Lawson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2024] AATA 158

Lawson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 158 (9 February 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/5851; 2023/7414; 2023/7415; 2023/7418; 2023/7419; 2023/7420; 2023/7421; 2023/7423

Re: Shaun Lawson
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
Date:9 February 2024
Place:Perth

The Reviewable Decisions in applications 2022/5851, 2023/7414, 2023/7415, 2023/7418, 2023/7419, 2023/7420, 2023/7421 and 2023/7423 are affirmed.
............................ [Sgd]............................................
Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Applicant made numerous claims for crisis payments – whether Applicant satisfied qualification criteria for a crisis payment for other extreme circumstances or a national health emergency – meaning of “extreme circumstances” – whether the Applicant’s circumstances were “extreme circumstances” – Applicant did not satisfy qualification criteria – reviewable decisions in all applications affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 19D(2), 1061JH(1), 1061JH(1)(a), 1061JH(1)(b), 1061JH(1)(c), 1061JH(1)(f), 1061JIA, 1061JIA(1)(b),1061JIA(2)
CASES
Arcibal v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2002] FCA 1313
Dowker v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1175
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Government, Guides to Social Policy Law: Social Security Guide topics 3.7.4.10, 3.7.4.20, 3.7.4.45, 3.7.4.60
Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response – 2020 Measures No. 2) Determination 2020 (version 23/12/2020 to 30/6/2022) s 6
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
9 February 2024
BACKGROUND

Mr Lawson made claims for crisis payments on numerous separate occasions.
Eight of those claims are before me for consideration. They were made by Mr Lawson on 22 March 2021, 18 May 2021, 1 June 2021, 11 July 2021, 13 August 2021, 26 November 2021, 28 December 2021, and 3 January 2022. I have indicated in my reasons below where additional claims have been successful or where they were unsuccessful but are not before me because I do not have jurisdiction to consider them.
Decisions to reject the eight claims were each affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) at Centrelink.
Mr Lawson then sought review in the Social Services and Child Support Division (AAT1) of this Tribunal.
On 28 June 2022, the AAT1 affirmed the eight decisions under review.
Mr Lawson lodged an application in the General Division of this Tribunal on 16 July 2022 seeking a further review of the decisions.
I am reviewing the AAT1’s decision on 28 June 2022 to affirm the eight decisions of the ARO. I will consider each of the claims considered in the AAT1’s decisions separately. I identify each reviewable decision more specifically below with reference to the corresponding claim.
ISSUES
The issue before me is whether Mr Lawson was entitled to crisis payments for the claims he made on 22 March 2021, 18 May 2021, 1 June 2021, 11 July 2021, 13 August 2021, 26 November 2021, 28 December 2021, and 3 January 2022.
THE HEARING
The hearing was initially scheduled for 27 July 2023. I adjourned the hearing to give Mr Lawson time to organise to have a peer support worker to help him with the hearing. Mr Lawson also said he did not have a copy of the T-documents or the Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) and so I asked the Secretary to send them to him again.
The hearing was scheduled to resume on 31 August 2023. However, Mr Lawson was unwell and so the hearing was vacated and re-listed for 9 October 2023.
The hearing proceeded on 9 October 2023 at 1.00pm AWST by Microsoft Teams. Mr Lawson had received the T-documents and the SFIC but wanted another adjournment to get an advocate. I was satisfied Mr Lawson had been given sufficient time to organise an advocate or a support person and that the hearing should proceed. I also note that the Tribunal’s Registry staff had:
·emailed the Applicant on 22 August 2023 to request that he update the Tribunal on whether or not a support person had been arranged and would be attending the hearing;
·emailed the Applicant on 30 August 2023 to confirm the name of his advocate after he indicated he had obtained one; and
·liaised with Legal Aid on 6 October 2023 who arranged an appointment with the Applicant on the day of the hearing in the morning at 11:30am AWST.
Ms Vetter, the Secretary’s representative, attempted to ask Mr Lawson about the circumstances of each of his claims. Mr Lawson’s behaviour became increasingly inappropriate, including using abusive language towards myself and Ms Vetter. Mr Lawson left the Microsoft Teams meeting after Ms Vetter had concluded asking her questions.
To ensure that Mr Lawson was afforded procedural fairness, I made directions on 10 October 2023 that the Secretary was to provide written closing submissions to the Tribunal and the Applicant on or before 30 October 2023, followed by Mr Lawson being given leave to provide the written closing submissions by 13 November 2023, and the Secretary being given leave to provide submissions in reply. The date for Mr Lawson to file his submissions was extended to 21 November 2023 after he requested additional time on 12 November 2023.
Mr Lawson filed further submissions by email on 22 November 2023, and the Secretary advised that they did not intend to provide any submissions in reply.
RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY
Before turning to each of the claims made by Mr Lawson, I will outline the relevant law and policy guidance.
Qualification for crisis payments in extreme circumstances
Part 2.23A of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) sets out the qualification criteria for crisis payments.
Subsection 1061JH(1) of the Act sets out when a person will qualify for a crisis payment when extreme circumstances force their departure from home. It provides:
(1) A person is qualified for a crisis payment if, after the commencement of this section:
(a) the person has left, or cannot return to, his or her home because of an extreme circumstance; and
(b) the extreme circumstance makes it unreasonable to expect the person to remain in, or return to, the home; and
(c) the person has established, or intends to establish, a new home; and
d) at the time the extreme circumstance occurred, the person was in Australia; and
(e) the person makes a claim for a crisis payment within 7 days after the extreme circumstance occurred; and
(f) on the day on which the claim is made:
(i) the person is in severe financial hardship (see section 19D); and
(ii) the person has made a claim (whether on the same day or on an earlier day) for a social security pension or benefit and the person is qualified for the pension or benefit; and
(g) during the 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim is made, no more than 3 crisis payments have been payable to the person based on:
(i) the qualifications set out in this section; or
(ii) the qualifications set out in section 1061JHA (remaining in home after removal of family member due to domestic or family violence).
Meaning of “Home”
The Australian Government, Guides to Social Policy Law: Social Security Guide (the Guide) at 3.7.4.20 explains the meaning of a “home”, which does not include temporary accommodation:
For the purposes of CrP [crisis payment], ‘home’ is taken to be the person’s house or other shelter that is the fixed residence that the person would have lived in for the foreseeable future. Fixed residence includes a house, apartment, on-site caravan, long-term boarding house or moored boat. A home is not a refuge, overnight hostel, squat or other temporary accommodation. Situations where it would be considered unreasonable to expect the person to remain in, or return to, their home are when the person's safety or wellbeing is at risk and the person cannot reasonably be expected to face this prospect.
Meaning of “Extreme Circumstances”
The Act does not define “extreme circumstances”, although it gives the following example at the end of s 1061JH(1) of the Act:
Note:Examples of extreme circumstances that would qualify a person for crisis payment are the person’s house being burnt down, or the person being subjected to domestic or family violence.
The Guide explains at 3.7.4.60:
An extreme circumstance can include (but is not limited to) home invasion (1.1.H.72), house fire or flooding. In general an extreme circumstance is a circumstance that could not be reasonably anticipated and therefore avoided and has not been caused by a deliberate action of the person claiming CrP. However, a determination of whether someone has experienced extreme circumstances must take account of the entire history of events, dealings and relationships that have culminated in the person leaving home and must be made on a case by case basis.
In Arcibal v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2002] FCA 1313 at [8]-[9], Heerey J confirmed that the examples in the Guide were not exhaustive, that the expression “extreme circumstances” was not a technical term and that the Tribunal should look at all the surrounding circumstances surrounding why the applicant left his home:
… The Tribunal properly took the examples given in the statute as simply a guide and not of course exhaustive of the circumstances which might constitute extreme circumstances. That expression is not a technical term. The OED defines the adjective “extreme” as:
“presenting in the utmost degree some particular characteristic.”
The eviction of a tenant who does not pay rent is a normal and inevitable consequence and the Tribunal was entitled to find that it was not, in the relevant sense, an extreme circumstance. Moreover, I think the Tribunal was entitled to look at the whole of the circumstances in which the applicant left his home. These included the provision of alternative accommodation on that night and subsequently. The net result is that the applicant was not rendered homeless and continued to receive his Social Security benefit.
