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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Newstart Allowance. The applicant had previously sought review of this cancellation decision by an Authorised Review Officer, which was affirmed, and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which also affirmed the decision. The current application was an appeal from that AAT decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had persistently committed mutual obligation failures without a reasonable excuse, whether prior notice of non-attendance had been given, and consequently, whether the cancellation of the Newstart Allowance and the application of a non-payment period were correctly made. The relevant legislative framework included the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth), along with associated determinations concerning non-compliance and reasonable excuses.

The court's reasoning focused on the provisions of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) concerning mutual obligation failures and the requirements for a reasonable excuse. Specifically, section 42AJ of the Act stipulates that an excuse for a mutual obligation failure, such as failing to attend a required activity under an employment pathway plan, cannot be considered reasonable unless prior notice was given to the specified person or body, or if there were circumstances where giving prior notice was not reasonable. The applicant's failure to provide such prior notice was central to the determination.

The Tribunal affirmed the previous decisions, finding that the applicant had committed persistent mutual obligation failures. Crucially, the applicant had not satisfied the Secretary that he had a reasonable excuse for these failures, as he had not provided the required prior notice of his inability to attend the specified activities. Accordingly, the cancellation of the Newstart Allowance and the imposition of the non-payment period were upheld.