimum age for youth allowance if the person:
(a) is at least 16 years old; or
(b) is 15 years old and is independent.
Note:         For independent see section 1067A.
(2) Subject to subsections (2AA), (2A) and (2B), a person who satisfies paragraph (1)(a) or (b) but is not yet 18 years old is not taken under subsection (1) to have attained the minimum age for youth allowance unless the person:
(a) has completed the final year of secondary school, or an equivalent level of education; or
(b) is undertaking full‑time study; or
(c) the person has entered into or agreed to enter into a Youth          Allowance Employment Pathway Plan; or
(d) is a new apprentice.
(2AA) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply to a person who is aged 16 or 17 and who is undertaking full‑time study in respect of a secondary course at a secondary school (within the meaning of the Student Assistance Act 1973) or at a TAFE institution unless:
(a) the person is independent (see section 1067A); or
(b) the person is taken by section 1067D to be required to live away     from home; or
(c) the person was receiving youth allowance immediately before starting that course; or
(d) the Secretary determines that the person is not benefiting from family tax benefit that is being paid to the person’s parents.
Section 1067D of the Act outlines the requirements for a youth allowance recipient to live away from home:
When a person is taken to be required to live away from home
(1) A person is taken to be required to live away from home for the purposes of Part 2.11B and this Part if, and only if:
(a) the person is not independent; and
(b) the person does not live at the home of either or both his or her parents; and
(c) the Secretary determines that:
(i) the person needs to live away from home for the purpose of education, training, searching for employment or doing anything else in preparation for getting employment; or
(ii) the likelihood of the person’s getting employment will be significantly increased if the person lives away from home; or
(iii) the person needs to live away from home because the person is a new apprentice.
Matters to which Secretary is to have regard
(3) In making a determination under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii), the Secretary is to have regard to:
(a) the overall employment prospects for young people in the areas where the home is situated and in the area where the person is living; and
(b) matters relating to the person that would affect the likelihood of the person’s getting employment in those areas.
The Guide to Social Security Law (The Guide) notes that a person’s mere choice to live away from home would not qualify them for youth allowance and provides examples about the application of section 1067D of the Act:
3.2.6.10 Qualification for Away from Home Rate of YA
The away from home rate of YA is a higher rate of YA payable to some recipients who need to live away from home in order to access study, undertake an Australian apprenticeship, or to enhance their employment prospects. Dependent young people who fulfil the activity test as a job seeker, Australian apprentice or full-time student, may qualify for the away from home rate of YA.
…
YA can be paid at the away from home rate for dependent young people who:
•need to live away from home for the purpose of education (including full-time secondary study), training, searching for employment or doing anything else in preparation for getting employment, OR
•are significantly more likely to get employment if they live away from home (NOT including full-time students), OR
•need to live away from home in order to undertake their Australian apprenticeship.
…
Who CANNOT receive the away from home rate?
Not all young people living away from the parental home can qualify for the away from home rate. It is NOT sufficient for the young person to choose to live away from home, or for the parent to choose not to support the young person.
Note: A person's mere choice to live away from home would not entitle them to the away from home rate. However, they may meet the requirements if they can demonstrate a need to live away from home for the purposes of education or training, or because the likelihood of them getting employment will be significantly increased.
Example: If a student's parents move to a new location and it requires excess travelling time, the student may be able to demonstrate that their continuity of studies would be interrupted by moving with their parents, so they may satisfy the Secretary that they need to live away from home for educational purposes.
YA recipients in the following circumstances do NOT qualify for the away from home rate:
•a dependent YA recipient who lives away from home because they choose to, for any reason, or because they need to, for reasons other than approved employment, job search, study or training, OR
•a dependent YA recipient who is living in the parental home, OR
•an independent YA recipient who is taken to be an accommodated independent person (1.1.A.10), OR
•young people in state care who receive, or attract for their carer, a State or Territory payment for their upkeep.
Approval to live away from home - secondary students
In order to approve a secondary student to live away from home, AT LEAST ONE of the following conditions would need to exist:
•travelling time is excessive (1.1.E.150), OR
•parents move their principal home frequently, OR
•the parental home (1.1.P.20) is isolated, OR
•the parental home is an inadequate place to study, OR
•the young person has a disability and the parental home is isolated from required special facilities, OR
•parents move out of the area (year 11 and 12 students), OR
•an equivalent activity is not available locally.
In some cases, secondary students may bypass local schools to attend another of their choice that is not in their local area if they can demonstrate a need to live away from home. However, if the local area provides reasonable access to an appropriate government school, but the young person simply chooses to attend another school outside their local area, then the young person would NOT be approved to live away from home.
The Guide at 3.2.6.40 outlines where approval will be given for a student to bypass a local school out of choice:
To be approved for the away from home rate of YA and to bypass a local school, a student must demonstrate a need to live away from home for the purposes of their education and/or employment prospects.
A range of factors may influence a student's choice of school (e.g. family connections, social/ethnic composition, quality or standard of education provided, range of subjects offered and delivery methods, availability of a scholarship, etc). However, a student's mere preference, by itself, to bypass a local school is NOT sufficient to demonstrate a need to live away from home for the purposes of the person's education and/or employment prospects.
Example: Where the local area provides reasonable access to an appropriate government school, but the student simply chooses to attend another school outside their local area, then the young person would NOT be approved to live away from home for the purposes of YA, as their personal choice by itself, does not demonstrate that they need to live away from home for the purposes of their education and/or employment prospects. An appropriate government school would be any that offers tuition in the student's grade or year. Local area is considered to be anywhere that can be reached without excessive travel time (1.1.E.150).
However, it is important to note that the existence of other factors, combined with a student's personal choice, may be sufficient to demonstrate a need to live away from home for education and/or employment prospect purposes.(emphasis added)
…
Factors demonstrating a need to live away from home for education and/or employment prospects
In deciding whether a student has demonstrated a need to bypass a local school consideration should be given, but not limited, to the following factors:
•the compelling nature of the student's circumstances and the degree of control/choice the student has over their circumstances,
•the availability, or otherwise, of suitable local school alternatives to meet the education and/or employment needs of the student, having regard to any special talents/career interests the student has,
•the extent to which attendance at a non-local school will positively impact on the student's education and/or employment prospects. (emphasis added)
Circumstances that may be considered to demonstrate a need to live away from home for education and/or employment prospects may include, but not be limited to, the following:
•The student has special abilities/talents whose educational needs are not able to be met by the local school (see separate section below for more guidance).
•The student has special career interests and needs to attend a non-local school to study special subjects that will benefit their education and employment prospects, as the local school does not offer such subjects (see separate section below for more guidance).
•The student has a scholarship to a non-local school which allows the student to undertake special career interest subjects, not available at the local school, which will be beneficial to the student's education and/or employment prospects (see separate section below for more guidance).
•The student has been excluded or suspended from the local government school and there is no other government school in the local area for the student to attend.
•The student's parents have moved from one area to another resulting in the student not being able to study the same subjects for the purpose of completing required curriculum for their year 12 certificate and/or tertiary entrance requirements, and there is no other local school that offers the same subjects.
•The student attends a non-local school because the syllabus and teaching arrangements are specifically geared to cater for the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and where the first language of most children attending the school is not English.
•The state/territory education authority agrees that the local school is inappropriate for a student or group of students, because it does not meet their educational needs.
◦Example: The school does not provide adequate facilities to permit students to gain a year 12 certificate and/or tertiary entrance score or the student is subject to extreme bullying. (emphasis added)
•The CEO or delegate of the state/territory education authority supports the bypassing by an individual student, and where the reasons are consistent with the aims of YA.
Students with special talents and/or special career interests
Where a student can demonstrate that they need to live away from home and bypass a local school as it will be beneficial for their educational and/or employment prospects, then they may be assessed as eligible for the away from home rate of YA. Consideration in such cases should be given to the special abilities of the student and whether their needs can be met by the local school. The student should provide, where possible, evidence that their educational and/or employment prospects will be better met by study at the non-local institution. This evidence may take the form of statements from school principals, teachers, or others acting in an official role with the school. The intent of this policy is to encourage the development of young people with special talents whose educational needs may not be met by their local secondary institution.
Young people with special career interests, who need to bypass a local school to attend a non-local school because of particular subject/s, may be eligible for the away from home rate of YA if they can demonstrate that the study is/will be beneficial to the student's educational and/or employment prospects. In such cases, in addition to the support statements from school principals, teachers, or others acting in an official role with the school, evidence is also required to indicate that the particular subject/s for which the student has a special career interest is/are undertaken as part the young person's year 12-certificate and/or tertiary entrance curriculum.
As a policy document, the Guide is not binding on the Tribunal, but should be taken into account unless there are cogent reasons to not do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645; P v Child Support Registrar [2012] FCA 1398 at [3]).
THE TRIBUNAL’S CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
Evidence before the Tribunal
The evidence before the Tribunal included documents provided pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents”, as well as a statement from Mr Drum’s representative and additional information from BCC, Murtoa College and Swinburne University.
Mr Drum’s need to live away from home in order to get an education
At the date of claim, Mr Drum was 16 years of age and in year 11. Whilst of the minimum age to qualify for youth allowance he was however not eligible under section 543A of the act to receive youth allowance as he had not completed his final year of secondary education.
The representative of the applicant contends that whilst Mr Drum is not independent and was not living at home at the date of claim he had, however, chosen to continue his education at BCC as a boarder, not out of necessity but preference. He also contended that schools in Mr Drum’s local area provided him with suitable educational choices and opportunities to pursue his career interest of law.

