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

Harafias and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 265 (28 April 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s)

2015/2558

Re

Nick Harafias

APPLICANT

And

Secretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member

Date 28 April 2016

Place Sydney
The decision under review is affirmed.
................................[sgd]........................................
Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – newstart allowance - cancellation of newstart allowance – eligibility for newstart allowance – activity test – whether Applicant satisfies the activity test – whether Applicant should be exempt from the activity test – Applicant on bail - definition of unemployed – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 593, 601, 603A

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 80
CASES
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) FCAFC 133
The Applicant and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Anor [2007] AATA 1024

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
28 April 2016
FACTS

On 26 June 2014, Mr Harafias was arrested and charged with a criminal offence.
He was held in remand until the next day, and was refused bail on that day by the Burwood Local Court. He was placed into custody at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre.
On 11 August 2014, Mr Harafias was physically assaulted by inmates and was admitted to, and discharged from, Westmead Hospital on the same day.
On 3 September 2014, Mr Harafias was taken to Auburn Hospital following complaints about severe headaches. His treating doctor advised him to remain in hospital for further observation, but Mr Harafias elected to return to the correctional facility, against medical advice.
On 19 December 2014, Mr Harafias submitted a bail application to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bail was granted on 20 December 2014 following the deposit of $20,000 by Mr Harafias’ mother with the bail authority.
The terms of Mr Harafias’ bail required him to:
(a)reside with his mother at her residence at Hurlstone Park;
(b)be of good behaviour
(c)report to Ashfield police station once daily between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm;
(d)appear at Sydney District Court on 29 June 2015 and thereafter as required;
(e)comply with the imposed curfew; and
(f)not be absent from his mother’s residence unless accompanied by her.
On 22 December 2014, Mr Harafias lodged a claim for newstart allowance. He was granted newstart allowance and given an exemption from the activity test for four weeks.
On 6 February 2015, Mr Harafias requested a further exemption from the activity test, and at this time provided the Department of Human Services (“Department”) with information about his bail conditions.
On 9 February 2015, the Department cancelled Mr Harafias' newstart allowance on the basis that, because of his bail conditions, he was not considered to be unemployed and able to look for work and accept employment.
On 10 February 2015, Mr Harafias requested an internal review of the decision.
On 12 February 2015, a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) of the Department affirmed the decision under review.
On 13 February 2015, Mr Harafias applied to the former Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) for a review of the ARO’s decision.
On 4 May 2015, the former SSAT affirmed the ARO’s decision.
On 27 May 2015, Mr Harafias submitted an application to this Tribunal for a review of the decision of the SSAT.
On 29 June 2015, Mr Harafias attended his trial at the District Court of New South Wales. He entered a plea of not guilty in relation to the offences of affray and causing grievous bodily harm to person with intent.
On 4 September 2015, Justice Helen Syme sentenced Mr Harafias to a minimum of 4 years imprisonment for what she described as “a most serious example of grievous bodily harm”.
Mr Harafias has appealed Justice Syme’s decision.
ISSUES
The issues that the Tribunal must consider in this case are:
(a)whether Mr Harafias satisfied the activity test; and
(b)
if not, whether he should be granted relief from the activity test.

LEGISLATION
The relevant legislation is provided in the:
(a)Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“Act”); and
(b)Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“Administration Act”).
The qualification requirements for newstart allowance are set out in section 593 of the Act:
593 Qualification for newstart allowance
(1) Subject to sections 596, 596A, 597 and 598, a person is qualified for a newstart allowance in respect of a period if:
(a)the person satisfies the Secretary that:
(i)    throughout the period the person is unemployed; or
(ii)   the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the period; and
Note: For CDEP Scheme participant see section 1188B.
(b)in the case of a person to whom subparagraph (a)(i) applies— throughout the period, or for each period within the period, the person:
(i)    satisfies the activity test; or
(ii)   is not required to satisfy the activity test; and
(c)if subsection 605(1) applies to the person, at all times (if any) during the period when a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan is not in force in relation to the person, the person is prepared to enter into such a plan; and
(d)if subsection 605(1) or (2) applies to the person, at all times during the period when a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan is in force in relation to the person, the person is prepared to enter into another such plan instead of the existing plan; and
(e)if the person is required by the Secretary to enter into a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan in relation to the period, the person enters into that plan; and
(f)while the plan is in force, the person satisfies the Secretary that the person is complying with the requirements in the plan; and
(g)throughout the period the person:
(i)    is at least 22 years of age and has not reached the pension age; and
(ii)   is an Australian resident or is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7); and
(i)the person was not in receipt of a youth allowance during the period.
Note 1: A person may be treated as unemployed (see section 595).
Note 2: The activity test is set out in section 601.
Note 3: For Newstart Employment Pathway Plan see sections 605 and 606.
Note 5: For pension age see section 23.
Note 6: For Australian resident see section 7.
Note 8: A person may not be qualified if the person's unemployment is due to industrial action (see section 596).
Note 9: A person may not be qualified if the person has reduced the person's employment prospects by moving to an area of lower employment prospects (see section 597).
Note 12: A person could be in receipt of a youth allowance during a period for which the person would qualify for a newstart allowance, if paragraph (i) was disregarded, because of section 540C (extension of youth allowance to end of payment period).
Note 13: A newstart allowance is not payable in certain situations even if the person is qualified (see Subdivisions C, D, E and F and Part 4.2).
(1B) Subject to sections 596, 596A, 597 and 598, a person is qualified for a newstart allowance in respect of a period if:
(a)the person satisfies the Secretary that throughout the period the person is unemployed; and
(b)throughout the period the person:
(i)    has reached the age of 22 years and has not reached the pension age; and
(ii)   is an Australian resident; and
(c)the person was not in receipt of a youth allowance during the period; and
(d)the person made a claim for disability support pension at or before the start of the period and the claim was not determined before the end of the period; and
(e)the Secretary is satisfied that throughout the period the person suffered from a medical condition that had a significant adverse effect on the person's ability to work; and
(f)the person satisfies any one of the conditions in subsection (1C).
(1C)     The conditions referred to in paragraph (lB)(f) are:
(a)a condition that the person was an Australian resident when the significant adverse effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to work first occurred; and
(b)a condition that at the start of the period the person had 10 years qualifying Australian residence or had a qualifying residence exemption for newstart allowance; and
(c)a condition that:
(i)    the person was born outside Australia; and
(ii)   when the significant adverse effect of the medical condition first occurred the person was not an Australian resident but was a dependent child of an Australian resident; and
(iii) the person became an Australian resident while a dependent child of an Australian resident.
(1D)     Subject to sections 596, 596A and 598, a person is qualified for a newstart allowance, in respect of the period starting in accordance with subsection (IE) and ending in accordance with subsection (IF), if:
(a)the person satisfies the Secretary that throughout the period the person is unemployed; and
(b)throughout the period the person:
(i)    has reached the age of 22 years and has not reached the pension age; and
(ii)   is an Australian resident or is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7); and
(c)the person was not in receipt of a youth allowance during the period; and
(d)the person has made, or is taken to have made, a claim for newstart allowance; and
(e)the person satisfies the Secretary that it is likely that the person has a permanent medical condition that would prevent the person from undertaking full-time work; and
(f)the person satisfies the Secretary that it would be unreasonable to expect the person to satisfy the activity test until an assessment of the person's capacity to work has been undertaken.
(1E)     The period for which the person is qualified for a newstart allowance under subsection (ID) starts:
(a)if the person is already receiving newstart allowance when the Secretary becomes aware of the medical condition referred to in paragraph (lD)(e)—when the Secretary becomes aware of the medical condition; or
(b)otherwise—when the person made, or is taken to have made, the claim for newstart allowance.
(1F)     The period for which the person is qualified for a newstart allowance under subsection (ID) ends:
(a)if the person has failed to comply with a requirement to enter into a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan—on the day on which the person so failed; or
(b)in any other case—when the person enters into a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan.
(4) If:
(a)a person was receiving a social security pension, a service pension or income support supplement; and
(b)the person claims a newstart allowance within 14 days of the day on which the last instalment of the person's pension was paid; and
(c)the person becomes qualified for a newstart allowance at some time during the 14 day period but after the first day of that period;
the person is taken to be qualified for a newstart allowance for the whole of the 14 day period.
Note: Subsection (4) operates when a person transfers from a pension to a newstart allowance and the person is not qualified for a newstart allowance immediately after the day on which the person's last instalment of pension is paid. The subsection deems the person to be so qualified. As a result, the person may be paid a newstart allowance for the period beginning on the day after the day on which the person's last instalment of pension was paid. The subsection aims to ensure that there is minimal disruption to a person's payments when a person transfers from a pension to a newstart allowance.
The term “unemployed” is not defined in the Act. However, the Guide to Social Security Law (“Guide”) states, at paragraph 1.1.U.30, that
“For the purposes of [newstart allowance] an unemployed person is, in broad terms, someone who does not have paid work but wants to have paid work. An essential requirement is that the person has a present intention to be part of the labour market. It is not sufficient that the person is simply without work”.
Section 601 of the Act specifies the requirements of the activity test:
601 Activity test
(1) Subject to subsections (1A) and (5), a person satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if the person satisfies the Secretary that, throughout the period, the person is:
(a)actively seeking; and
(b)willing to undertake;
paid work in Australia, other than paid work that is unsuitable to be undertaken by the person.
Note 1: For situations in which a person is taken to satisfy, or is not required to satisfy, the activity test see:
(a)      section 603 (persons attending training camps or in remote areas);
(b)      section 603A (special circumstances);
(c)      section 603AA (persons 55 and over who are engaged in work);
(d)      section 603AB (certain principal carers and people with partial capacity to work).
Note 2: See subsections (2A) and (2B) on what paid work is unsuitable.
(1A)     A person also satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if:
(a)the Secretary is of the opinion that, throughout the period, the person should undertake particular paid work, other than paid work that is unsuitable to be done by the person; and
Note: See subsection (2A) on what paid work is unsuitable.
(b)the Secretary notifies the person that the person is required to act in accordance with that opinion; and
(c)the person complies, throughout the period, with the Secretary's requirement.
(1B)     To avoid doubt, the work that the person is required to undertake under subsection (1 A) may involve a number of hours per week that differs from the number of hours of work per week that the person is required to seek to comply with a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan that is in force in relation to the person.
(2) A person cannot be taken to satisfy the activity test throughout a period if the person fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1A):
(a)whether or not the person complies with subsection (1) or (4); and
(b)whether or not another provision of this Act under which the activity test is satisfied, or taken to be satisfied, applies (or would apart from this section apply) to the person.
(2A) Subject to subsections (2AA) and (2AB), for the purposes of subsection (1) and paragraph (lA)(a), particular paid work is unsuitable for a person if and only if, in the Secretary's opinion:
(a)the person lacks the particular skills, experience or qualifications that are needed to perform the work and no training will be provided by the employer; or
(b)it has been established that there is medical evidence that the person has an illness, disability or injury that would be aggravated by the conditions in which the work would be performed; or
(ba)the person is the principal carer for one or more children, and does not have access to appropriate care and supervision for the children at the times when the person would be required to undertake the work; or
Note: For principal carer see subsections 5(15) to (24).
(c)performing the work in the conditions in which the work would be performed would constitute a risk to health or safety and would contravene a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory relating to occupational health and safety; or
(e)the terms and conditions for the work would be less generous than the applicable statutory conditions; or
(g)commuting between the person's home and the place of work would be unreasonably difficult; or
(h)the work would require enlistment in the Defence Force or the Reserves; or
(i)the work requires the person to move from a home in a place to a home in another place; or
(j) for any other reason, the work is unsuitable for the person.
(2AAA) A person has, for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(ba), access to appropriate care and supervision for a child at a particular time if, at that time:
(a)the child could be provided with care by an approved child care service (within the meaning of the Family Assistance Administration Act), and provision of that care would, in the Secretary's opinion, be appropriate in the circumstances; or
(b)the child could be provided with other care that the person considers to be suitable; or
(c)the child could be attending school, and attendance at that school would, in the Secretary's opinion, be appropriate in the circumstances.
(2AAB) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(ba), a time when the person would be required to undertake the work includes reasonable amounts of time that would be needed for the person to travel from the person's home to the place of work and from the place of work to the person's home.
(2AA) If:
(a)a person seeks work in an area (the new area) that is outside the area (the old area) in which the person's home is situated; and
(b)the person is offered permanent full-time work (whether or not work of the kind sought) in the new area;
the work offered is not unsuitable for the person because of paragraph (2A)(g) or (i) unless:
(c)the person is under the age of 18; or
(d)the person or the person's partner is pregnant; or
(e)the person or the person's partner has a severe medical condition and the condition makes it unreasonable for the person to accept the offer; or
(f)the acceptance of the offer would jeopardise the current employment, or the employment prospects, of the person's partner; or
(g)the person or the person's partner has a child under the age of 16 years who is living with them or is living somewhere else in the old area; or
(h)the person or the person's partner has significant caring responsibilities in the old area; or
(i)the educational, cultural or religious background of the person makes it unreasonable for the person to accept the offer; or
(j)it is more appropriate for the person to participate in education or training than to accept the offer; or
(k)the person would suffer severe financial hardship if the person were to accept the offer.
(2AB) Without affecting what would otherwise constitute a person seeking work outside the area in which the person's home is situated, if a person, when seeking employment through an employment service provider, represents to the provider that the person is willing to undertake work outside the area in which the person's home is situated, the person is taken for the purposes of subsection (2AA) to seek work outside the area at the time when the representation is made.
(2AC) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine matters that the Secretary must take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(j), particular paid work is unsuitable for a person.
(2AD) To avoid doubt, a determination under subsection (2AC) does not limit the matters that the Secretary may take into account in deciding whether, for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(j), particular paid work is unsuitable for a person.
(4) A person also satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if;
(a)throughout the period, the person complies with the terms of a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan that is in force in relation to the person; and
(b)either:
(i)    the person is included in a class of persons specified in an instrument made under subsection (4A); or
(ii)   the Secretary determines that the person should be taken to satisfy the activity test in respect of that period.
(4A) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, specify classes of persons for the purposes of subparagraph (4)(b)(i).
(4B) A person also satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if, throughout the period, the person;
(a)is participating in an approved training course for training supplement; and
(b)is, in the Secretary's opinion, making satisfactory progress towards completing the course.
(4C) In forming an opinion about whether a person is making satisfactory progress for the purpose of paragraph (4B)(b), the Secretary must have regard to guidelines set under subsection 541B(3B).
(4D) A person also satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if, throughout the period, the person is participating in the National Green Jobs Corps program.
(5) If a person fails to comply, throughout a period, with a requirement in a Newstart Employment Pathway Plan that is in force in relation to the person, the person cannot be taken to satisfy the activity test in respect of the period in spite of any compliance of the person with subsection (1), (4B) or (4D).
Note: For situations in which a person is not required to satisfy the activity test see section 603 (persons attending training camps or in remote areas).

Section 603A of the Act provides for a person to be given relief from the activity test in special circumstances:
603A Relief from activity test—special circumstances
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a person is not required to satisfy the activity test for a period if:
(a)the Secretary is satisfied that special circumstances, beyond the person's control, exist; and
(b)the Secretary is satisfied that in those circumstances it would be unreasonable to expect the person to comply with the activity test for that period.
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) is not to exceed 13 weeks.
(3) If:
(a)the Secretary makes a number of determinations under any one or more of the following provisions:
(i) subsection 525AA(3) of this Act as previously in force;
(ii) subsection 542H(1) of this Act;
(iia) subsection 731E(1) of this Act;
(iii) subsection (1) of this section; and
(b)the periods to which the determinations relate form a continuous period;
the continuous period is not to exceed 13 weeks, unless the Secretary determines otherwise, having regard to the continued existence, or likely continued existence, of the special circumstances on which the last preceding determination was based.
Section 80 of the Administration Act provides that the Secretary may cancel or suspend a social security payment that is being, or has been, paid to a person who is, or was, not qualified for payment:
80 Cancellation or suspension determination
(1) If the Secretary is satisfied that a social security payment is being, or has been, paid to a person:
(a)who is not, or was not, qualified for the payment; or
(b)to whom the payment is not, or was not, payable;
the Secretary is to determine that the payment is to be cancelled or suspended.

CONSIDERATION
Was Mr Harafias unemployed?
Section 593 of the Act provides that a person qualifies for newstart allowance if the person is unemployed, satisfies the activity test and enters into and complies with an Employment Pathway Plan.
According to the definition of “unemployed” in the Guide (at paragraph 21 above), an essential requirement for a person to be regarded as “unemployed” is that the person has a “present intention to be part of the labour market. It is not sufficient that the person is simply without work”.
Mr Harafias claimed that it was his intention to work, but that he was unable to work because of the strict conditions of his bail which had been imposed by the Court. I cannot find, therefore, that Mr Harafias had a present intention to be part of the labour market, because he would have known that his bail conditions precluded him from being employed. I can accept that Mr Harafias might have had an intention to work at some point in the future, subject to the lifting of his bail conditions, but I do not accept that Mr Harafias could have claimed a present intention to work if his bail conditions prevented him from doing so. On this basis, I do not regard Mr Harafias as having met the definition of “unemployed”, as that term is defined in the guide, during the relevant period.
Notwithstanding paragraph 27, above, even if Mr Harafias could have been regarded as unemployed during the relevant period, he would need to have satisfied the requirements of the activity test in section 601 of the Act, as discussed below.
Did Mr Harafias satisfy the activity test?
Section 601 of the Act provides that a person satisfies the activity test if the person is actively seeking and willing to undertake paid work in Australia, other than work that is unsuitable to be undertaken by the person.
At the hearing, Mr Harafias admitted to the Tribunal that he had not actively sought work after his release on bail because his bail conditions required him to remain, until his Court hearing on 29 June 2015, at his mother’s premises and only leave those premises if accompanied by his mother. Accordingly, because of the bail conditions imposed by the Court, Mr Harafias was unable to satisfy the activity test for the purposes of his newstart allowance because he was unable to look for, and willing to undertake, suitable paid work. He therefore did not satisfy the requirements of the activity test in section 601 of the Act.
Should Mr Harafias be granted relief from the activity test?
Section 603A of the Act provides that a person can be given relief from the activity test for a period not exceeding 13 weeks if there are special circumstances beyond the person’s control and it would be unreasonable to expect the person to comply with the activity test for that period.
The Act does not define the term “special circumstances”, but relevant guidance is found in case law. In Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1, the AAT held that for special circumstances to exist, it must be possible to say that the circumstances of the case are “markedly different from the usual run of cases” and “have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special”. Furthermore, it was held that “the qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional”.
In Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) FCAFC 133, the Full Court of the Federal Court determined that the issue of whether there are special circumstances in a particular case depends on whether there are “circumstances which distinguish the case in consideration from the usual case”.
For the Tribunal to find that special circumstances exist in the case of Mr Harafias, it would need to be satisfied that Mr Harafias’ case is distinguishable from other, usual cases.
Whilst Mr Harafias’ strict bail conditions undoubtedly distinguish his case from the usual case of a claimant applying for newstart allowance, for the Tribunal to exercise the discretion in section 603A of the Act, it must be satisfied that the circumstances in Mr Harafias’ case were beyond his control and that it would be unreasonable to expect him to comply with the activity test. Both limbs of this test must be satisfied for the Tribunal to exercise this discretion.
Part 3.2.11.40 of the Guide provides examples of special circumstances where the exercise of discretion may be justified. It states:
Where circumstances arise that impede, rather than prevent, a job seeker from meeting their mutual obligation requirements, consideration should be given first to adjusting or reducing these requirements in preference to exempting the job seeker from mutual obligation requirements completely. However, there will sometimes be circumstances that are UNFORESEEN or UNAVOIDABLE and cause major disruption for the job seeker, where it would be unreasonable to expect the job seeker to meet any of their mutual obligation requirements for a specific period of time.
The following are categories of special circumstance exemptions that may arise:
·Major personal disruption to the job seeker’s home,
·Major personal crisis (including homelessness),
·Affected by declared natural disaster, e.g. bushfire, flooding or cyclone,
·Temporary caring responsibilities,
·Dad and partner leave,
·Undertaking jury duty,
·Being a newly protected witness,
·Being a newly arrived refugee,
·Volunteering during a state or national emergency, or
·Undertaking Indigenous cultural business.
It was noted in The Applicant and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Anor [2007] AATA 1024, at [36], that the categories of special circumstance exemptions are not an exhaustive list. However, whilst policy documents such as the Guide are useful, the Tribunal should be mindful not to apply the policy if its application would produce an unjust decision in the circumstances of the case: see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634, at 639-645, per Brennan J.
In the Bail Acknowledgement that Mr Harafias signed on 20 December 2014, he agreed to comply with the conditions imposed on his bail, which were set out in that document. Had Mr Harafias not agreed to those conditions, he would not have been released on bail, and therefore the decision as to whether he would agree to the conditions so that he could be released on bail was within his control. When Mr Harafias agreed to comply with the bail conditions, he knew, or ought to have known, that agreeing to the bail conditions meant that he would be unable to satisfy the activity test, i.e. the imposition of the bail conditions prevented, rather than impeded, Mr Harafias from meeting the requirements of the activity test. However, despite this knowledge, on 22 December 2014, Mr Harafias lodged a claim for newstart allowance and declared that he would look for and accept suitable work.
In the circumstances, Mr Harafias was not eligible for newstart allowance in the first place because his bail conditions prevented him (cf impeded him) from being able to look for and accept suitable work. On this basis, the Tribunal considers that the exercise of the discretion in section 603A of the Act would be unjust, given that Mr Harafias should not have submitted a claim for newstart allowance in the first place, and should not have declared that he would look for and accept suitable work when he knew that this was not possible.
For the reasons above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the discretion in section 603A of the Act to grant relief to Mr Harafias from the requirements of the activity test should not be exercised.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal concludes that Mr Harafias’ newstart allowance was cancelled on 9 February 2015 because he did not satisfy the activity test as required under section 593(1)(b) of the Act, and was not a person to whom relief from the activity test should be granted.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to cancel Mr Harafias’ newstart allowance pursuant to section 80 of the Administration Act was correct.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 43 (forty -three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Associate
Dated 28 April 2016

Date(s) of hearing 27 November 2015

Solicitors for the Applicant Sharissa Thirukumar, Welfare Rights Centre

Solicitors for the Respondent Dr Stephen Thompson, Sparke Helmore

[2016] AATA 265

28 April 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2015/2558
Re	Nick Harafias
APPLICANT
And	Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
Date	28 April 2016
Place	Sydney

Date(s) of hearing	27 November 2015
Solicitors for the Applicant	Sharissa Thirukumar, Welfare Rights Centre
Solicitors for the Respondent	Dr Stephen Thompson, Sparke Helmore