Furqan and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal against a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, Furqan, sought to review a decision made on 7 June 2021, which affirmed a Services Australia decision that she was ineligible for Child Care Subsidy (CCS) for her child from 7 October 2019. The application for review was lodged on 27 July 2021, which was 22 days outside the prescribed 28-day time limit under s 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time under s 29(7) of the AAT Act. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for lodging the application. The substantive grounds for the appeal related to the applicant's eligibility for CCS, specifically concerning the immunisation requirements for the child under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. The applicant intended to rely on s 6(3) of the Act, which allows for exceptions to immunisation requirements if a medical practitioner certifies an unacceptable risk to the child or the vaccinator, and the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer agrees.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the respondent did not oppose the application for an extension of time. The applicant explained the delay as a misunderstanding of the initial decision, believing the review process was ongoing. The Tribunal considered the principles for granting an extension of time, including the need for an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether it was fair and equitable to grant the extension. Crucially, the Tribunal also took into account the merits of the substantive application, finding that the applicant had an arguable ground of appeal, provided she could substantiate the medical opinion and obtain the necessary confirmation from the Chief Medical Officer.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time. It was satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to do so, noting the lack of opposition from the respondent, the applicant's explanation for the delay, and the arguable nature of the substantive appeal.