Mr Drum’s representative argued that Mr Drum was required to live away from home to achieve his maximum potential as the standard of education, without question, had been much better at BCC which he contended was self-evident as it was a larger private school and would necessarily provide greater educational options than the smaller State High Schools available to Mr Drum closer to home. In particular, Mr Drum was given greater access to tutors, as well as a wider choice of subjects including accounting, legal studies and business management, and access to greater resources.
Mr Drum’s representative argued that Mr Drum would not achieve his full potential under mainstream public education as he would not be extended in his studies in this mass environment. The scholarship from BCC identified Mr Drum as a very bright student and attending the college would ensure he received a more tailored advanced learning program so that he could attain the high ATAR he required to progress to his chosen career of law. Mr Drum had expressed a desired to undertake a combined law/accounting degree at Swinburne University, which in 2016 had an entrance score of 93.1.
Mr Drum’s representative also argued that Mr Drum’s attainment of a higher ATAR would assist him financially with his further studies as Swinburne University was purported to offer scholarships to students who obtained higher ATAR scores. Mr Drum’s representative argued it had always been Mr Drum’s and his mother’s firm belief that attending BCC would result in him achieving a higher ATAR which was critical to his entry into Swinburne both academically and financially.
Additionally it was argued Mr Drum had benefited socially from the stability and continuity of three years education at BCC.
Mr Drum’s need to bypass the local school
The representative of the applicant contends that Mr Drum did not have a need to bypass his local school, as Murtoa college (where Mr Drum was previously a student) and other schools 90 minutes from his home offered the appropriate curriculum, resources and educational standards to allow Mr Drum to reach his full potential providing him with all he needed to gain a high ATAR.
The representative of the applicant contends that Mr Drum did not need to bypass his local school as there was a local education facility nearby; it offed an equivalent course and they were meeting his academic needs. Entrance into law/accounting required no pre-requisite subjects outside of English which is offered at all secondary schools in Victoria. Murtoa College’s NAPLAN results at year 9 level were consistent with the state average for all study areas and that 62% of its students progressed to University courses.
Mr Drum’s representative argued that his client was compelled to bypass his local schools for the purpose of his education which would naturally lead onto his employment prospects. He also contended that the opportunity of a part scholarship provided to Mr Drum and his mother was necessary for him to gain entrance to Swinburne University academically and financially. Additionally, he contended that the subjects and education on offer at BCC was superior to that on offer locally and so it was not a choice but a necessity to choose an education at BCC.
Mr Drum’s representative argued that BCC was a high achieving school ranked 8 out of 560 schools in Victoria, on average their ATAR was 86, the college median in 2016 was 88.9 and that 30% of their study scores in 2016 was 40 and above. Comparatively, whilst Murtoa College was 4.3%, each year 93% of their students gained entrance to their first choice of tertiary studies and Mr Drum had achieved a score of 91.6. This he argued all demonstrated a need for Mr Drum to attend BCC, bypassing his local schools.
Mr Drum’s special talent and/or special career interests
The representative of the applicant contends that Mr Drum did not have a special talent or special career interest that required him to attend a specific school. Mr Drum’s higher than average intellect was not a special talent and could be fostered at any school. Additionally, his career desire to study law did not require special tuition beyond that which he could receive at a local school.
The representative of the applicant took the Tribunal to the case of Re Thomas-Angelo and Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 699, where Senior Member Beddoe articulated:
