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

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision to cancel the applicant's Newstart Allowance (NSA). The applicant had been granted NSA since 1992. In 2015, he signed a job plan requiring him to contact potential employers fortnightly. Between April and September 2016, the respondent's agent, Matchworks, sought to have the applicant sign a new job plan, but he refused to sign one that required him to contact more than four prospective employers per month. Consequently, an authorised review officer cancelled the applicant's NSA from 14 September 2016, a decision later affirmed by another authorised review officer and subsequently by the AAT. The applicant sought a second-tier review of the AAT's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondent was entitled to require the applicant to enter into the new job plan, and if so, whether the cancellation of his NSA was the correct and preferable decision given his refusal to sign the plan. The Tribunal was required to consider the relevant provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth), as well as the applicable policy in force at the time, as outlined in the Guide to Social Security Law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not dispute his failure to sign a new job plan when required. His reasons for refusal were that the proposed plan imposed an unreasonable requirement to contact more than four prospective employers per month, given his age and personal circumstances, and that the case officer had not signed the plan first. The Tribunal rejected the latter as a legitimate reason for refusal. Regarding the former, the applicant asserted that any more than four contacts per month was unreasonable, citing his age, long-term unemployment, and involvement in a heritage rail project he believed could lead to employment. However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent was entitled to require the applicant to enter into the new job plan.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that given the applicant's repeated refusal to enter into the new job plan, the correct and preferable decision was to cancel his NSA. The decision under review was affirmed.