Hailstone and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2022] AATA 1079

Hailstone and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 1079 (10 May 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/0079
Re:Sarah Hailstone
APPLICANT

Secretary, Department of Social ServicesAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S. Webb, Member
Date:10 May 2022
Place:Canberra

Application refused.
..................................[SGD]......................................
Mr S Webb, Member
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time in which to make an application for review – factors relevant to exercise of discretion – length of delay – explanation for delay – prejudice – merit – grounds not sufficient for exercise of discretion – application refused
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss 29, 43
Electronic Transactions Act 1999, s 14A
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, s 63
Social Security Act 1991, ss 1061ZZAC, 1061ZZAH, 1061ZZAI, 1061ZZAX, 1061ZZBA, 1061ZZCH, 1061ZZCN, 1061ZZENA, 1061ZZEN, 1061ZZEO, 1061ZZEP, 1061ZZER, 1061ZZET, 1061ZZEV, 1061ZZFJ, 1061ZZFK, 1061ZZFM
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, ss 126, 142, 144, 179, 180
Cases
Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1540
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Mentink v Minister for Home Affairs [2013] FCAFC 113
Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669
Pham v Phillips v Australian Girls’ Choir Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] FMCA 109
Selvidge v Director of Professional Services Review [2010] FCA 965
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 195
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb, Member
10 May 2022

Sarah Hailstone is disputing debts arising from student loans more than 15 years ago. She challenged the basis on which the debts were raised against her and the amount of the debts she owes. The dispute progressed to first review by this Tribunal (AAT 1^st review). Ms Hailstone is not satisfied with the result she obtained and applied for second review by the Tribunal (AAT 2^nd review). As her application for AAT 2^nd review was lodged outside the time allowed under the legislation, she applied for the grant of an extension of time.
The Respondent Secretary opposed this application.
Ms Hailstone and the Secretary provided the Tribunal with written submissions addressing the extension of time application. Both parties agreed the matter could be decided without a hearing, on the papers.
It is this matter, alone, that is the subject of this decision.
Background facts
Considering the materials provided to the Tribunal, the following facts are established.
On 7 March 2001, Ms Hailstone was granted Austudy.
On 12 March 2001, Centrelink notified her she was eligible to apply for a Student Financial Supplement Loan (SFS Loan) for 2001 and, on 30 March 2001, sent her additional information about the Financial Supplement Scheme.
This information set out Ms Hailstone’s SFS Loan entitlement for 2001 – she was entitled to apply for an amount between $500 and $5,179 through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).
On or about 3 May 2001, Ms Hailstone’s application for an SFS Loan of $5,179 for 2001 was accepted. Centrelink notified her of this on 4 May 2001. The loan funds were paid into Ms Hailstone’s SFS Loan account with the CBA.
On 11 May 2001, the CBA notified Centrelink of the SFS Loan agreement with Ms Hailstone, including her SFS Loan account number. Ms Hailstone disputes the validity of the SFS Loan agreement on grounds the loan contract was not complete.
On 22 January 2002, Centrelink notified Ms Hailstone she was eligible to apply for a SFS Loan for 2002.
Ms Hailstone lodged an application for an SFS Loan in the amount of $3,472 for 2002 with the CBA, which was accepted. Centrelink notified her of this on 31 January 2002. On 1 February 2002, the CBA provided Centrelink the SFS Loan agreement, including Ms Hailstone’s SFS Loan account number.
On 22 July 2002, Ms Hailstone was notified the amount of her SFS Loan entitlement had increased following reassessment of her Austudy entitlement – she was entitled to apply for an additional amount of $2,723, or a total amount of $6,195 for 2002.
Ms Hailstone lodged an application for the additional amount, which was accepted and, on 5 August 2002, Centrelink notified her the amount of her SFS Loan for 2002 was $6,195.
After 5 years, Ms Hailstone’s outstanding SFS Loans for 2001 and 2002 were transferred to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
On 19 April 2006, Centrelink notified her the outstanding balance of her 2001 SFS Loan would be transferred as a debt to the ATO on 1 June 2006.
On 11 April 2007, Centrelink notified her the outstanding balance of her 2002 SFS Loan would be transferred as a debt to the ATO on 1 June 2007.