43. The applicant has contended that the choice of which particular secondary institution he attends is not a matter of personal preference but rather one of scholastic challenge. No syllabuses or other evidence was provided regarding TSS and the Murwillumbah High School to enable the Tribunal to compare for itself the level of challenge available at either institution. However, I accept that the applicant's parents perceived that the TSS education program was appropriate and necessary for their son.
44. Section 1067E of the Act states:
"If a person:
(a) is not independent; and
(b) is not taken by section 1067D to be required to live away from home; the person is taken for the purposes of this Part to be living at home."
45. The Tribunal notes that the Guide to the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Guide") provides conditions, at least one of which must exist for a secondary student to be taken to be required to live away from home (T8, page 62). The Tribunal considers that in this matter the Guide provides some assistance to the Tribunal as it agrees with the Tribunal's considerations on this point. The only applicable condition relevant to the facts of this proceeding are outlined in the Guide as:
"an equivalent activity is not available locally."
46. This is explained (T8, page 63) to mean that a student is unable to study or attend training courses locally because:
·"an equivalent course is not available locally, OR
·a student's academic needs are not met by local education facility, OR
· there is no local facility."
47. The Tribunal's is [sic] satisfied that this interpretation makes allowance for the situation of a child with severe learning difficulties or a proven academically talented and gifted student whose educational requirements cannot be met by local government schools or any other local educational facility.
48. I am satisfied that the fact of winning the scholarship to TSS on academic grounds indicates that the applicant is a student of proven academic talent.
…
55. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant's academic needs were not being met at Murwillumbah, that it was necessary for him to move away from Murwillumbah to obtain an education appropriate to his needs so that he needed to live away from home for the purposes of education.
56. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant "needs to live away from home for the purposes of education".
57. With respect to those who assert otherwise the applicant's choice was to in effect give up on his education in Murrwillumbah because his needs were not being met there or pursue his education at a place that met his needs.
58. I am satisfied and determine that the applicant needed to live away from home for the purpose of his education and training in preparation for pursuing a proposed working career in robotics.
The representative of the applicant argued that the Tribunal in Thomas-Angelo was satisfied that the ‘winning the scholarship to TSS on academic grounds indicates that the applicant is a student of proven academic talent.’ The Tribunal in this matter had not specifically referred to instruction 3.2.6.40 of the Guide which states:
In deciding whether a student has demonstrated a need to bypass a local school consideration should be given, but not limited, to the following factors:
•the compelling nature of the student's circumstances and the degree of control/choice the student has over their circumstances,
•the availability, or otherwise, of suitable local school alternatives to meet the education and/or employment needs of the student, having regard to any special talents/career interests the student has,
•the extent to which attendance at a non-local school will positively impact on the student's education and/or employment prospects.
Circumstances that may be considered to demonstrate a need to live away from home for education and/or employment prospects may include, but not be limited to, the following:
•The student has special abilities/talents whose educational needs are not able to be met by the local school (see separate section below for more guidance).
•The student has special career interests and needs to attend a non-local school to study special subjects that will benefit their education and employment prospects, as the local school does not offer such subjects (see separate section below for more guidance).
•The student has a scholarship to a non-local school which allows the student to undertake special career interest subjects, not available at the local school, which will be beneficial to the student's education and/or employment prospects
