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

Thorpe and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 3623 (11 October 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s):2023/8788
Re:Scott Thorpe
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D Stevens
Date:11 October 2024
Place:Sydney

The AAT1 decision of 17 October 2023 is set aside and remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the Applicant’s JobSeeker Payment be recalculated with a commencement date of 27 March 2022.
....................................[sgd]....................................
Member D Stevens
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY JobSeeker payment – cancellation of JobSeeker payments – backdating JobSeeker payments – mutual obligation requirements – decision set aside and remitted
LEGISLATION
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D Stevens
11 October 2024
REVIEWABLE DECISION

The Applicant, Mr Scott Thorpe, seeks review[1] of a decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (“AAT1”) which on 17 October 2023 affirmed a decision of the Respondent made on 14 February 2023 to pay JobSeeker Payment (“JSP”) to the Applicant from 29 March 2022 and not from any earlier date (“First Review”).[2]
[1] T-documents: T1, 3.
[2] T2, 6.
BACKGROUND
Relevantly for this matter, Mr Thorpe commenced receiving JSP on 20 March 2020, having until then been in receipt of other social security payments. At all relevant times for the current matter, he was engaged in an employment pathway plan with his employment services provider (“ESP”).[3] He was advised by a letter dated 10 February 2022 from the Respondent through Centrelink that the Respondent’s “records show that you did not correctly complete and return your job search on 07 February 2022”, and that as a result, his JSP was stopped from 27 January 2022.[4]
[3] ST1, 120.
[4] T10, 95.
Under the heading “What you need to do”, the letter stated, “if you have not already done so, you need to call your [ESP] as soon as possible …”. Under the heading “If you do not do this”, the letter also stated “if you do not call your provider and meet the requirement they have given you, your payment may be cancelled. If this happens, you will need to make a new claim if you wish to receive a payment again”.
Mr Thorpe was subsequently advised by a letter dated 18 March 2022 from the Respondent that his JSP “has been cancelled from 27 January 2022 because you have not reported”.[5]
[5] T10, 99.
The Applicant applied for JSP again on 30 March 2022.[6] The Respondent advised him by a letter dated 14 April 2022 that a “decision has been made that you will be paid [JSP] from 29 March 2022”.[7]
[6] T4, 39.
[7] T10, 101.
Mr Thorpe disagreed with this decision. His view was that his payment of JSP should have been backdated to the date of cancellation of his previous payments, 27 January 2022. On 20 April 2022, he sought a formal internal review of that decision by an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) of the Respondent.[8] The ARO advised him by letter dated 28 February 2023 that they had not changed the decision of 14 April 2022.[9]
[8] T8, 65.
[9] T6, 54.
The Applicant subsequently lodged an application for review with this Tribunal, which led to the First Review, which affirmed the Respondent’s decision of 14 April 2022.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
In the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions submitted on the evening of 26 September 2024, the day before hearing, the Respondent conceded that JSP should have been paid from the marginally earlier date of 27 March 2022, as opposed to 29 March 2022.
The Applicant’s position is that the payment of JSP should be backdated to the date the original JSP was cancelled, 27 January 2022, for reasons including that he had not been aware that the original payment was going to be cancelled, and in his view, that it was wrongly cancelled.
Accordingly, I am to decide the date on which the payment of JSP to Mr Thorpe arising from his claim on 30 March 2022 should commence.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
Qualification for payment of JSP
In general terms, section 11 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991 (“the Administration Act”) provides that a person who wants to be granted a social security payment must make a claim for the payment, with section 16 providing that that is to be done by lodging a written claim, or by claiming in an approved manner. (There is also a deeming provision which I shall come to.)
The payment of JSP is dealt with in Part 2.12 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”). Pursuant to section 593 of the Act, a person is qualified for JSP for a period if among other things they are unemployed for that period; they satisfy the employment pathway plan requirements; and they satisfy the Secretary that they are willing to actively seek and to accept and undertake paid work.
Cancellation of JSP
The definitions within Schedule 1 of the Administration Act provide that JSP is a “participation payment”.
Subsection 42AC(1) of the Administration Act sets out a number of “mutual obligations failures” in respect of persons receiving a participation payment, which relevantly include:
(c) the person fails to attend, or to be punctual for, an appointment that the person is required to attend by:
(i) a notice under subsection 63(2); or
(ii) an employment pathway plan that is in force in relation to the person
…
(e) an employment pathway plan is in force in relation to the person and the person fails to satisfy the Secretary that the person has undertaken adequate job search efforts in relation to a period worked out in accordance with the plan …
Where “a person commits a mutual obligation failure,” the Secretary may pursuant to subsection 42AF(1) of the Administration Act determine that a person’s participation payment is not payable for a period. If this occurs, section 42AM requires that the Secretary impose a reconnection requirement on the person. If the person fails to comply with the reconnection requirement within 4 weeks, the participation payment is cancelled: subsections 42AM(3) and (4) of the Administration Act.
Resumption of JSP and the question of backdating
Where such a cancellation occurs, subsection 42AP(5) of the Administration Act provides relevantly:
A participation payment (whether or not the same as the participation payment that was cancelled) is not payable to the person for the period (the post‑cancellation non‑payment period) of:
(a) 4 weeks beginning on the cancellation day
Neither the Act nor the Administration Act refer to restarting or reclaiming a payment. Following cancellation, a person must reapply for a payment, consistent with sections 11 and 16 of the Administration Act.
Subsection 41(1) of the Administration Act provides that a social security payment becomes payable on a person’s start date, which pursuant to section 42 is worked out in accordance with Schedule 2. This in turn provides:
3 Start day—general rule
(1) If:
(a) a person makes a claim for a social security payment; and

(b) the person is qualified for the payment on the day on which the claim is made;
the person’s start day in relation to the payment is the day on which the claim is made.
There is a deeming provision which allows in certain circumstances for a claim for a payment to have been made on the date on which a person contacts the Department of Social Services (“the Department”), rather than the date they lodge their written application. The circumstances are set out in subsection 13(1) of the Administration Act and include that the person:
aa. is included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A.
b. is qualified for the social security payment.
c. lodges a claim for the social security payment within 14 days after the Department is contacted.
The relevant legislative instrument pursuant to section 14A includes “a person whose principal place of residence was lost or sustained major damage during the relevant period as a result of an extreme circumstance,” which includes a flood.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The application was heard before me on 27 September 2024. Mr Thorpe represented himself and gave oral evidence. He attended by telephone. Ms Donaghy appeared for the Respondent and appeared via video. I also had available to me the Tribunal hearing documents (“T-documents”), including materials held by the Department in relation to the Applicant.
Previous statement by Applicant
The pre-hearing directions in this matter included that the Applicant was to “to give to the Tribunal and the Respondent a Statement in Reply or written notice of no further evidence to file by 28 August 2024”. The Tribunal reminded the Applicant of this by email on 19 September 2024. The Applicant responded by email that day:
I have been trying for months and months to dry and get the information that [a named AAT Conference Registrar] asked me to get and provide.
But so far I continue to be jerked around by DESE and sent to different departments to get the information you require and prove my case.
Now I rang them only last week and they told me that we're going to investigate as to, why they are telling me they provided the information to me when they didn't and I asking me to drop my formal request for those documents.
But DESE has not got back to me yet so I don't know what you want me to do.

Until I hear from them I can't provide you with any further information.[10]
[10] Email from Applicant to Tribunal, 19 September 2024.
At the hearing, Mr Thorpe clarified that the information he sought was in fact a note taken by an officer of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (“DESE”) when Mr Thorpe called them and complained about his ESP. In other words, this was a note written by someone else but based entirely on information provided by Mr Thorpe and was not information from other persons. Given that Mr Thorpe said he would be giving oral evidence at hearing, that he said he could proceed in the absence of that document, and that the document was a note written by someone else based on Mr Thorpe’s recollections, I formed the view that there would be no prejudice to Mr Thorpe in commencing the hearing in the absence of a copy of this statement.
The Applicant’s failure to report and cancellation of JSP
Mr Thorpe gave oral evidence that he had been wrongly suspended by an employee of the ESP for not attending an appointment, when in fact there had been no appointment for him to attend. He told the Tribunal that the person’s employer subsequently agreed with him.
This is obviously a point of some grievance for Mr Thorpe, and it was a matter he returned to several times. It is consistent with his conversation with Centrelink staff where he stated that he “was repeatedly suspended … from job provider for not attending a phone call appointment that he believes he never received”.[11]
[11] T8, 65.
He stated to the Tribunal that two days after being suspended in relation to the telephone appointment, he was suspended for not turning in his job seeker notice.
In its letter dated 10 February 2022, the Respondent advised Mr Thorpe that “you did not correctly complete and return your job search on 07 February 2022. As a result, your JobSeeker Payment has been stopped from 27 January 2022”.[12]
[12] T10, 95.
In its letter dated 18 March 2022, the Respondent advised Mr Thorpe that “your JobSeeker Payment has been cancelled from 27 January 2022 because you have not reported”.[13]
[13] T10, 99.
In a letter from the ARO dated 28 February 2023, the ARO wrote “On 18 March 2022, your JobSeeker payment was cancelled from 27 January 2022 as you did not report your fortnightly income from this date”.[14]
[14] T6, 54.
Ms Donaghy put these matters to Mr Thorpe. He insisted that everything started with his being suspended for failing to attend an appointment and returned to this several times. However, at one point he responded, “I am well aware that I was cancelled for not reporting”.
Under cross-examination by Ms Donaghy, Mr Thorpe agreed that he was “well aware” of the requirement to regularly report his job seeking efforts, and that this was part of his mutual obligation requirements. He stated that he had done so many times, and that he did so by recording his efforts on paper and submitting them in face-to-face meetings.
He agreed that he had not reported his job seeking efforts for the period 26 January 2022 to 20 April 2022. In his evidence, he stated that he had been suspended by his job provider, and “as far as I know, if I am suspended, I can’t report”.
Under cross-examination, Ms Donaghy took Mr Thorpe to a Centrelink report showing that he had previously failed to report on 11 January 2022 resulting in suspension.[15] Mr Thorpe said that he did not recall that, but that if it had been sent to the Centrelink App (“the App”), he would not have looked at it. She then took him to another document which showed that he had contacted the ESP on 12 January 2022, after a suspension notice was sent to him.[16] Mr Thorpe said that he did not recall. Ms Donaghy put to Mr Thorpe that he complied with that notice, even if he said he did not receive it. He responded with a complaint that his ESP “kept flipping providers around”, but when pressed as to whether he contacted the ESP, he said he agreed with what was on the report.
[15] ST1, 120.
[16] T9, 94.
In his evidence, Mr Thorpe stated that he knew there were two ways in which he could report his job seeking efforts. He said that it could be done online, but that he did not do things online, and that he did not know how to report his efforts online as he had never been shown how. He said that he could not report his job seeking efforts face-to-face in January and February 2022 because face-to-face meetings were suspended due to local flooding.
Flood event and face-to-face meetings
Ms Donaghy showed Mr Thorpe a NSW government document headed “One year on from the February – March 2022 severe weather and floods” dated February 2023.[17] The document stated that “an extreme weather event took place in late-February and early March 2022, which delivered unprecedented multi-day rainfall and flooding to eastern New South Wales”.[18] A timeline stated “27 February 2022 Multiple severe weather warnings and flood watch issued by Bureau of Meteorology”.[19]
[17] –ST3, 11.
[18] ST3, 14.
[19] ST3, 28.
Ms Donaghy also put to Mr Thorpe that he submitted a claim for Disaster Recovery Payment in respect of NSW floods, in which he stated that the date “he was impacted by this event” was 24 February 2022.[20] Mr Thorpe responded that the flood went on for ages, and that he was up all-night sandbagging.
[20] ST2, 127.
Ms Donaghy suggested to Mr Thorpe that as the floods occurred in late February, he could have attended a face-to-face meeting before they occurred. Mr Thorpe responded that that was wrong, that he had been suspended in relation to the telephone appointment and that suspension covered the future from then. Ms Donaghy said the suspension notice was issued on 10 February before the floods, and Mr Thorpe responded that he did not remember the dates.
Notice of suspension and cancellation, and contact with Centrelink
Mr Thorpe gave evidence that he had not previously seen either the suspension letter of 10 February 2022, or the cancellation letter of 18 March 2022, because the letters were sent to the App that he had on his phone, and he never looked at the App. He said that he did not do things online and that everyone he dealt with knew that. He said that he later received assistance to change the settings on the App so that correspondence was not sent there. Under cross-examination he admitted that he “knew something was there,” but that he did not go on to the App to read letters.
The Applicant gave evidence that he contacted Centrelink after he received text messages from the ESP notifying him that he was suspended. He agreed that he knew about the suspension because of the multiple messages from the ESP, but not because of any notification from Centrelink. He also said that he contacted Centrelink when he saw payments were not going into his bank account. He said that the first he knew of his cancellation was when he was told by his ESP. He said that although he was in telephone contact with Centrelink, that they never told him his JSP was suspended and then cancelled.
In his evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant said that he received “two weeks of constant messages” about his suspension at a time when he was “stressed out about the floods”, including “8 – 12 messages in one week”. He said that he thought, “I can’t deal with this,” and called Centrelink. In an oral submission to me, he said that he “didn’t reach out [to the ESP] because they kept sending suspension notices”. Under cross-examination, Mr Thorpe said there may have been a delay of two weeks in contacting Centrelink. He then said that may have been one week, and that he could not recall as “this happened years ago”. Ms Donaghy referred Mr Thorpe to Departmental records showing that there was activity on his file in the relevant period on 11 January 2022, 9 February 2022 and 27 March 2022 only, and that there were no calls from him to Centrelink in this period.[21] Mr Thorpe said that was not true, he contacted Centrelink before that. He said that he also contacted DESE. He said he made numerous calls, and noted it was difficult to get through to people when calling. He said there may have been two weeks before he called Centrelink, because he had the floods to deal with.
[21] –ST1, 120-122.
New claim
Mr Thorpe gave evidence that when he found out that his JSP was cancelled, he was told by Centrelink staff that he would need to apply for JSP again. He said that he was told that he would have to do that online. He said that he did not know how to do that and so made an appointment to attend Centrelink to receive assistance. When he applied for JSP again on 30 March 2022, he said that he was told by “half a dozen” Centrelink staff to make sure he backdated his claim.
Review process
In his evidence, Mr Thorpe complained about the internal review process within Centrelink. He said that he had thought the review process would take months but took over a year. He said that he was contacted without notice by the ARO who he said would not listen to him. He said that when he tried to give his version of events, he was told that he was being contacted to be told the result of the review, not for the ARO to hear his side.
CONSIDERATION
“Backdating” and the decision to cancel JSP
There is no basis in either the Act or the Administration Act for backdating the start of JSP to a date before a written claim is lodged, other than pursuant to the deeming provision. For me to effectively “backdate” the payment of JSP to Mr Thorpe to 27 January 2022, I would have to decide that the decision to cancel the payment of JSP from that date was wrong.
It is common ground between the parties that the Applicant’s mutual obligation requirements included regular reporting of his job search activities. There is no dispute that Mr Thorpe failed to provide his job search activity report on 27 January 2022 and for weeks thereafter.
The Applicant contends that he did not do so because he was not able to do so. First, he states that he could not do so because he had been suspended for not attending an interview, and that he thought that once suspended, he could not report. However, this is inconsistent with his actions following previous suspensions, including suspensions for failure to comply with job search requirement as close to the matter before me as 7 December 2021 and 7 January 2022.[22] In any event, in his evidence, Mr Thorpe has not provided any satisfactory reason why he could not have responded to the numerous text messages that he received from his ESP in order to deal with his suspension, so that he could then report.
[22] T9, 89, 94; ST1, 120.

Secondly, he stated often and strongly that while he was aware that he could have reported online, he did not know how to. I accept that this is a difficulty for Mr Thorpe. That does not mean that it is impossible. In his evidence, Mr Thorpe stated that he was able to gain assistance from his daughter in claiming Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment online on 27 March 2022.[23] I accept that Mr Thorpe’s daughter does not live with him and cannot always assist him in this way. In his evidence he also states that around 29 March 2022 he had to claim JSP online and sought assistance from Centrelink to do so.
[23] Also see ST2 127
However, there was another reporting option available to him.
Thirdly, Mr Thorpe states that his usual means of reporting, providing a written document at a face-to-face meeting, was not available because these meetings had been suspended due to flooding. I accept that there were severe floods in Mr Thorpe’s area in 2022. However, on the basis of the NSW government report,[24] and the date Mr Thorpe claimed that his own residence was affected by floods,[25] I am of the view that the effect of the floods (including the suspension of face to face meetings) was not felt as early as Mr Thorpe has submitted, and that there was a period of at least several weeks after 27 January 2022 in which Mr Thorpe could have reported his job search activities in his usual way.
[24] ST3, 11.
[25] ST2, 127.
It was this failure to report that led to the cancellation of JSP to Mr Thorpe. I appreciate that his suspension for his alleged failure to attend an appointment is a source of grievance for Mr Thorpe. However, this is not the reason that his JSP was suspended and later cancelled.
Mr Thorpe gave evidence that he did not know of either the suspension or the cancellation of his JSP, as he did not receive the letters of 10 February 2022 and March 2022 because they were sent to a Centrelink App on his phone. He gave evidence that knew “something was on” the App, but that he did not read letters on the App. He also gave evidence that he knew he had been suspended because of multiple messages he had received from the ESP. In any event, by virtue of the operation of section 237 of the Administration Act, and sections 14 and 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), Mr Thorpe is deemed to have received notice of the suspension and cancellation decisions on the days that they were electronically sent to him. As the Respondent submitted, Mr Thorpe’s choice not to use the App is irrelevant.
From his own evidence, Mr Thorpe knew that JSP had been suspended. He knew that he had not reported his job searching activities, and that this was one of his mutual obligation requirements. He knew that he was supposed to contact his ESP in response to the numerous text messages he was receiving from them but chose not to. He knew there could be consequences.
Mr Thorpe’s evidence is that he made Centrelink and others aware of his situation via telephone calls. He submitted to the Tribunal that Centrelink officers could have told him of the suspension and cancellation of JSP during these calls. This is an apparent source of grievance to Mr Thorpe. A response to that might be, why would they notify him further? Centrelink had issued written suspension and cancellation notices to him. The ESP had sent him numerous text messages regarding suspension of his JSP.
However, contrary to Mr Thorpe’s evidence, