Hng; Secretary, Department of Education (Social services second review) - [2024] AATA 36

Hng; Secretary, Department of Education (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 36 (19 January 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/1057
Re:Secretary, Department of Education
APPLICANT

AndMs Su-Yi Hng
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Ms A E Burke AO, Member
Date:19 January 2024
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal finds that special circumstances prevented Ms Hng meeting the CCS reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year and was entitled to receive CCS for the period between 12 July 2021 and 28 November 2021.
…...........................[sgd]..........................................
Ms A E Burke AO, Member
Catchwords
CHILD CARE SUBSIDY – whether applicant entitled to child care subsidy in the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021 – where AAT1 set aside and substituted the original determination - tax return lodgement requirements not met - whether special circumstances exist to allow extension of time for tax return lodgement – Tribunal found applicant was entitled to CCS
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases
Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security; Re (1984) 6 ALD 1
Collins and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 3805
Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) 75 ALD 134
Fedigan and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 211
Groth v Secretary Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1708
Mousawi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 850
Nicholson and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 630
Rech and Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 543
Secondary Materials
Guide to Social Security Law – Family Assistance Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms A E Burke AO, Member
19 January 2024

The Secretary is seeking a second-tier review of the determination of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) that Ms Su-Yi Hng was entitled to Child Care Subsidy (CCS) from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021. The AAT1 determined that Ms Hng had lodged her tax return within the time period for reinstatement of her CCS under section 103B of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
On 1 March 2021 Centrelink contacted Ms Hng as their records showed that her and her husband’s income for the 2019/2020 year had not been confirmed. During the 2019/2020 year and part of 2021, Ms Hng was paid CCS by way of fee reduction. The letter advised if her family income for the 2019/2020 financial period was not confirmed by 11 July 2021, her CCS payments would stop and her eligibility may be cancelled.
On 7 June 2021 Centrelink contacted Ms Hng as their records showed that her and her husband’s income for the 2019/2020 had not been confirmed and as such her CCS could not be assessed. The letter advised she needed to confirm her family income for the 2019/2020 period by 30 June 2021 otherwise her CCS payments would stop and her eligibility may be cancelled.
On 15 July 2021 Centrelink contacted Ms Hng advising that her CCS payments had stopped from 12 July 2021 as their records showed that her and her husband’s income for the 2019/2020 had not been confirmed. The letter advised she needed to confirm her family income for the 2019/2020 period by 30 June 2022 for her CCS payments to start again.
On 15 October 2021, Ms Hng’s husband, Mr Leang, lodged his tax return for the 2019/2020 year. On 16 November 2021, Ms Hng lodged her tax return for the 2019/2020 year.
On 29 November 2021, Centrelink reinstated Ms Hng’s CCS as she and her husband had lodged their tax returns, and the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) had made an assessment of the taxable income for the 2019/2020 year by the second deadline for CCS, 30 June 2022.
On 22 June 2022 on internal review, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the earlier Centrelink decision to assess Ms Hng’s CCS as zero for the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021, as she and her partner had not confirmed their income by 11 July 2021. The ARO provided the following reasons for their determination:
To receive Child Care Subsidy for a child you or your partner must confirm your income after the end of each financial year and prior to the 30 June 2021 in this instance.
You and your partner were advised on 1 March 2021 and 7 June 2021 that you were required to confirm your family income for the 2019-20 financial year by 11 July 2021. You were required to lodge a tax return with the Australian Taxation Office or tell us you were not required to lodge a tax return.
On 15 July 2021 you were advised that your Child Care Subsidy has ceased from the 12 July 2021.
You lodge your tax return on 16 November 2021 and your partner lodge his tax return on 15 October 2021 as you did not confirm your income prior to the 30 June 2021 you were not entitled to receive Child Care Subsidy from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021.
Letters that were sent you did advised you to contact if you do not agree or if your need to discuss this further. Your record shows you have not made contact to discuss this issue until 29 November 2021.
You have advised me that your Accountant did not advise you of the delays with lodging your tax returns and when you contacted him he has advised you that they would be completed by the 30 June 2021.
I have considered your circumstances and have decided late lodgement due to the accountant not completing the tax returns by the deadline due to staff changes, ongoing medical issues and Covid-19 restrictions is not unusual, uncommon or exceptional that there are no special circumstances. This means a Child Care Subsidy cannot be paid from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021.
Accountants like all professionals are required to have professional indemnity insurance. If you believe the actions or inactions of your accountant has caused you to suffer a loss, you may wish discuss seeking compensation from their insurance.
As you have not met your obligations for the 2019-20 financial year, I have to agree with Services Australia’s decision that Child Care Subsidy is not payable from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021.
On 20 January 2023 the AAT1 set aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decided that Ms Hng was entitled to CCS for the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021. The Member stated:
9. The reconciliation process for child care subsidy is set out in Part 5 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act). Under section 103B of that Act, the first deadline for the lodgement of tax returns is normally the end of the first income year after the relevant year. However, this deadline can be extended if the decision-maker is satisfied that special circumstances prevented the person meeting the reconciliation conditions by the normal date. Where a person does not lodge their tax return by the first deadline, section 105E of the Administration Act requires a decision-maker to determine that the person is no longer entitled to child care subsidy for the year in question. A person’s ongoing entitlement to child care subsidy will also cease as they are taken to no longer meet the information requirements under section 67CD of the Administration Act. If a person later lodges their tax return, section 105E requires those decisions to be reviewed under section 105. Under section 107A of the Administration Act, the date of effect of a review decision under section 105 cannot be earlier than the first day of the income year before the income year in which the review decision was made.
10. While this summary indicates that the reconciliation provisions in the Administration Act are complex, their effect is meant to be straightforward. In particular, where a person and their partner do not lodge their tax returns by the first deadline, no further child care subsidy is to be paid until the tax returns are lodged. Once lodgement of tax returns occurs, Centrelink revisits the person’s entitlement and works out what they should be paid and pays them this amount. This state of affairs was summarised in Centrelink’s letter to Ms Hng of 15 July 2021 as follows:
Your Child Care Subsidy payments have stopped from 12 July 2021 because our records show that your and Kenneths income has not been confirmed for the 2019-2020 financial year …
Your Child Care Subsidy payments will only start again if your family income for the
2019-2020 financial year is confirmed by 30 June 2022. You may get top ups and your withholdings if your family income is confirmed by 30 June 2022.
11. Although the 2019/2020 tax returns for Ms Hng and Mr Leang were lodged well before the 30 June 2022 date listed in this letter, Centrelink has determined that child care subsidy can only be reinstated from 29 November 2021. The authorised review officer did not articulate which section of the Administration Act necessitated this outcome and, having considered the provisions in that Act, the tribunal can find no legal basis for Centrelink’s decision. At best, section 107A of the Administration Act restricts the reassessment of a person’s entitlement from having effect from a date earlier than the beginning of the year prior to the one in which the review decision is made. However, as Centrelink made its decision in the 2021/2022 year, section 107A only prevents Ms Hng’s child care subsidy from being reinstated before 1 July 2020. It does not prohibit her child care subsidy from being reinstated for the relevant period (which falls entirely within the 2021/2022 year) now that the requested tax returns for 2019/2020 have been lodged.
12. Having examined the Centrelink documentation, the tribunal observes that the child care subsidy reconciliation outcome (at page 43 of the hearing papers) records only Mr Leang as having lodged a tax return with the ATO. This is despite the fact that the income information from the ATO (at page 93 of the hearing papers) confirms that Ms Hng lodged her own tax return on 16 November 2021. Whether this accounts for Centrelink’s non-reinstatement of Ms Hng’s child care subsidy for the relevant period, the tribunal is unsure. Nevertheless, the tribunal concludes that Ms Hng’s child care subsidy for the relevant period should be retrospectively reinstated under the Administration Act now that her and Mr Leang’s 2019/2020 tax returns have been lodged.
13. Having reached this conclusion, the tribunal regards it as unnecessary to consider whether there were special circumstances that prevented Ms Hng and Mr Leang from lodging their 2019/2020 tax returns by 30 June 2021. While an extension of the time limit for lodgement under section 103B of the Administration Act would certainly allow for reinstatement of child care subsidy for the relevant period, so too does the lodgement of the tax returns prior to 30 June 2022. As this lodgement has now occurred, the tribunal will set aside the decision under review and direct that Ms Hng be paid child care subsidy for the relevant period.
On 21 February 2023, the Secretary requested a review of the AAT1 decision by the General and Other Divisions of the Tribunal (AAT2) and requested a stay of the decision, as they believed:
The AAT1 erred in setting aside the decision under review and remitting it back to the Secretary on the basis that Ms Hng was entitled to be paid child care subsidy for the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021.
On 28 March 2023 the AAT2 refused the Applicant’s stay request with the Member concluding:
Taking these matters into account, the Applicant has not demonstrated a pursuasive [sic] case for the granting of a stay on the AAT 1 Decision and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the granting of a stay is desirable or appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
Ms Hng received CCS arrears for the relevant period of the AAT1 decision of, $11,126.14. Ms Hng was subsequently required to repay some $10,000 when Centrelink assessed her actual income and assets during the relevant period.
The matter was heard via video on 18 December 2023 with Ms Peta Heffernan, solicitor at the Australian Government Solicitor, appearing for the Secretary, Department of Education (the Applicant) and Ms Hng (the Respondent) appeared self-represented with assistance from her husband Mr Leang.
LEGISLATION
The Guide to Social Security Law – Family Assistance Guide (the Guide) at 1.2.6 outlines the CCS’ aims:
·assist families with the cost of child care
·facilitate individuals to participate, or increase their participation, in the workforce
·facilitate children's attendance in child care to support their early learning and development.
and eligibility:
Individuals' eligibility for CCS is determined in relation to each session of care delivered by an approved child care service. An individual is eligible for CCS for a session of care provided by an approved child care service to a child if, at the time the session is provided:
·the child is an FTB or regular care child of the individual or their partner
·the child is 13 years of age or under and does not attend secondary school
·the child meets immunisation requirements, and
·the individual, or their partner, meets the residency requirements.
The Guide at 6.4.1 provides an overview of reconciliation of entitlement to CCS:
Reconciliation is the process of determining an individual's eligibility for FTB. For the purposes of FTB and CCS, this process also determines an individual's correct rate of payment for the relevant income year. Depending on an individual's circumstances, this involves comparing the FTB and/or CCS received during the relevant income year, based on their estimated income, and child care usage with their actual entitlement, based on their:
·actual income (provided in part by the ATO)
and
·session reports submitted by approved providers.
The Guide at 6.4.1.30 outlines the reconciliation process and assessment of CCS:
Note: From 1 July 2012 individuals and/or their partners have 12 months after the income year (income year is a full financial year beginning on 1 July and ending 30 June) to lodge a tax return or notify Centrelink they are not required to lodge in order to receive FTB supplements or top-ups.
Note: Lodgement of tax returns are the responsibility of the individual, including those who lodge via a tax agent. Providing financial statements to a tax agent or accountant prior to 30 June of the relevant lodgement year does not constitute lodgement of tax returns. Extensions to the tax lodgement period may be granted if there are special circumstances that prevent an individual from lodging their tax return before the end of the lodgement year. Special circumstances are circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Failure by an accountant or tax agent to lodge a tax return within the lodgement period (e.g. forgetting to lodge in time or delay due to high workloads) will not ordinarily constitute special circumstances.
Assessment of CCS entitlement
CCS reconciliation occurs for all individuals who had entitlement determined (including nil) for a week in a CCS fortnight that began in the relevant income year. The process begins once the reconciliation conditions have been met, that is, post the end of the financial year, the individual (and any partner during the relevant income year) have lodged and had tax returns assessed, or if there is no requirement to lodge, notified the Secretary of their actual income.
Using the actual income, each determination of entitlement is reviewed to determine a new entitlement amount, and the difference (if any) of any entitlements already received.
The Guide at 6.4.4.10 outlines reconciliation – current partners and provides for when CCS reconciliation conditions are not met:
An individual fails to meet the reconciliation conditions by not lodging a tax return or, where they are not required to lodge a tax return, by not advising Centrelink of their income by lodging a non-lodgement advice to the ATO. These obligations also apply to any partner of a claimant during that financial year.
The first deadline by which reconciliation conditions must be met is 1 year after the end of the financial year in which CCS entitlement was determined – i.e. 1 July following the relevant income year. If the individual (and any partner) does not meet the reconciliation conditions before the first deadline, a debt will be raised for the subsidy that has been paid in relation to the CCS year (i.e. all CCS fortnights that start in the financial year). In addition, determinations of no entitlement (i.e. no CCS payments) will be made from the first deadline until the individual meets the reconciliation conditions.
If an individual meets the reconciliation conditions after the first deadline but before the second deadline, their CCS entitlement will resume from the week in which reconciliation conditions were met.
The second deadline is the end of the second year after the end of the financial year in which CCS entitlement was determined. If reconciliation conditions have not been met by the second deadline, the individual will lose their eligibility for CCS, and recovery will commence for any debt amount that was raised when reconciliation conditions were not met by the first deadline.
Loss of eligibility for CCS will also result in a loss of eligibility for ACCS, if applicable. In order to regain eligibility and entitlement to CCS and/or ACCS, the individual will need to ensure they meet reconciliation conditions for all financial years in which CCS entitlement was determined, before they will be able to make a new effective claim for CCS.
Example 1: Jo received CCS in the 2018-19 financial year. She was partnered with Tom for the whole financial year. Jo lodges a return by 1 October 2019, Tom lodges a tax return in April 2020. Jo’s entitlements can now be reconciled and she continues to receive CCS.
Example 2: Trish received CCS in the 2018-19 financial year. She was partnered with Clive for the whole financial year. Trish and Clive fail to lodge tax returns for 2018-19 by July 2020 (the first deadline). Trish loses her entitlement to CCS, so no CCS payments are made to her approved provider on her behalf from 1 July 2020 onwards. A debt is raised by Centrelink for the amount of CCS Trish received in the 2018-19 financial year. The debt amount is raised, but will not be recovered, unless the second deadline is reached without Trish and Clive having met the reconciliation conditions. Trish and Clive lodge their tax returns on 23 July 2020. Trish starts receiving CCS entitlement from the week in which she met the reconciliation conditions and is not entitled to any subsidy for the period 1 to 22 July 2020. The debt amount raised in relation to the 2018-19 financial year is cancelled.
Section 67CD of the Administration Act outlines the determination of individual’s entitlement to be paid CCS:
Preconditions for making determinations
(1) The Secretary may make a determination under this section for an individual for a week, in relation to sessions of care provided to a child by an approved child care service, only if:
(a) a determination that the individual is eligible for CCS by fee reduction for the child is in effect under paragraph 67CC(1)(a) in relation to any day in the week; and
(b) the provider of the service has given the Secretary a report under section 204B (requirement to report about children for whom care is provided) in relation to the child for the week, including such a report as varied, substituted or corrected under subsection 204B(6) or section 204C; and
(e) if the Secretary gives the individual a notice under subsection (11) in relation to the child's enrolment for those sessions--the individual has complied with the notice.
(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the provider of the service is taken to have given the Secretary a report under section 204B in relation to the child for the week even if the report is not given by the day required under paragraph 204B(2)(d).
Note: The report must still be given in accordance with paragraphs 204B(2)(a), (b) and (c), and the information included in the report as required by those provisions must be accurate and complete (see subsection 204B(3)).
Entitlement to be paid CCS
(2) If the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the individual is eligible for CCS under section 85BA of the Family Assistance Act for one or more of the sessions of care provided by the service to the child in the week, or would be eligible except that a session of care is provided on a day in an immunisation grace period for the child (see subsection (9)); and
(b) the individual meets the information requirements in subsection (10) for the week; and
(c) none of subsections (3), (4) and (6) apply in relation to the sessions of care; and
(d) the amount of CCS to which the individual will become entitled for the sessions of care is more than nil;
the Secretary must determine:
(e) that the individual is entitled to be paid CCS for the sessions of care referred to in paragraph (a); and
(f) the amount of CCS the individual is entitled to be paid.
Note: See subsection (1) for preconditions for making determinations under this subsection
…..
Meeting the information requirements
(10) An individual meets the information requirements for a week if, on a day in the week:
(a) either of the following applies:
(i) the Secretary has the details of a bank account, maintained by the individual alone or jointly with someone else, into which amounts of CCS or ACCS can be paid;
(ii) the Secretary made a request of the individual under section 67FE no more than 28 days ago; and
(b) any of the following applies:
(i) the Secretary has the tax file number of each TFN determination person;
(ii) the Secretary made a determination under subsection 67BE(2) or (3) in relation to the individual's claim no more than 28 days ago;
(iii) the Secretary made a request of the individual under section 67FG no more than 28 days ago;
(iv) the Secretary has the tax file number of the individual and is satisfied that it is unreasonable in the circumstances for the individual to provide the tax file number of each TFN determination person other than the individual;
(c) if, before the week, a period for giving information or producing a document required under Division 1 of Part 6 had ended without the individual giving the information or producing the document--the individual has given the information or produced the document; and
(d) if a determination was made for the individual under section 67CD for a week in a previous income year and the first deadline for the previous income year has passed--the individual has met the CCS reconciliation conditions for that previous income year.
Notice requiring information about enrolments
(11) For paragraph (1)(e), the Secretary may, by written notice, require an individual to give to the Secretary, in a form and manner approved by the Secretary, information stated in the notice in relation to the child's enrolment for sessions of care provided, or to be provided, by an approved child care service.