The representative of the applicant argued that Mr Drum’s higher than average intelligence did not demonstrate he had a talent or career interest that was special and his choice of study was that available to be pursued by all students. Further, it was argued Mr Drum’s talent could be accommodated by the normal school curriculum and he did not need to attend a specialised school which offered specific subjects to address his special talent, such as sports high schools, performing arts schools and Conservatorium.
Mr Drum’s representative argued that the case of Thomas-Angelo was analogous to his client’s and the Tribunal should affirm the decision of the AAT1 and find that the awarding of the part scholarship to BCC indicated Mr Drum is a student with proven academic talent and therefore needed to live away from home to pursue his educational potential.
Mr Drum’s representative argued that his client’s situation satisfied the instruction outlined in the Guide at 3.2.6.40 beyond any doubt or ambiguity but if the Tribunal found any ambiguity existed the Guide at 1.3.1 states the Act takes a “beneficial” consideration and that a decision most favourable to the recipient of benefit under the Act must endure.
FINDINGS
The Tribunal agreed with the applicant that Mr Drum had demonstrated no need to bypass his local school to attain his secondary education. Furthermore, Mr Drum had no specific talent or career interest that required him to undertake his secondary school at a specialised school. Schools in his local area offered subject choices and appropriate educational standards to provide Mr Drum with the opportunity to realise his academic potential.
Fundamentally, the Tribunal found that the decision to attend BCC had been Mr Drum’s and his mother’s choice and was a preferred educational option and not a necessity to ensure he would achieve a high ATAR to enter Swinburne University to study a combined law/accounting degree.
Additionally, the Tribunal found that without further understanding of the educational options in the Thomas-Angelo case the Tribunal could not determine if the case was analogous with Mr Drum’s situation and did not find that receiving a part academic scholarship gave rise to the necessity for Mr Drum to live away from home for his education. However, the Tribunal can understand it would have been a large factor in his and his mother’s decision to move him to a school setting they perceived to offer greater educational opportunities which they hoped would greatly assist both academically and finically to secure a place at Swinburne University.
The Tribunal standing in the shoes of the decision maker must have particular regard to section 1067D(1)(i) and (ii) of the Act, which clearly states the Secretary determines that the need of the student to live away from home is primarily to support a person to obtain employment. The Act does not specify that the goal is to help the student attain their preferred employment opportunity or to maximise their individual potential but to be successful in finding employment.
Whilst the Guide does note that other factors combined with a student’s choice may be sufficient to demonstrate a need to live away from home, the Tribunal was not satisfied there were additional factors such as a special talent or lack of subject choice which would give rise to Mr Drum’s need to live away from home for his secondary schooling.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Drum had by-passed schools in his local area which would have provided him with the ability to achieve a standard of education that would ultimately assist him to obtaining employment.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the AAT1 and in substitution determines that Mr Drum was not entitled to living away from home youth allowance

I certify that the preceding 40 (forty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Anna Burke, Member

[sgd]........................................................................
Associate
Dated: 3 April 2018

Date of hearing:

13 March 2018

Solicitors for the Applicant:
Mr Tim Noonan, Department of Human Services,
Freedom of Information and Litigation Branch

Advocate for the Respondent:

Mr Gavin Simmons, Simmons Advisory Services

[2018] AATA 742

3 April 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Date of hearing:	13 March 2018
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr Tim Noonan, Department of Human Services, Freedom of Information and Litigation Branch
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Gavin Simmons, Simmons Advisory Services