In 2016 and 2019 Ms Hailstone sought and was provided with information about her SFS Loans for 2001 and 2002, including copies of her 2001 and 2002 SFS Loan applications and transactions associated with these loans.
On or about 12 May 2020, Ms Hailstone requested review of the SFS Loan decisions in 2001 and 2002. The request was referred to an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) for consideration and decision.
On 22 May 2020, the ARO reported that Ms Hailstone agreed to narrow the review to decisions relating to her 2001 SFS Loan.
On 26 May 2020, the ARO reviewed the 3 May 2001 SFS Loan decision and the decision to transfer the loan as a debt to the ATO on 1 June 2006. The ARO decided both decisions were correct.
On 25 July 2020, Ms Hailstone applied for AAT 1^st review of this decision.
On 10 September 2020, on completion of the AAT 1^st review, the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision.
Ms Hailstone asserts in 2020 she complained to the ATO about the 2001 SFS Loan debt, but the ATO “advised that they cannot do anything as they have no control over the debt as they are engaged to collect the debt only”.[1]
[1] Applicant written submissions, 18 February 2022, page 2.
In October 2020, she complained to the CBA about the 2001 SFS Loan debt and asserts she received the following response on 27 October 2020:
As explained, the bank has declined your claims, this is because:
• The Student Financial Supplement Scheme (SFSS) was a voluntary loan scheme initiated by
Government to help tertiary students cover their expenses while they studied.
• Students were able to make voluntary repayments to the bank during the first 5 years of their
loan contract
• After 5 years, The Government bought back the loans and took responsibility for collecting the
balance of the outstanding loan through the taxation system
• All existing SFSS debts continue to be collected through the tax system.
• It was Government initiated loan and there was no consumer credit contract (Loan contract) between students and the bank for SFSS, hence there was no requirement of accepting/signing the agreement.[2]
[2] Ibid, page 3.
On 27 December 2020, Ms Hailstone says she complained to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), but the matter was closed on 1 April 2021. No details of the complaint or the outcome have been given to the Tribunal.
On 20 March 2021, Ms Hailstone asserts she complained to the Inspector-General of Taxation, but she has not provided any information about the substance of her complaint or the outcome.
On 23 March 2021, Ms Hailstone says she lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman who, on 1 April 2021, declined to investigate the complaint for the following reasons:
I have carefully considered the issues you raised in your complaint. I have declined to investigate it for the following reasons:
By way of general explanation, the SFSS closed on 1 January 2004. Since December 2005, all Financial Supplement Loans have been transferred to the ATO for recovery.
The Ombudsman’s Office does not have jurisdiction to consider actions of the ATO. If you have a complaint about the ATO, it is open to you to contact the Inspector-General of Taxation (‘IGT’). You can contact the IGT by calling 1300 448 829 or find more information on its website.
The only actions that the Ombudsman’s Office could consider would be Centrelink’s actions in administering the SFSS up to December 2005. However, we generally decline to investigate complaints where the complainant became aware of the issue more than 12 months before the complaint was made. In this case, because of the age of this issue, I do not consider that investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office would result in a different or better outcome for you.
If you wish for this debt to be waived, it is open to you to consider the information on the Department of Finance’s website about waivers of amounts owing to the Commonwealth.
If you consider that the documents the Financial Supplement Loan was based on were illegal or fraudulent, you may wish to seek legal advice. The Ombudsman’s Office is unable to provide legal advice or information. It is open to you to contact LawAccess NSW, which may be able to provide you with free legal advice or information. You can contact LawAccess NSW by calling 1300 888 529 or find some more information on its website.
My assessment of your complaint is now finished. Based on the analysis above, I do not intend to take any further action in relation to your complaint. My contact details are listed below if you would like to speak with me about this decision.[3]
[3] Ibid, pages 3-4.
Ms Hailstone asserts on 5 April 2021 she again contacted the CBA and she was advised that they are no longer looking at individual complaints.
Ms Hailstone submits she took the matter up with the Commonwealth Ombudsman in October 2021 and provided related information. She asserts the Commonwealth Ombudsman advised that the Department of Finance would not consider the new information regarding legislation and The Commonwealth Ombudsman could not overturn a Department of Finance ruling. [4]
[4] Ibid, page 4.
