Fraser and Secretary, Attorney-General's Department (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Fraser against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which rejected his claim for an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment. The claim arose from the Bali bombings in 2002. The Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department was the respondent. Deputy J W Constance P heard the appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Fraser was "in the place where the terrorist act occurred" and, if so, whether he was harmed "as a direct result of the terrorist act". The court was required to determine the geographical scope of the "place" where the terrorist act occurred and whether Mr Fraser's proximity to the bombings, his sensory experiences of the explosions, and his subsequent actions in assisting the injured qualified him as a primary victim.

The court found that Mr Fraser was indeed in the place where the terrorist act occurred, relying on the reasoning of the Full Federal Court in *Hananeia v Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department*. This precedent established that the terrorist act itself occurred over a wide area, extending beyond the immediate vicinity of the explosions. Mr Fraser's proximity to the Sari Club and Paddy's Bar (between 300-400 metres), his hearing of the explosions, seeing the resulting cloud, feeling the shockwaves, and his immediate attendance to the injured within minutes of the event, satisfied this criterion. The court accepted Mr Fraser's evidence that his subsequent suffering of post-traumatic stress disorder was a result of his actions in providing first aid and support to victims, and informing parents of missing team members.

Consequently, the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with the direction that Mr Fraser be considered a primary victim of a declared terrorist act for the purposes of subsection 1061PAA(2) of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).