In Dowker v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] FCA 1175, Charlesworth J provided the following clarification at [16]:
… the expression [“extreme circumstance”] is clearly intended to describe the reason why a person has left or cannot return to his or her home (s 1061JH(1)(a)) and the reason why it would be unreasonable to expect the person to remain in, or return to, the home (s 1061JHJ(1)(b)). It is not intended to characterise the situation a person may subsequently find himself or herself in, by reason of being unable to remaining in or return to it. That is not to say that the whole of the person’s circumstances may not be considered. However, when considering the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the enquiry is to remain focused on whether the person left or cannot remain or return to the home because of an extreme circumstance. Events occurring after the person has left the home may be taken into account insofar as they legitimately bear upon that enquiry.
Meaning of “Severe financial hardship”
The Guide, at 3.7.4.10 explains that: “To qualify for CrP, the person must be in severe financial hardship on the day on which the claim for CrP is made.”
Subsection 19D(2) of the Act sets out when a person will be in “severe financial hardship”:
A person who is not a member of a couple is in severe financial hardship for the purposes of qualifying for a crisis payment if the value of the person’s liquid assets (within the meaning of subsection 14A(1)) is less than the fortnightly amount at the maximum payment rate of the social security pension or the social security benefit that is payable to the person.
According to the Guide, it is the maximum basis rate of the social security payment that is taken into account which does not include other supplements.
The Guide also explains, at 3.7.4.10:
When assessing hardship all cash and readily realisable assets should be taken into account, including money in the bank and earnings due. Where a person has funds in their income management account, these funds should be regarded as liquid assets as they can usually be accessed for emergency purposes such as accommodation and travel costs. In the event that a person’s income management funds cannot be accessed, these funds should not be regarded as liquid assets.
Thus, if a person has some funds that they can access to assist them with their crisis, for example, funds that they can access to pay for emergency accommodation, they may not be entitled to a crisis payment.
Qualification for crisis payments in a national health emergency
Section 1061JIA of the Act sets out when a person will qualify for a crisis payment in a national health emergency:
(1) A person is qualified for a crisis payment if:
(a) on the day on which the claim for the crisis payment is made:
(i) the person has made a claim (whether on the same day or on an earlier day) for a social security pension or benefit; and
(ii) the person is qualified for the pension or benefit; and
(b) the person satisfies the requirements determined in an instrument under subsection (2).
(2)The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b). The Minister must be satisfied that the requirements relate to a national health emergency.
(3)Without limiting subsection (2), the requirements may depend on the Secretary being satisfied of one or more specified matters.
The legislative instrument referred to in ss 1061JIA(1)(b) and 1061JIA(2) of the Act was the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response – 2020 Measures No. 2) Determination 2020 (version 23/12/2020 to 30/6/2022) (the Determination). Section 6 of the Determination sets out the requirements referred to in s 1061JIA(1)(b) of the Act that the person must satisfy to be eligible for a crisis payment. It provides:
For the purposes of paragraph 1061JIA(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991, the following requirements are determined:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is in financial hardship;
(b) the Secretary is satisfied that the person:
(i) is in quarantine or self‑isolation as a result of advice from, or a requirement made by, the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory or a health professional regarding the coronavirus known as COVID‑19; or
(ii) is caring for an immediate family member, or a member of the person’s household, who is covered by subparagraph (i).
MR LAWSON’S CLAIMS FOR CRISIS PAYMENTS
I now turn to the specific claims made by Mr Lawson, and whether he met the criteria for those claims.
22 March 2021 claim (application 2023/7414)
On 22 March 2021, Mr Lawson made a claim for a crisis payment for other extreme circumstances. In his claim form he stated that he had no money in his bank account and only $5 cash on hand:
Cannot stay at the home as I fear for my safety. My care is not being looked after. They have not arranged to get my medication and I am unable to organise my own medication. I am heading to Meekatharra on Wednesday. My wallet has also been stolen from the train station. Train officer: [Name omitted] from Armadale Train Phone: [phone number omitted]
A Centrelink electronic file note records that on 22 March 2021, Mr Lawson telephoned Centrelink. He provided contact details for the train service to verify his lost wallet. The Centrelink electronic file note states: “[Mr Lawson] was unable to provide contacts to verify that the care was not being provided as the housing agency responsible would have a conflict of interest as they are the ones who are supposed to provide that care”.
