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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension by Mr Oughton, which had been rejected. The dispute before the Tribunal was primarily about the date of effect of the decision to refuse the pension, which in turn impacted the timeliness of Mr Oughton's application for review. The decision was made by K Millar SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the written notice provided to Mr Oughton regarding the decision to refuse his claim for a Disability Support Pension met the requirements of section 138(1) of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1991* (Cth), and consequently, what the date of effect of that decision should be. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the notice contained adequate reasons for the decision, findings on material questions of fact, and references to the evidence or material on which those findings were based, as required by section 138(1)(b).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the notice provided to Mr Oughton satisfied the requirement to inform him of his right to seek review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 138(1)(a), it failed to meet the standards for providing reasons for the decision under section 138(1)(b). Drawing on principles from *Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith*, the Tribunal held that a notice must provide sufficient clarity for an aggrieved person to understand why the decision was made against them, enabling them to assess whether to challenge it. As the notice did not comply with section 138(1)(b), Mr Oughton had not been given a valid written notice for the purposes of section 147 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth).

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the date of effect provisions in section 147 did not apply. Instead, the decision to refuse Mr Oughton's claim for a Disability Support Pension was deemed to take effect from the date of his claim. The decision under review was therefore set aside.