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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Jeremy Lee (the Applicant) for a second-tier review of a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) on 27 April 2022. The underlying dispute concerned the Respondent's decision on 15 September 2021 to suspend the Applicant's JobSeeker Payments from 7 September 2021 due to his failure to enter into an employment pathway plan. Although the Applicant's payments were reinstated on 11 October 2021 with effect from the date of suspension, meaning no financial penalty was ultimately imposed, the Applicant sought a review of the initial suspension decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review the Respondent's decision. This involved determining if a reviewable decision had, in fact, been made by the Respondent, particularly in light of the subsequent rectification of the issue and the finding by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) that there was nothing further to review. The Tribunal also considered its role and the potential for dismissing an application for review if it was deemed frivolous or without practical benefit to the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that the ARO's finding, confirmed by the Respondent's records, indicated that the original decision to suspend payments had been varied and the Applicant's entitlement was ultimately met without penalty. Consequently, the ARO concluded there was nothing to review under section 126 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Tribunal found that, as a result of the payments being reinstated and no financial penalty being imposed, there was no reviewable decision made by the Respondent that conferred jurisdiction upon the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review pursuant to section 42A(4) of the AAT Act, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the matter. The Tribunal also noted that, had it possessed jurisdiction, it would have considered dismissing the application as futile under section 42B(1)(b) of the AAT Act due to the lack of practical benefit to the Applicant.