On 23 March 2021, a decision was made to reject Mr Lawson’s claim because he had “not suffered an extreme circumstance that meets the criteria”.
Mr Lawson requested a formal review of the decision. On 14 February 2022, an ARO decided not to change the decision to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment. It is the ARO decision of 14 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application. The ARO stated:
After carefully considering all relevant information, I have not changed the decision. This is because we were unable to confirm that you were required to move house due to an extreme circumstance.
You advised that on the 22 March 2021, you were unable to stay at the [name omitted] Hostel at [address omitted], Perth WA 6000 as you had fears for your safety and believed that the staff were not supporting you. You were intending to leave on the 24 March 2021, however you continued to pay rent for the [name omitted] Hostel and have continued to do so up until recently. You stopped paying rent in December 2021.
I note a statement from the organisation that runs the Hostel showing that Mr Lawson was being charged rent between 9 December 2021 and 20 January 2022. He also received rent assistance on 19 January 2022.
At the AAT1 Mr Lawson provided the following evidence about this claim:
Mr Lawson told Centrelink in 2021 he left the Hostel on 22 March 2021 because he held fears for his safety. However, at the hearing Mr Lawson denied that he was in physical danger at the Hostel or that he did not receive care at the Hostel. He said he highly respected the staff of the Hostel and praised the work they did for the residents but felt he could not stay there long term. Although he acknowledged his own mental health issues, he thought that other residents were significantly worse and suggested he did not fit in. He said he had higher expectations of himself. Mr Lawson’s postal address remains the Hostel address. He acknowledged that he continued to pay rent at the Hostel after leaving there and in his evidence said he periodically returned to the Hostel when he was in Perth.
At the hearing on 9 October 2023 Mr Lawson agreed that he had not left the Hostel when he made his claim for a crisis payment on 22 March 2021. That was consistent with his claim when he said that he was “heading to Meekatharra on Wednesday”. This meant that Mr Lawson had not left his home at the time of the claim, nor was he prevented from returning to it (as required by s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act). Indeed, at the hearing he confirmed that he periodically returned to the Hostel during 2021 and he paid rent at the Hostel throughout 2021.
The evidence concerning why Mr Lawson left the Hostel is also somewhat inconsistent. He told Centrelink that he feared for his safety. However, at the AAT1 he denied that he was in physical danger. At the hearing Mr Lawson said that he was threatened and scared for his personal safety at the Hostel, that he respected the Hostel staff but could not stay long term and that he felt intimidated and out of place because he was “allergic” to certain types of people and referred to paedophiles living at the Hostel. Overall, I am not satisfied that there were extreme circumstances. There is no corroborating evidence that Mr Lawson had to leave because it was unsafe for him to remain in the Hostel. For example, there is no evidence of any violence or threats made against Mr Lawson, or any other circumstances whereby it would be unreasonable to remain there until he found alternative accommodation.
I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Lawson had to leave the Hostel because of an extreme circumstance and note that he was not prevented from returning to the Hostel periodically throughout 2021.
Consequently, I find that Mr Lawson did not meet the eligibility criteria for a crisis payment and that the Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7414 should be affirmed.
18 May 2021 claim (application 2023/7415)
On 18 May 2021, Mr Lawson lodged another claim for crisis payment for other extreme circumstances. In his claim form Mr Lawson stated:
I cannot return home I intend to try and find another home The people at the Hostel are threatening and intimidating I am awaiting my DSP [disability support pension] to be reinstated I am also stuck in Kunnunarra top end
(As original.)

The claim form states that his home address is the Hostel.
An email message dated 11 May (year not stated) from a Recovery Worker at the Hostel states that Mr Lawson had extended his “social leave” until the end of May. He said this may be a problem because Mr Lawson had overrun his social leave days and that it was not in his best interests to be paying rent and not using the room.
