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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Hailstone for an extension of time to make an application for review of a decision made by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) on 10 September 2020. The dispute arose from Ms Hailstone's Student Financial Supplement Loans (SFS Loans) for 2001 and 2002, and the subsequent transfer of outstanding balances to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as debt. The decision was made by Mr S. Webb, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it should exercise its discretion under section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to grant Ms Hailstone an extension of time to seek a second review of the ARO's decision. This required the Tribunal to consider factors such as the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the prejudice to the parties, and the merits of the grounds for review. A secondary issue, arising from the nature of the SFS Loans and their administration, concerned the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in reviewing decisions related to financial supplement debts.

The Member determined that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to reviewing decisions concerning eligibility for the financial supplement, the amount of the supplement, the calculation and indexation of the SFS loan, and whether the correct total outstanding amount had been referred to the ATO. Decisions relating to the assessment, repayment, or recovery of an FS debt made by the Commissioner of Taxation were not within the Tribunal's review powers. While the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Secretary, Chief Executive Centrelink, or an ARO regarding eligibility and loan amounts, the Member was not satisfied that it was reasonable or appropriate to grant an extension of time. The Member found that Ms Hailstone's application for an extension of time was not made out, considering all relevant circumstances.

Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.