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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a Newstart Allowance overpayment debt. The applicant, Mr Jackson, had been in receipt of Newstart Allowance between February and May 2015 while also working casually. Errors in reporting his income led to an initial overpayment debt being raised, which was subsequently recalculated and affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and then by the AAT in a first review decision. The debt, including interest, was fully recovered by way of garnishee. Mr Jackson later provided bank statements and sought a review of the overpayment, leading to a revised debt amount and a partial refund. He then sought further review of the AAT's first review decision, requesting an extension of time to do so.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Secretary retained the power to review a decision that had already been affirmed by the AAT, and if so, under what conditions. The court also had to consider the factors relevant to exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time for Mr Jackson to seek review, particularly given the significant delay since the AAT's initial decision. Mr Jackson argued that the original debt calculation was based on estimations and income averaging, and that new information regarding the unlawfulness of "Robodebt" calculations warranted a review, asserting it was unfair to be penalised for having his case heard by the Tribunal.

The court considered the provisions of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999*, specifically section 126, which grants the Secretary a broad discretion to review a decision if satisfied there is sufficient reason to do so, even if an application has been made to the AAT. The court noted that the Secretary's power to review is not necessarily extinguished by a prior AAT decision, particularly if new information or subsequent events not before the original decision-maker come to light. However, the court found that the applicant's grounds for seeking an extension of time, including the delay, the lack of a clear explanation for the delay, and the fact that the AAT had already considered the merits of the overpayment calculation, weighed against the exercise of discretion in his favour.

Ultimately, the court refused Mr Jackson's application for an extension of time. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient reason to justify the significant delay in seeking review, nor had he established that the AAT's original decision was demonstrably wrong or that there was new information that fundamentally altered the basis of that decision. The court also noted that the applicant had already received a partial refund following a recalculation of the debt and that the AAT's decision had been affirmed on review.