On 2 January 2022, Ms Hailstone lodged an application for AAT 2^nd review of the 10 September 2020 AAT 1^st review decision and for the grant of an extension of time in which to make the application.
On 11 February 2022, the Tribunal issued directions requiring Ms Hailstone to provide an explanation for her application for an extension of time and for the Secretary to provide a response.
On 20 February 2022, Ms Hailstone provided written submissions.
On 8 March 2022, the Secretary provided written submissions in reply, attaching relevant documents.
Jurisdiction
There are two jurisdictional issues to decide. The first is in respect of the ambit of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions made under Chapter 2B of the Social Security Act 1991 (SS Act). The second is in respect of the scope of issues before previous decision-makers which are capable of being decided in this review.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not at large. Provision is made in s 179 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act) for AAT 2^nd review of an AAT 1^st review decision. Under s 142 of the Administration Act, application may be made for AAT 1^st review of a decision under s 135 or s 126, subject to carve outs specified in s 144 (none of which are applicable in this case). It is decisions of the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or an ARO under Chapter 2B of the SS Act that may be subject to review by the Tribunal under s 142.
Importantly, following completion of an SFS loan contract, the outstanding balance of a person’s SFS loan is transferred as an FS debt to the Commonwealth that is recoverable through the taxation system by the ATO. By operation of s 1061ZZENA of the SS Act, the Commissioner of Taxation administers substantial elements of Part 2B.3. Decisions relating to the assessment, repayment or recovery of a person’s FS debt are not made by the Secretary, the Chief Executive Centrelink or an ARO. Decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of an assessment of a person’s accumulated financial supplement debt or the amount required to be paid are subject to review provisions set out in s 1061ZZFM of the SS Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to review of decisions relating to:
(a)Ms Hailstone’s eligibility for the financial supplement;
(b)the amount of the financial supplement she was entitled to receive;
(c)the calculation and indexation of the SFS loan; and
(d)whether the correct total amount of the outstanding SFS loan been referred to the ATO.
The Secretary submits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to decisions relating to Ms Hailstone’s 2001 SFS loan.
Ms Hailstone is attempting to agitate issues relating to the legal basis of the 2001 SFS loan and the amount of the outstanding debt arising from the 2002 SFS loan.
It appears she requested review of matters relating to the 2001 and 2002 SFS loans on or about 12 May 2020. Subject to the review mechanisms discussed above, those matters were capable of determination by the ARO, and on further review by this Tribunal.
This is so even though Ms Hailstone apparently narrowed the scope of her review request in discussion with the ARO. The assertion that the Tribunal’s present jurisdiction is confined to the scope of issues considered and decided by previous decision-makers is not the point. All matters that were placed before the ARO, which were capable of being determined by the ARO, were before the Tribunal in the AAT 1^st review and they are before the Tribunal in this review. Just as the ARO had power to review decisions of the Secretary in respect of Ms Hailstone’s eligibility for 2001 and 2002 SFS loans, and the amounts of those loans, the Tribunal had jurisdiction and power to review and decide those matters afresh in the AAT 1^st review. By operation of s 43 of the AAT Act, the Tribunal is capable of exercising those same powers for the purposes of this review.
Discretion
The time in which such an application is to be made is set out in s 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).[5] Where an application for AAT 2^nd review is not made within 28 days of the person being given the AAT 1^st decision, the Tribunal has discretion under s 29(7) to extend the period in which the application may be made:
The Tribunal may, upon application in writing by a person, extend the time for the making by that person of an application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision (including a decision made before the commencement of this section) if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
[5] This provision is not modified by s 180 of the Administration Act.
As can be seen, exercise of discretion to extend the time for Ms Hailstone to make an application for review of the AAT 1^st review decision is preconditioned by satisfaction that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
Commonly in cases of this kind, the guiding principles Wilcox J set out in the oft cited case of Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen[6]are taken to be relevant but not exhaustive considerations.[7] The relevant principles may be summarised as follows:
(a)An acceptable explanation for the delay provided by the prospective applicant, and the length of the delay, are relevant considerations, although the absence of a satisfactory explanation may not be determinative.
(b)Where an applicant has rested on their rights and taken no action to seek review or to communicate an intention to challenge the decision, and the decision may be taken to have been finalised, the applicant’s failure to act may weigh against exercise of discretion to grant more time. The public interest in the timely review of administrative decisions must be weighed against any public interest in the delivery of fair and just decisions.
(c)Any prejudice to the respondent or unfairness to another person may weigh against the granting of an extension of time, although the absence of prejudice does not weigh for such a grant.
(d)The relative merits of the application, should it be allowed, albeit in a preliminary assessment, are to be taken into account.
(e)Alternative avenues for relief may be relevantly considered.
(f)An extension of time beyond the prescribed period will not be granted unless the Tribunal is positively satisfied it is reasonable to do so and there is a good reason to do so.
[6] (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348-350.
[7] Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 195 at [20]; Mentink v Minister for Home Affairs [2013] FCAFC 113, per Griffiths J (as he then was) at [35]-[39]; Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1540 at [18]-[19]; Pham v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 669 at [11]; and Pham v Phillips v Australian Girls’ Choir Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] FMCA 109.
Stone J’s observation in Selvidge v Director of Professional Services Review[8] was made in respect of different administrative review legislation but it is nevertheless apposite:
Time limits for bringing applications or appeals are prescribed for good reasons. While the Court has power to extend the period of 28 days provided under s 11 of the ADJR Act, it should not do so without good reason. In the absence of such a reason an extension should not be granted even if to do so would not cause prejudice to the Respondent.
[8] [2010] FCA 965 at [6].
Delay
The starting point is the 28-day period in which an application for review may be made. This period commenced from the day Ms Hailstone was given the AAT 1^st review decision she is seeking to challenge. In the notice of that decision, she was provided information about her review rights and the 28-day time limit in which to make an application for further review.
In her application, Ms Hailstone stated she received the AAT 1^st review decision on 16 August 2021. She has provided no evidence or explanation to support this assertion.
The materials before the Tribunal reveal the AAT 1^st decision was sent to Ms Hailstone electronically, by email to her nominated email address on 15 September 2020.
Under s 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (ET Act), if a person has designated an electronic address, the notice served by electronic communication is received by the person when it reaches that electronic address.
Ms Hailstone is taken to have received the AAT 1^st review decision on 15 September 2020.
From this it follows that the 28-day period in which she could lodge an application for review of this decision ended on 13 October 2020.
Ms Hailstone’s application for review of the AAT 1^st review decision was lodged on 2 January 2022.
She provided the following reasons for the delay in lodging the application for review:
This matter has been ongoing for some time and has caused me a great amount of anxiety and stress. Dealing with this matter has been difficult given not only the stressors of work and Covid but also supporting a husband who suffers from a mental health condition. I have taken some time to try and find relevant legislation to support my request as I have been continually told that the legislation does not support my point of view. I would appreciate any consideration given to an extension of time due to the issues above.
Ms Hailstone provided no medical or other evidence to support her explanation for the delay.
Ms Hailstone’s unsupported assertions are insufficient to adequately explain a delay of more than 14 months after expiration of the 28-day period for lodging an application for review of the AAT 1^st review. This weighs heavily against exercising the discretion to grant additional time for her application to be made.
Failure to act
In determining if Ms Hailstone rested on her rights in respect of the matters she now seeks to agitate, there are two main considerations: whether she attempted to continue to agitate the matter, and whether this was done in a manner capable of alerting the respondent Secretary that the matter was not yet finalised.

Following receipt of the AAT 1^st review decision, it appears that Ms Hailstone explored several avenues to address or to complain about the debt she is disputing. She raised related issues with the CBA, the ATO, the AFCA, the Inspector-General for Taxation, an ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Ms Hailstone has not explained why she pursued these avenues of complaint or potential redress rather than applying for AAT 2^nd review of the decision she now seeks to challenge. Clearly enough, she attempted to continue to agitate matters relating to the disputed debt from the SFS loan in 2001. This may be taken to imply she rested on her rights of review but sought, instead, to find other means of redress in respect of the debt.
The Secretary submits that the delay in Ms Hailstone raising any issue in respect of the debt held against her in respect of the 2001 SFS loan is a relevant matter to consider.
On the materials provided to the Tribunal, it appears Ms Hailstone did not take issue with the 2001 SFS loan documents at the time, and she received the loan funds authorised under the loan documents she now seeks to challenge. There is no evidence she raised any concern in 2006, when she was notified her 2001 SFS loan was transferred to the ATO as a debt for which she was liable under the terms of the SFS loan. Subsequently, many years passed without any issue being raised or agitated in respect of Ms Hailstone’s SFS loan debts. In 2016, Ms Hailstone obtained information about the debts held against her and the SFS loans in 2001 and 2002, but there is no evidence to establish she took any action to challenge the debts at that time.
In 2019, Ms Hailstone was provided with further information about the 2001 and 2002 SFS loan debts held against her by the ATO. It is probable that this information was instrumental in Ms Hailstone’s subsequent review applications in which she challenged the basis on which the debts were raised and the amount of the debts. It was those attempts which led to the AAT 1^st review decision on 10 September 2020.
The Secretary’s assertion that Ms Hailstone rested on her rights in respect of the 2001 and 2002 SFS loan debts for many years is correct.
There is no prescribed period, or any provision in Chapter 2B or Chapter 6 of the SS Act or in the Administration Act, limiting the time in which an application may be made for review of a primary decision in respect of an SFS loan or debt. Nevertheless, Ms Hailstone was provided with information about the transfer of the 2001 and 2002 SFS loans to the ATO as debts, and she was provided with further information in 2016 and 2019. It was not until 2020 Ms Hailstone requested review.
On the materials provided to the Tribunal, it appears Ms Hailstone rested on her rights from 2001 to 2019.
These considerations weigh against exercising the discretion to grant additional time.
Prejudice
Ms Hailstone’s application for review of the AAT 1^st review decision is more than 14 months out of time. The issues she is attempting to agitate are in respect of the 2001 and 2002 SFS loans and related debts held against her by the ATO from 1 June 2006 and 1 June 2007, respectively.
I accept that the period of more than 14 months after the prescribed period in which Ms Hailstone could have applied for further review of the AAT 1^st review decision may cause prejudice to the Secretary. This is reinforced by the age of the substantive matter Ms Hailstone is attempting to agitate. Records may have been destroyed and the memories of any relevant witnesses, should they be found, may well have faded with the effluxion of time. The prejudice this causes is likely to affect both parties should the matter be allowed to proceed. In all likelihood, significant difficulties may be encountered proving facts in relation to events that occurred more than 20 years ago, which were probably unremarkable at the time.
This consideration weighs against exercising the discretion to grant additional time.
Relative merits
It is not necessary to say much about the relative merits of Ms Hailstone’s case, other than to observe that her case is not strong.
Her key contention appears to relate to the legal basis of the 2001 SFS loan contract with the CBA. She argues the absence of a signature and apparent changes to the SFS loan document mean the 2001 SFS loan contract could not have lawfully commenced.
The matter is to be decided under Chapter 2B of the SS Act. Under s 1061ZZAC, the Secretary was obliged to make a decision about Ms Hailstone’s eligibility for a financial supplement and to give her a supplement entitlement notice. Thereafter, under s 1061ZZAH, Ms Hailstone was able to apply for the financial supplement to a participating corporation. She was required to do so, under s 1061ZZAI, using a form approved by the Secretary which was lodged with her supplement entitlement notice at an office of the participating corporation. Under s 1061ZZAX, on receipt of these documents, the participating corporation is required to accept the application by written notice to the person. As s 1061ZZAX(2) makes very clear, by giving the person such a notice, the participating corporation establishes a financial supplement contract. By operation of s 1061ZZAX, the financial supplement contract commences on the day it was made, namely the day on which notice was given by the participating corporation for the purposes of s 1061ZZAX(1).
Under the terms of the financial supplement scheme, the recipient student was not required to make repayments during the period of the financial supplement contract with the participating corporation and no interest would be applied to the amount of the financial supplement, although an indexation factor would apply. Under s 1061ZZEN and s 1061ZZEO, on 1 June in the year following the end of the financial supplement contract the balance of the person’s SFS loan is transferred to the ATO as an FS debt to be recovered through the taxation system under the terms of the financial supplement scheme. Each year thereafter until the debt is paid, the person is liable for an accumulated FS debt to which an indexation factor is applied under the terms of s 1061ZZER and s 1061ZZET.
On the materials given to the Tribunal (albeit scant at this stage), and on a preliminary assessment which is necessarily cursory, Ms Hailstone’s case is weak and lacks merit. Her submissions, in substantial parts at least, appear to proceed without reference to the relevant legislative tests that must be applied when deciding the issues she is attempting to agitate.