Section 103A of the Administration Act provides for CCS reconciliation conditions:
(1) An individual (the claimant) meets the CCS reconciliation conditions for an income year (the relevant income year) if subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies in relation to each of the following persons:
(a) the claimant;
(b) each person who was a TFN determination person for the purposes of a determination under Division 3 of Part 3A for the claimant in relation to sessions of care provided in CCS fortnights starting in the relevant income year.
Income tax assessment made
(2) This subsection applies to a person if the Commissioner of Taxation has made an assessment of the taxable income of the person for the relevant income year.
Section 103B of the Administration Act outlines the first deadline:
(1) The first deadline for an income year (the relevant income year) is:
(a) the end of the first income year after the relevant income year; or
(b) if the Secretary allows the individual a longer period under subsection (2)--the end of the longer period.
(2) The Secretary may allow an individual a longer period if the Secretary is satisfied that special circumstances prevented the individual meeting the CCS reconciliation conditions for the relevant income year before the end of the first income year after the relevant income year.
(3) The end of the longer period must not be later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year.
First deadline for 2018-19 income year
(4) Despite paragraph (1)(a), the first deadline for the 2018-19 income year is 31 March 2021.
(5) Subsection (4) does not prevent the Secretary from allowing an individual a longer period in accordance with this section.
ISSUE
The issue to be determined before the Tribunal is whether Ms Hng was entitled to receive CCS for the period from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021.
CONTENTION
There is no dispute that Ms Hng was eligible to receive CCS pursuant to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Family Assistance Act) as she had an FTB child under 13 years of age who attended an approved child care service. The dispute is whether CCS was payable to Ms Hng during the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021 as she and her husband had not filed their tax returns for the 2019/2020 period by 30 June 2021.
The Secretary, Department of Education
The Applicant contended Ms Hng was not entitled to receive CCS for the period between 12 July 2021 and 28 November 2021 on the basis that she had not met the information requirements in section 67CD of the Administration Act.
The Applicant submitted Ms Hng had not met the reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year by the first deadline, namely 30 June 2021, pursuant to section 103A of the Administration Act. As a consequence, Ms Hng did not meet the information requirements in section 67CD(10)(d) of the Administration Act necessary to be paid CCS for any week when sessions of care were provided to a child by an approved child care service, where the first deadline for the 2019/2020 income year had passed and the CCS reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year had not been met, as required by section 67CD(2)(b) of the Administration Act.
Accordingly the Applicant submitted Ms Hng was not entitled to be paid CCS for any week in the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021, as she had not met section 67CD(2) of the Administration Act.
The Applicant contended that the earliest date on which Ms Hng could receive CCS was 28 November 2021, the first day of the next CCS payment period following issuance of the Notice of Assessment for her taxable income for the 2019/2020 financial year on 23 November 2021.
The Applicant contended that section 105E of the Administration Act was not relevant to Ms Hng’s circumstances, where the issue in dispute is whether she is entitled to CCS for the period from 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021, during which she failed to meet the information requirements in section 67CD(10)(d), having passed the first deadline.
The Applicant contended that section 105E of the Administration Act was relevant in assessing whether the CCS Ms Hng received in the 2019/2020 income year needed to be adjusted to reflect, among other information, her tax assessment for that period.
The Applicant contended that section 67CD(10) of the Administration Act imposes a temporal requirement that is only capable of being fulfilled and assessed in the week in which the relevant care sessions took place. That is, a decision-maker cannot determine that an individual satisfied the reconciliation requirements in a given week because he or she satisfied the CCS reconciliation requirements in a later week. In particular an individual who subsequently files a tax return and obtains a Notice of Assessment from the Commissioner will still fail to satisfy section 67CD(10) as they had not satisfied the reconciliation requirements in respect of the week in which the care sessions were provided. In other words, the provision of information that satisfies CCS reconciliation requirements 12 months or more after the relevant income year elapses, or after any longer period prescribed by the Secretary elapses, cannot be applied retrospectively to entitle an individual to receive CCS payments that were ceased when the CCS reconciliation requirements were not met.
The Applicant contended that such an interpretation is consistent with the outline of the division in which section 67CD of the Administration Act appears which provides as follows at section 67CA:
The additional entitlement conditions mean that not everyone who is eligible for CCS or ACCS will be entitled to be paid for every week. In particular, individuals need to have met the CCS reconciliation conditions for previous income years for which they were entitled to CCS (usually these conditions are met by obtaining a timely tax assessment) and to have kept the Secretary up to date about changes affecting eligibility or entitlement.
The Applicant submitted this section indicates that the purpose of the CCS reconciliation requirement is to incentivise individuals to meet the CCS reconciliation conditions by making their present entitlement to receive CCS conditional upon having done so.
Further, the Applicant submitted such an interpretation is consistent with the explanatory memorandum to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 which relevantly states in relation to section 67CD that ‘(e)ach determination of entitlement is made in relation to an individual, for a week, in relation to sessions of care provided to a child, by an approved child care service’ and that the conditions in section 67CD(2) are ‘intended to ensure that an individual can only be paid an amount of CCS in relation to one or more sessions of care in a week if…they meet information requirements for the week (they…have not failed to lodge tax return in time)’. This therefore supports the position that entitlement to CCS is determined from week to week and therefore the conditions to entitlement must be met from week to week.
The Applicant also contended that such an interpretation is consistent with part 6.4.4.10 of the Guide.
The Applicant contended Ms Hng, in accordance with section 103A of the Administration Act, met the reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year when the Commissioner made an assessment of the taxable income of both her and her husband, Mr Leang, for that income year.
The Applicant contended the first deadline to meet the reconciliation conditions for 2019/2020 for the purposes of section 103B(1)(a) of the Administration Act was 30 June 2021, being the end of the first income year after the relevant income year. The Applicant submitted Ms Hng had not met the reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year by the first deadline, namely 30 June 2021, pursuant to section 103A of the Administration Act.
Special Circumstances
The Applicant submitted under section 103B(2) of the Administration Act, the Secretary may allow an individual a longer period to meet the CCS reconciliation conditions if the Secretary is satisfied that special circumstances prevented the individual meeting the CCS reconciliation conditions for the relevant income year. This period must not be later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year.
The Applicant submitted in this instance the period of the extension sought, namely to November 2021, is before the end of the second income year, which is 30 June 2022.
Therefore, the Applicant submitted it was necessary to consider if there were special circumstances which prevented Ms Hng and Mr Leang from lodging their tax returns by 30 June 2021.
The Applicant submitted the expression ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the legislation but authorities relating to this term have held that for circumstances to constitute “special circumstances” they must be circumstances which are “unusual, uncommon or exceptional” or “markedly different from the usual run of cases”, or “out of the usual or ordinary”, and they include events which would render the strict application of the rule in question unfair or inappropriate.
The Applicant submitted in the context of a failure to lodge a tax return within the relevant time, the Tribunal has held that an accountant’s failure to lodge an individual’s tax return does not amount to ‘special circumstances’ for the purposes of section 103B(2) of the Administration Act.
The Applicant took the Tribunal to the matter of Nicholson and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 630 (‘Nicholson’) in which the Tribunal stated as follows at [56] where a customer has claimed that the failure to lodge a tax return was a consequence of the accountant not lodging a return on time or other omission such as misplacing documents:
The law is clear that a taxpayer cannot rely on blaming an accountant for not lodging returns on time or for misplacing documents or for not telling the taxpayer of changes to the law or reminding them to put in the necessary documents and rely on this as unusual, uncommon or exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately these types of issues arise not infrequently.
…
A taxpayer is responsible for ensuring that they lodge returns on time, regardless of what their accountant does or does not do. It is for the taxpayer to ensure their accountant is doing what he or she is being paid to do and on time.
The Applicant submitted Ms Hng claimed that:
·her accountant did not advise her of the delays with lodging tax returns and that when she contacted the accountant he advised her that they would be completed by 30 June 2021;
·her accountant suffered ill health which prevented him from lodging tax returns by the due date;
·Mr Leang had kept urging his accountant to finalise the tax returns by the due date but all communication ceased in late June 2021.
Nevertheless the Applicant contended that the late lodgement of the tax returns due to the accountant not completing the tax return due to staff changes, medical issues and COVID-19 restrictions would not be unusual, uncommon or exceptional such as to amount to ‘special circumstances’ as that term has been interpreted in relation to section 103B(2).
In Fedigan and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 211, Ms Fedigan argued that her accountant had not forwarded her tax documentation to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) as he had been going through a number of personal issues for which he was seeking treatment by a psychiatrist. Nevertheless, while accepting that the delay was incurred due to the accountant the Tribunal did not accept that this was ‘an unusual, uncommon or out of the ordinary occurrence’. Therefore, her circumstances were not ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of that term and she was not entitled to receive an increased amount of FTB for the relevant financial year:
Further in Rech and Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 543, Ms Rech argued that the failure to lodge her tax returns on time was caused by her accountant’s need to care for his terminally ill wife and to recover following her death. That is, he overlooked the fact that he was supposed to lodge her return by 30 June 2014 due to the effect of his wife’s death on his ability to concentrate on his work. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that the accountant’s personal circumstances did not explain the failure by his firm to properly manage his work during the difficult situation he faced and that at the time there were other accountants who could have attended to the lodgement of the returns. There was no explanation why this did not occur:
In relation to the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, in Mousawi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 850, the Tribunal stated as follows in relation to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Mrs Mousawi’s ability to file her tax return on time at [95]:
I do not conclude that Mrs Mousawi’s comments about difficulties placed on her family finances by the COVID-19 pandemic were other than general in nature. Without saying they are not genuine statements, these are difficulties that have affected many people who are in receipt of social security assistance (and indeed many who are not) and in the absence of specific submissions that there was something special or, ‘out of the ordinary’, which might place Mrs Mousawi in a special circumstance…that might enliven the discretionary power to waive some or all of the debt, these provisions are not relevant.
Further, in Collins and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 3805, Mr Collins argued that the disruptions caused by COVID-19 constituted special circumstances. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that ‘unless there is something “out of the ordinary” about how the Applicant had been affected, COVID-19 in and of itself cannot be a sufficient ground to claim that special circumstances apply’.
The Applicant contended that if Ms Hng has suffered loss due to action or inaction by her accountant, the appropriate remedy is for her to seek redress through her accountant’s professional indemnity insurance scheme.
Ms Hng
Ms Hng submitted that she and her husband did not dispute they received letters from Centrelink between 1 March 2021 to 15 July 2021 advising them that their CCS could be ceased if they did not lodge their tax returns for the 2019/2020 financial year by 11 July 2021.
Ms Hng submitted as she received her CCS by way of fee reduction, as this income information related to payments received during the 2019/2020 financial year, she and her husband had understood this would affect the payments which were already made during that year and believed that once their outstanding tax returns were filed, that any adjustments that were required to be made would be made then.
Ms Hng submitted they did not understand the late lodgement of the 2019/2020 tax return would affect their ongoing ability to receive CCS payments (or to at least claim what they were eligible for). Ms Hng submitted they thought that it would just be a temporary withholding of CCS funds until they got their financial affairs in order.
Ms Hng submitted it was completely reasonable for the Department to require such information as she and her husband could be massively misreporting their estimated income leading to massive overpayments of CCS which is unfair to the government. Ms Hng submitted it was her understanding that once the outstanding tax returns were filed, that they could resume their CCS payments and any CCS from the period that was not paid would be adjusted and paid to them, similar to how ATO tax payments work (i.e. all payments and credits made during the year would be totalled up at end of financial year and then final tax liability determined based on final figures).
Ms Hng submitted she and her husband had understood that if they did not submit final income information for the 2019/2020 financial year that they may not be eligible for payments made during that financial year (and that they would have to pay them back), however the decision affected their payments in a completely different financial year (2021/ 2022) which was completely unexpected.
Ms Hng contended she and her husband did not wilfully ignore the letters from Centrelink about filing their tax returns in the time limit stipulated. Ms Hng submitted as they had not been able to get their tax returns completed within the timeframe, there was nothing more they could add as there had been no change in their status (i.e. their tax returns still had not been submitted).
Ms Hng submitted she did not realise that she could have called Centrelink to discuss why the tax returns were not submitted, explain mitigating circumstances, or that she even needed to do this to avoid the CCS payment being stopped completely and not being recovered until later. Ms Hng submitted this was not made clear in the letters sent by Centrelink.
Ms Hng’s evidence in the hearing was that she had attempted to contact Centrelink during this period but had been left on hold for so long she simply gave up attempting to get through and assumed that the situation could be reconciled once their tax returns had been submitted.
Ms Hng’s evidence was that this was during the first Melbourne COVID-19 lockdown period, when you were not permitted to attend a Centrelink office and there was enormous demand on Centrelink services.
Ms Hng’s and Mr Leang’s evidence was they were both contractors who were considered essential workers at this time, were still required to attend to their workplace and child care was a necessity for them during this period.
Ms Hng submitted regardless; they could not have accelerated the submission of the outstanding tax returns any more than they had already attempted.
Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was that as he and his wife both worked as contractors and they received their income via a trust structure. So, it was not a simple process to finalise their income for each financial year. In the first instance the accountant has to prepare the trust tax return before he or his wife could prepare and submit their personal tax returns. Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was he had provided his accountant, whom he had used for many years, all the information needed to prepare the trust return well in advance of the end of financial year and had called the trust accountant to follow up, making it clear they required it done before the end of the financial year and his accountant assured him it would be ready in time.
Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was that this was quite normal, that he had done this every year for the last 15 years, and that May was not a late submission for them, as it was enough time for the accountant to complete the trust accounts and tax returns. Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was they tried very hard to get the accountant to complete the work in time and the accountant advised he understood the urgency.
Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was he utilised the one accountant to do the trust returns and his personal income tax return while Ms Hng used another accountant for her personal income return but she could not provide her accountant with any information until the trust accountant finalised the tax return for the trust.
Mr Leang’s evidence at the hearing was they lost contact with their accountant a few days before the deadline as he had simply stopped responding. Mr Leang’s evidence was he found out from his brother that the accountant had been hospitalised with a heart attack. Mr Leang’s evidence was his accountant was operating the practice by himself at this stage, as the junior employee working with him had left around this time.
Ms Hng submitted they had provided the required information to the trust accountant with plenty of time for him to prepare and submit the tax returns before the deadline imposed by Centrelink. Ms Hng submitted as such; they made no further attempts to contact Centrelink at this stage as they were assured by the accountant their returns would be lodged on time.
Special Circumstances

Ms Hng contended they were entitled to CCS for the period between 12 July 2021 and 28 November 2021 as special circumstances applied.
Ms Hng contended their accountant suffered a clinical death before he could finalise their tax returns and had to be revived, alongside disruption to his business during constant rolling lockdowns due to a worldwide pandemic, would be appropriately categorised as “special circumstances”.
Ms Hng contended the submission of their tax returns were delayed further until after the accountant’s initial hospital release as tax agents were not deemed an essential industry during the subsequent lockdown period (July 2021 onwards), which led to further delays as their already reduced staff members were not allowed to attend their offices. At the same time, the accountant also had to manage increased workload stemming from COVID-19 related reporting requirements (JobKeeper, government and state grant applications, etc) for all their clients. This, along with the accountant’s multiple unplanned visits back to hospital, did not help with the speed of which their tax returns were processed.
Mr Leang submitted that the Tribunal should put considerable weight on the letter from his account Mr E J Stanley dated 25 January 2022 in which he explains:
Mr Kenneth Leang has been a client of my practice since 2009.
Mr Leang’s lodgment due date for his taxation return for 2020 was under my lodgment program with the Australian Taxation Office was 6th June 2021.
Mr Leang emailed his tax data in early May 2021.
My practice, as were all accounting practices, during the Victorian Covid-19 Lockdowns was deemed as “NOT AN ESSENTIAL INDUSTRY”.
All staff had to work remotely and as such our production efficiency dropped to 60%.
I lost a senior accountant in mid-April 2021 after 11.5 years of service and my PA after 6 years. I recruited another accountant to start mid-June 2021- then we were in Lockdown from 27th May 2021. The accountant reneged on starting on 15th June 2021.
Recruitment measures were taken but due to Covid Lockdown personal interviews were unable to be held.
On top of being short of staff, I was missing in action for long periods during the calendar year 2021 due to health problems.
I have attached a summary of my health problems.
I had a draft tax return for Mr Leang completed in early July 2021 and unfortunately I received a prescription overdose from my Eco Cardiologist which resulted in my death and I was revived by CPR- I was hospitalized for 21 days and another couple of weeks on light duties. --------- all staff were working remotely due to Covid-19 lockdown.
Mr Leang was quite understanding of my medical condition as his father had the same heart issues that I had to endure and unfortunately passed away.
There was also a problem with the Tax software the I use: MYOB AO and when we lodged Kenneth Leang Tax return it kept on being rejected by the ATO. It took over 2 weeks to sort out the problem. His return was finally accepted by the ATO on the 15th October 2021.
Penalties and interest charges were remitted by the ATO due the circumstances pertaining to the late lodgment of his FY2020 taxation return.
HEALTH HISTORY
4.02.2019. Open heart surgery in Feb 2019 due to a fractured valve caused a blood clot in heart. I had to have a mechanical valve fitted 9 and half hour operation due to complications during surgery. I lost 60% of my breathing capacity due to the heart lung bypass procedure. 42 days in hospital and rehabilitation,
13.02.2020. Had another blood clot in the heart – which put me on the ground but it was dissipated over the next 7 days in hospital.
29.12.2020 Had a VT event HEART BEATING AT 202 bpm – mica paramedics shocked back to 60bpm and off to emergency at Knox Hospital. Elector Cardiologist fitted a defibrillator and pace maker 7 days in hospital.
16.03.2021 Had a VT event 166bpm - mica paramedics shocked and off to hospital. Defibrillator didn’t shock three day stay under observation.
26.06.2021 Had a VT event 158bpm - shock twice by MICA paramedics and off to the hospital
Defibrillator didn’t shock. –
EVENT FILMED BY PARAMEDICS TV SHOW WHICH AIRED IN EARLY OCT ON CHANNEL 9.
03.07.2021 Had a VT event 144bpm - Mica paramedics didn’t shock due to shock on 26.06.2021 transferred to hospital. The VT reverted at 6.15 am, Defibrillator didn’t shock. Prescribed a new drug. Instructions on discharge papers were to continue to take the drugs already supplied plus the new prescription.
06.07.2021 suffered a total blackout caused by low blood pressure due to double dosing of beta blockers. (negligent oversight by a doctor), stopped breathing and had no pulse; I was lucky my son Kasen had learned CPR at scouts and was able to start me breathing and keep me breathing until the paramedics arrived, he is my hero.
No broken bones ----- but bone bruising and still in excruciating pain when I move wrongly.
The Paramedics said that he saved my life. Kasen said he could hear the bones crunching but didn’t stop.
It must have been the chest bones moving within the wires.
I was hospitalized at Epworth where my NEW doctors practice from 6th July to 27th July.
24.09.2021 VT ATTACK – 143BPM, defibrillator did not shock. MICA didn’t shock. VT reverted by aid of Amarone drips medication on way to Epworth Emergency. Kept for 4 days observation. Defibrillator rest to 130bpm.
01.10.2021 VT event LUNCHTIME IN OFFICE 166bpm
Received my first Defibrillator shock whilst conscious, reverted to 60bpm for 15 minutes and then back into VT of 166bpm. The Defibrillator did not shock as it should have, MICA would not shock and transported me to emergency at Epworth Hospital.
1.10.2021 in Epworth Emergency I receive 2 shocks when conscious first at 2.00pm when the faulty defibrillator program was removed and the latest update installed. The 2nd at 10.00pm when being transported to ICU. Whilst unconscious in emergency I was shocked 6 times before my heart reversions were stabilized. I had further VT events in ICU at 11.00pm, 3.00am and 5.07am. 12 shocks in 15 hours.
05.10.2021 I had an ablation on the inside chambers of the heart.10.5 hours operation with a team of 4 surgeons working in shifts of half an hour. They are working inside the heart whilst it is still beating. Marvellous technology.
25.01.2022 been event free from 5th October.
Mr Leang submitted whilst he was not a lawyer, he and his wife had read all the cases referred to by the Applicant in their submission and the reasons behind why those cases were not considered special circumstances. Mr Leang contended their situation was not analogous to those cases as:
·their accountant’s health issues were not insignificant;
·they had been constantly following up with the accountant about the progress of their returns;
·their accountant was impacted by COVID-19 and staffing issues;
·their accountant ran a small suburban family practice;
·their accountant had issues finding another accountant to do the work;
·their tax returns were complicated, they needed an accountant who understood trust law, and they could not just go to a different accountant;
·multiple factors contributed to their situation;
·they were not merely relying upon the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns
Ms Hng and Mr Leang strongly contended “special circumstances” would be an appropriate categorisation of their situation and the Applicant should be satisfied that special circumstances prevented them meeting the CCS reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year.
Ms Hng submitted the suggestion provided by the Applicant to seek compensation from their accountant's insurance or suing him, was callous, especially after what he had been through. Also, Ms Hng submitted the accountant had confirmed that his professional indemnity insurance would not even cover third party losses from any other area than losses, penalties or interest charged by the ATO.
Ms Hng submitted the accountant’s professional indemnity insurance covered his business for mistakes/issues with regards to submission of tax returns and other tax matters, which in their case was not needed, as they had managed to get all fines and interest for late lodgement of tax returns waived due to the ATO's understanding of their situation.
CONSIDERATION
In summary, prior to July 2021 Ms Hng was in receipt of CCS under Part 4A of the Family Assistance Act in relation to the fees charged by her child’s child care centre. Under Schedule 2 to the Family Assistance Act, a person’s combined adjusted taxable income is a factor in calculating the amount of CCS. During a tax year, a person’s entitlement may be calculated using estimates of their and their partner’s likely adjusted taxable income for that year which is then reconciled using the process prescribed in Part 5 of the Administration Act.
Under section 103B of the Administration Act, the first deadline for the lodgement of tax returns is normally the end of the first income year after the relevant year. However, this deadline can be extended if the decision-maker is satisfied that special circumstances prevented the person meeting the reconciliation conditions by the normal date.
There is no dispute that Ms Hng met the requirements to receive CCS in the 2019/2020 financial year. The issue in dispute is whether Ms Hng was eligible to receive payment for the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021, as she had not submitted her tax return by the first deadline of 30 June 2021 but at a later date of 16 November 2021.
The Tribunal concurs with the Applicant’s contention that Ms Hng had not met the reconciliation requirements for the 2019/2020 income year pursuant to section 103A(2) of the Administration Act by the first deadline, being 30 June 2021.
The Tribunal finds that as Ms Hng had not met the information requirements ‘on a day in’ any week in the period 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021 she was not entitled to CCS for this period.
The Tribunal based this finding on the requirements of:
·Section 67CD(2)(b) of the Administration Act where entitlement to be paid CCS for a particular week in the relevant period only occurs if an individual meets the information requirements in subsection 10 for that week.
·Section 67CD(10)(d) of the Administration Act provides that if a determination was made that an individual was entitled to CCS under section 67CD for a week in a previous income year and the first deadline had passed, they only meet the information requirements for a particular week in the relevant period if, on a day in that particular week, they met the reconciliation conditions for that previous income year; in this case the previous income year for the relevant period was the 2019/2020 income year.
·Section 103A(2) of the Administration Act provides individuals meet the CCS reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year when the Commissioner makes an assessment of the taxable income of an individual for the 2019/2020 year.
·Section 103B of the Administration Act provides the first deadline to meet the CCS reconciliation conditions for 2019/2020 (that is, by the Commissioner making an assessment of the taxable income of the Respondent) was 30 June 2021.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not made an assessment of the taxable income of Ms Hng and Mr Leang for the 2019/2020 year by the first deadline, because they had not lodged their tax returns for 2019/2020 by 30 June 2021.
The Tribunal found that as a result, Ms Hng did not meet the information requirements in subsection 67CD(10) for any week in the relevant period as required by paragraph 67CD(2)(b) of the Administration Act. The Tribunal found that Ms Hng met the reconciliation conditions after she had lodged her tax returns for 2019/2020 and the Commissioner had made an assessment of the taxable income of both the Respondent and her partner for the 2019/2020 year.
The Tribunal found that Ms Hng had not met the information requirements ‘on a day in’ any week in the 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021 period and was not entitled to be paid CCS for any week in this period as she did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 67CD(2) of the Administration Act.
As the Tribunal has found that Ms Hng was not entitled to be paid CCS for any week in the 12 July 2021 to 28 November 2021 period it must next determine if there were special circumstances that prevented her and her husband from lodging their tax returns by the first deadline under section 103B of the Administration Act.
The expression “special circumstances” has not been defined in the Administration Act. However, the meaning of “special circumstances” has been considered extensively by the Federal Court and the Tribunal:
(a)In ReBeadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 where the Tribunal stated:
...An expression such as “special circumstances" is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend upon the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special...
(b)In Groth v Secretary Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541, Kiefel J (as she was then) said at 545:
[…] for present purposes it is sufficient to observe that it requires something to distinguish Mr Groth’s case from others, to take it out of the usual ordinary case. That was, I consider, the only enquiry to be undertaken in this case. It would of course follow if one was to conclude that something unfair, unintended or unjust had occurred that there must be some feature out of the ordinary.
(c)In Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) 75 ALD 134, the Full Federal Court stated at [66]:
… Other cases which have considered analogous words such as “special reasons” has tended to conclude, albeit in different contexts, that what is required will be circumstances which distinguish the case in consideration from the usual case. There will be a requirement that the circumstances are such that takes the case out of the ordinary…
(d)In Angelakos and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 100 ALD 9 where the Federal Court stated at [33]:
… There is less risk of overstatement if the words "unusual" or "uncommon" are emphasised. Those words indicate, correctly in my view, the fact that there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case.
The Tribunal concurs with the Applicant that the law has made it abundantly clear, as the Member in Nicholson aptly stated:
A taxpayer is responsible for ensuring that they lodge returns on time, regardless of what their accountant does or does not do. It is for the taxpayer to ensure their accountant is doing what he or she is being paid to do and on time.
The Tribunal found Ms Hng and Mr Leang to be credible witnesses and accepted their evidence that their tax returns were not run of the mill because they were employed as contractors through a trust, were essential workers during the COVID-19 lockdown and had been attempting to ensure their accountant lodged their returns on time.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that Ms Hng had been in receipt of CCS for some time and prior to the 2019/2020 financial period, had met the requirements of section 67CD(2)(b) of the Administration Act having lodged her tax returns on time.
The Tribunal concurs with the Applicant that ordinarily the late lodgement of tax returns due to the accountant not completing the tax returns as a result of staff changes, medical issues and COVID-19 restrictions would not be unusual, uncommon or exceptional such as to amount to ‘special circumstances’ as that term has been interpreted in relation to section 103B(2) of the Administration Act.
However, in Ms Hng’s particular circumstances, looking at the context of her situation and the confluence of all these events, the Tribunal found that her circumstances were "unusual, uncommon or exceptional", "markedly different from the usual run of cases", "special", or "out of the ordinary".
The Tribunal found the combination of events which resulted in Ms Hng lodging her tax return after the 30 June 2021 deadline did render the strict application of the rule in section 103B of the Administration Act unfair and inappropriate. The Tribunal found:
·Ms Hng and Mr Leang’s trust/tax arrangements were complex and required the services of their long-standing accountant to complete.
·Mr Stanley’s medical issues were not usual, common, or ordinary, and resulted in him taking considerable time away from his practice.
·Mr Stanley had no other accountants in his practice at this time who could finalise the required work for Ms Hng and Mr Leang.
·Mr Leang had been making attempts to contact Mr Stanley to finalise the returns and was unaware Mr Stanley had been admitted to hospital without finalising the necessary work to enable Mr Leang and Ms Hng to lodge their returns.
·The period in question in Victoria with COVID-19 lockdown requirements made it difficult for Ms Hng to contact Centrelink and for Mr Stanley to retain and employ staff.
The Tribunal found Ms Hng’s situation distinguishes her case in consideration from the usual cases and took it out of the ordinary, finding her unique circumstances were special in accordance with section 103B(2) of the Administration Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal finds that special circumstances prevented Ms Hng meeting the CCS reconciliation conditions for the 2019/2020 income year and was entitled to receive CCS for the period between 12 July 2021 and 28 November 2021.

I certify that the preceding 90 (ninety) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms A E Burke

............................[sgd]............................................
Associate
Dated: 19 January 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 18 December 2023

Applicant: Self-Represented

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Peta Heffernan

Solicitors for the Respondent: The Australian Government Solicitor

Date(s) of hearing:	18 December 2023
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Peta Heffernan
Solicitors for the Respondent:	The Australian Government Solicitor