On 24 May 2021, Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment was rejected on the basis that he had not suffered an extreme circumstance that met the criteria.
After a request for a formal review was made, on 14 February 2022, an ARO decided not to change the 24 May 2021 decision. It is the ARO decision of 14 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application. The ARO explained:
After carefully considering all relevant information, I have not changed the decision. This is because your previous claim for Crisis Payment for Other Extreme Circumstance lodged 10 May 2021, stated you left your previous address at [name omitted] Hostel at [address omitted], Perth WA 6000 on the 28 April 2021. You have not advised of any new event that has happened since leaving on the 28 April 2021 that would meet the eligibility criteria for a Crisis Payment for Other Extreme Circumstances.
The 10 May 2021 claim mentioned by the ARO is not before me because Mr Lawson did not seek review of the ARO decision dated 11 February 2022. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to determine that claim.
The AAT1 recorded that Mr Lawson gave the following evidence at that hearing:
Mr Lawson told the Tribunal he travelled from Perth to Kununurra and Wyndham, and thought he stayed in that area from March to May 2021. He said that he found accommodation at [address omitted], Kununurra in a share house with people he did not know. He was unable to say how long he stayed there. He stated that he also spent time at Wyndham where he stayed in accommodation organised in the context of some casual work he found in the area. Ultimately he could not stay. …
At the hearing on 9 October Mr Lawson stated that the Hostel he was referring to was not the one in Perth, but the share house address in Kununurra. However, a Centrelink file note dated 22 February 2022 states that the Centrelink officer contacted the house in Kununurra (which from the note appears to be a type of hostel), who confirmed he “was only there for 3 days before leaving the area”. Therefore, I think it is more likely that Mr Lawson’s claim form referred to him being in Kununurra and not being able to return to the Hostel in Perth.
Firstly, the Kununurra residence could not be considered a “home” because Mr Lawson was apparently only there for three days. It was temporary in nature and not his fixed address where he would have lived for the foreseeable future (see definition of “home” in 3.7.4.20 of the Guide above).
Secondly, even if it could be regarded as a home, I am not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Lawson left due to any extreme circumstances. At the hearing Mr Lawson said he had been “chased by a crocodile”. However, a Centrelink electronic file note records that Mr Lawson was upset because he had walked 40 kilometres that day to the nearest service centre to be told that his crisis payment claim had been rejected. He said that he had been chased by a crocodile because he was in the rural desert and that he would be seeking compensation. However, I do not think that being chased by a crocodile would be sufficient to meet the definition of an extreme circumstance that would require Mr Lawson to leave his accommodation or not to be able to return there.
Thirdly, even if Mr Lawson was referring to the Hostel in Perth, the email from the Recovery Worker at the Perth Hostel does not suggest any impediment to Mr Lawson returning there and confirms that he still had a room and was paying rent there.
I therefore find that Mr Lawson’s 18 May 2021 claim did not meet the eligibility criteria for a crisis payment in s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and that the Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7415 should be affirmed.
1 June 2021 claim (application 2023/7418)
On 1 June 2021, Mr Lawson lodged a claim for a crisis payment for other extreme circumstances. He stated that his home address was the Kununurra address. In his claim form he stated that he consented to Centrelink contacting a third party to verify his circumstances and gave contact details for the Western Australia Police.
A Centrelink electronic file note of a telephone conversation with Mr Lawson on 1 June 2021 records that Mr Lawson advised he had his wallet stolen on 31 May 2021 with $875 cash in the wallet as well as identification, bank cards and medication. Mr Lawson provided a police report number.
A Centrelink electronic record dated 2 June 2021 records that a Centrelink officer contacted the Kununurra police station who advised that there was no report concerning Mr Lawson as a victim at the address since 2014. A lost property report had been made to police on 1 June 2022 for the Kununurra address but not for Mr Lawson. The note also records that Mr Lawson stated in conversation that he had not been at the address in Kununurra since 28 May 2021 and was back in Perth at another address in a psychiatric facility.