As I understand Ms Hailstone’s submissions, her case hinges on the provision of a notice sent to her for the purposes of s 1061ZZAX(1). There is clear evidence Ms Hailstone was notified of her acceptance of the SFS loans in 2001 and 2002. Copies of notices issued to Ms Hailstone on 4 May 2001 and 31 January 2002 have been provided to the Tribunal. These notices were sent to her by Centrelink following receipt of documents and information from the CBA. It is not clear if Ms Hailstone was notified by the CBA directly, for example by being given a stamped copy of the application form she lodged with the CBA or some other form of notice of the application. Even if she was not, the notices she was provided may be sufficient for the purposes of s 1061ZZAX(2). Of course, this would be a matter for evidence and argument should the application be allowed.
Furthermore, it is unlikely the financial supplement contract under which Ms Hailstone was paid the SFS loan amount in 2001 and 2002 did not commence for the reasons she alleges. The commencement of the contract is determined by s 1061ZZAX(2), not by signature of an officer of the CBA.
As Ms Hailstone received the financial supplements in 2001 and 2002 consequent to the Secretary’s determination of her eligibility and her applications to the CBA, when the terms of s 1061ZZBA are considered, it is unlikely the financial supplement contract would be found to be invalid or void, or that she would not be liable to repay the resulting debts held against her by the ATO.
Ms Hailstone does not appear to have made any repayments to the CBA in respect of the 2001 and 2002 SFS loans for the purposes of ss 1061ZZEO to 1061ZZEU. The amount of each SFS loan is subject to indexation under the terms of ss 1061ZZCH to 1061ZZCN. The amount of each SFS loan that is transferrable to the ATO is calculated under ss 1061ZZEP to 1061ZZEV. On the present materials and for present purposes it is not possible or desirable to engage in a detailed assessment of such matters. It is sufficient to say that Ms Hailstone has raised questions about the accuracy of the debt amounts, contrary to the findings previously made by an ARO and by the Tribunal in the AAT 1^st review decision. Ms Hailstone has not yet provided any evidence to support the questions she has raised. These, properly, are matters for evidence should the application be permitted to proceed.
In my cursory assessment, the prospects of Ms Hailstone’s case succeeding are slim. It is likely Ms Hailstone would be found liable to repay the outstanding SFS loan from 2001. It is possible some error might be found in the amount of the FS debts held against Ms Hailstone by the ATO in respect of the 2001 and 2002 SFS loans as Ms Hailstone asserts, but no error was found by previous decision-makers and Ms Hailstone has not pointed to any particular error or to probative material that might assist her case on this point.
This weighs against the grant of additional time.
Alternative relief
Refusing Ms Hailstone’s application for an extension of time does not mean that she is denied all further opportunity to obtain relief from the debts she is attempting to challenge. The debts for which she is liable are recoverable by the ATO. They are not debts due to the Commonwealth from which relief may be granted under the SS Act or the Administration Act.
Ms Hailstone has provided information about her efforts to obtain alternative relief, without success.
She has referred to communications with the ATO and the Inspector-General of Taxation, but it is not clear if she made an application for a delayed assessment under s 1061ZZFJ or for an amended assessment under s 1061ZZFK. If this has not been done, it may be open for her to make such an application for relief. I note that any resulting decision of the Commissioner for Taxation may then be reviewable by the Tribunal under s 1061ZZFM.
Ms Hailstone has also referred to the Department of Finance, but it is not clear if she has had any direct dealings with that Department in respect of an application for relief to the Minister for Finance. It may be open for her to seek relief from the Minister for Finance under s 63 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 if she has not yet done so.
Conclusion
Considering all the relevant circumstances, I am not positively satisfied it is reasonable or appropriate to exercise the discretion to grant Ms Hailstone additional time in which to make an application for review of the AAT 1^st review decision on 10 September 2020. Her application for an extension of time under s 29(7) of the AAT Act is not made out.
Decision
Application refused.
I certify that the preceding 85 (eighty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member S Webb
……………[sgd]……………….
Associate
Dated: 10 May 2022
Representative for the Applicant: Self-Represented
Representative for the Respondent: Ms Lorraine Hill, Services Australia