On 2 June 2021, Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment was rejected on the basis that he had not suffered an extreme circumstance that met the criteria.
Mr Lawson requested that the 2 June 2021 decision be reviewed. On 8 July 2021, an ARO decided not to change the decision because Mr Lawson had not provided evidence that he was forced to leave his home due to an extreme circumstance. It is the ARO decision of 8 July 2021, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
At the hearing on 9 October 2023 Mr Lawson confirmed that his wallet had been stolen and that he had reported it to Centrelink.
The theft of a wallet does not meet the criteria in s 1061JH(1) of the Act. Although unfortunate, it is not an exceptional circumstance whereby the person has had to leave or cannot return to their home.
Consequently, Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7418 should be affirmed.
11 July 2021 claim (application 2023/7419)
On 11 July 2021 Mr Lawson lodged a claim for a crisis payment – national health emergency.
In his claim form, Mr Lawson stated that he had to self-isolate from 4 July 2021.
On 12 July 2021, Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment was rejected on the basis that he could not be contacted to finalise his claim. At the hearing Mr Lawson stated that he could not answer the phone.
A formal review was undertaken of the 12 July 2021 decision, but on 15 February 2022, an ARO decided not to change the decision to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment. It is the ARO decision of 15 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
Mr Lawson lodged another claim on 16 July 2021 for a crisis payment – national health emergency which was granted on 19 July 2021. In that claim form Mr Lawson stated that he was required to isolate from 11 July 2021. At the hearing Mr Lawson agreed that this claim was granted and said that he was able to answer the phone.
At the hearing Mr Lawson confirmed that his unsuccessful 11 July 2021 claim was the “same claim” as his successful 16 July 2021 claim.
The Guide at 3.7.4.45 states:
A person cannot receive more than one NHE CrP [national health emergency crisis payment] for the same quarantine or isolation period. For example, where an isolation period is subsequently extended.
Thus, these two claims were effectively the “same claim” relating to the same isolation period. As Mr Lawson received a crisis payment on 19 July 2021, he was not eligible for another crisis payment under s 1061JIA(1)(b) of the Act because he already received one for the relevant isolation period.
Therefore, the Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7419 should be affirmed.
13 August 2021 claim (application 2023/7420)
On 8 August 2021, Mr Lawson lodged a claim for a crisis payment for extreme circumstances. This claim was granted on 9 August 2021.
On 13 August 2021, Mr Lawson lodged another claim for a crisis payment for extreme circumstances. The Centrelink electronic file note states:
He moved into a caravan park a week ago and found the place very violent and he made a decision to leave for safety. No direct incident happened to him.
Mr Lawson’s claim was rejected on 1 September 2021, on the basis that he had already made a claim for this extreme circumstance.
On 15 February 2022 after a formal review, an ARO decided not to change the decision of 1 September 2021. It is the ARO decision of 15 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
Contemporaneous Centrelink records state that Mr Lawson moved into the caravan park on 9 August 2021. They also record that Mr Lawson contacted Centrelink on 14 and 15 August 2021 and was still living at the caravan park at those times. This evidence indicates that at the date of his claim Mr Lawson had not left his home because he was still residing there two days later. He therefore did not satisfy s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Additionally, the evidence suggests that Mr Lawson was not in severe financial hardship on the day the claim was made, as required by s 1061JH(1)(f) of the Act. A payslip dated 10 August 2021 from a drilling company shows that Mr Lawson received a net pay of $555 for the period 23 July 2021 to 5 August 2021. At the hearing Mr Lawson also confirmed that he was employed at the drilling company at that time but that he had to return to Perth.
Consequently, I find that Mr Lawson was not eligible for a crisis payment under s 1061JH(1) of the Act because he did not meet the eligibility criteria in s 1061JH(1)(a), (b) and (f) of the Act.
Consequently, Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7420 should be affirmed.
26 November 2021 claim (application 2023/7421)
In this section, I discuss two claims for a crisis payment made by Mr Lawson. One claim is before me and is the subject of application 2023/7421, and the other was not reviewed by the AAT1 and therefore I have no jurisdiction to determine it. I mention both because they form part of the overall factual matrix.
The claim that is before me
Mr Lawson lodged another claim for crisis payment for extreme circumstances on 26 November 2021. He advised Centrelink that he had no fixed address.
Mr Lawson was referred to a Centrelink social worker on 26 November 2021 who spoke to Mr Lawson that day. The social worker’s report stated that Mr Lawson believed he left the caravan park on approximately 24 November 2021. The social worker recorded that:
Mr Lawson advised that he left his home at [the caravan park] as he had been having difficulties living with other tenants at the property. He did not disclose having experienced violence or other threatening behaviours from the other co-tenants. …
Mr Lawson advised that police were not involved in his departure but later provided a reference number to the social worker [number omitted] which he claimed was an incident report number.
Mr Lawson advised that he had spent the previous night in Geraldton, having travelled there again to regain his driver’s licence. He has since travelled by car to Perth, although he was uncertain of his precise location. …
In the assessment summary section of the social worker’s report, the social worker stated, “Mr Lawson only disclosed that he had become tired of living with his co-tenants”.
At the hearing Mr Lawson was asked to confirm that he left because he was not getting along with the other tenants. He stated that he had problems living everywhere, especially around people. He strongly disagreed that he told the social worker he was “tired”.
His claim was rejected on 27 November 2021 because his circumstances could not be verified.
After a formal review, on 15 February 2022 an ARO decided not to change the decision made on 27 November 2021 to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment made on 26 November 2021. The ARO recorded that they were unable to determine whether Mr Lawson suffered a family or domestic violence event, with whom he was living or the identity of any perpetrator.
It is this ARO decision of 15 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
I am not satisfied on the available evidence, including the evidence in the social worker’s report, that Mr Lawson left, or could not return to his home due to an extreme circumstance. The available evidence suggests that he had been having “difficulties” getting along with the other tenants but that there was no violence. That is not sufficient to constitute an “extreme circumstance”. I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Lawson met the criteria in s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
It is also uncertain as to whether Mr Lawson established, or intended to establish a new home, as required by s 1061JH(1)(c) of the Act, because he had reported to Centrelink on 26 November 2021 that he had no fixed address.
Therefore, Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7421 should be affirmed.
The claim that is not before me
On 29 November 2021, Mr Lawson made another claim for crisis payment for extreme circumstances. However, that claim was rejected on the same day, 29 November 2021.
On 15 February 2022 an ARO decided not to change the decision made on 29 November 2021 to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment. This was because they were unable to confirm Mr Lawson’s living arrangements or that any incident occurred around 24 to 29 November 2021. As I mentioned above, this decision was not before the AAT1 and therefore I have no jurisdiction to consider it and it is not before me.
28 December 2021 claim (application 2023/7423)
On 13 December 2021 Mr Lawson lodged another claim for a crisis payment for other extreme circumstances. That claim was granted on 14 December 2021 on the basis that Mr Lawson suffered an extreme circumstance on 11 December 2021. The details of this claim are not contained in the documentation before me.
On 28 December 2021, Mr Lawson made another claim for a crisis payment for extreme circumstances.
On 31 December 2021, Mr Lawson’s claim was rejected on the basis that Centrelink could not confirm his circumstances.
After a formal review, an ARO decided on 15 February 2022 that the decision made on 31 December 2021 to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment for extreme circumstance (family and domestic violence) was correct. The ARO stated that this was because “we have not been able to determine your address at the time of the incident nor have we been able to confirm any incident has occurred.”
It is this ARO decision of 15 February 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
Mr Lawson’s evidence at the hearing was that on 27 December 2021 he left a motel where he had been staying for two weeks. He then went to stay at the Hostel. This is confirmed by an electronic record from Centrelink which recorded that Mr Lawson contacted them on 28 December 2021 to advise he was living at the Hostel. He wanted to leave the Hostel because he said it was negatively affecting his mental health, but as at 30 December 2021 he was still at the Hostel. Again, this is confirmed in an electronic record from Centrelink.
Another electronic record of the same date, 30 December 2022, stated that Mr Lawson contacted Centrelink to advise them he was in financial hardship and needed money to replace the tyres on his car because he was sometimes living in his car, and sometimes living at the Hostel.
Also, as I noted above, Mr Lawson confirmed that he periodically returned to the Hostel during 2021 and he paid rent at the Hostel throughout 2021.
Based on this information, as at the date of claim, 28 December 2021, Mr Lawson had not left the hostel, and even when he did, he was able to return there periodically because he was still paying rent. Mr Lawson may have wanted to leave the Hostel, but that is not sufficient to constitute an extreme circumstance. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the qualification criteria in s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act have been met.
Therefore, Reviewable Decision in application 2023/7423 should be affirmed.
3 January 2022 claim (application 2022/5851)
On 3 January 2022, Mr Lawson made a claim for crisis payment for other extreme circumstances. He gave the following details about his extreme circumstances:
I cannot stay where I am because it is diminishing my fragile mental state and there is too much violence and aggression and intimidator tactics when it comes to belongings and I do not feel safe. I have been threatened, intimidated. This place is for people who are mentally incapacitated and whom need daily support in there daily lives and it is a good place if you did need that, but if you did nit, it could do the opposite, I have become more unwell since being here, there was nothing wrong with me before moving here. They watch everything you do, Call you up at all hours of the night with no consideration for me, just to be annoying. There was a time when they called me fifteen times in two hours and at the time I was at a funeral. …
On 4 January 2022 his claim was rejected on the basis that he was not establishing a new home.
After conducting a formal review, on 25 January 2022, an ARO decided not to change the decision of 4 January 2022 to reject Mr Lawson’s claim for a crisis payment. This was because Mr Lawson had not supplied any documents showing the establishment of a new property and there was no confirmation of extreme circumstances.
It is this ARO decision of 25 January 2022, as affirmed by the AAT1 on 28 June 2022, that is the Reviewable Decision in this application.
In the meantime, Mr Lawson made a claim for a crisis payment for a national health emergency on 23 January 2022 because he said he had tested positive to COVID-19. On 25 January 2022 his claim was rejected. After a formal review, on 15 February 2022, an ARO did not change the decision on the basis that Centrelink had been unable to confirm Mr Lawson needed to quarantine or isolate after a COVID-19 test. That claim was not considered by the AAT1 and is not currently before me.
With respect to the 2022/5851 Reviewable Decision, Mr Lawson was still staying at the Hostel at the time he made the claim and so he had not left his home, as required by s 1061JH(1)(a) of the Act. I am also not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of extreme circumstances. There is, for example, no corroborating evidence such as police records, or any confirmation from the Hostel, of the Applicant being threatened or intimidated, or that he was the victim of any violence. Consequently, I am not satisfied that Mr Lawson meets the qualification criteria in s 1061JH(1)(a) and (b) of the Act for a crisis payment.
I would also add that s 1061JH(1)(c) of the Act was likely not satisfied as well. That was because Mr Lawson advised Centrelink on 24 January 2022 that he had not yet found permanent accommodation and was couch surfing and living on the street. That suggests that he had not established, and it was unclear if he intended to establish a new home, as required by s 1061JH(1)(c) of the Act.
Therefore, the Reviewable Decision in application 2022/5851 should be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To qualify for a crisis payment, a person must satisfy the criteria in s 1061JH(1) (for a crisis payment for an extreme circumstance) or 1061JIA of the Act (for a crisis payment – national health emergency). Unfortunately, Mr Lawson was unable to satisfy me that he met the qualification criteria with respect to the applications I have considered above.
I understand that Mr Lawson is likely to be disappointed by these decisions, but I note that fortunately he has been successful in obtaining several other crisis payments.
DECISION

The Reviewable Decisions in applications 2022/5851, 2023/7414, 2023/7415, 2023/7418, 2023/7419, 2023/7420, 2023/7421 and 2023/7423 are affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 111 (one-hundred and eleven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner

..................... [Sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 9 February 2024

Date of hearing:

Date final submissions filed:

27 July 2023, 9 October 2023

22 November 2023

Representative for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Representative for the Respondent: Ms J Vetter, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers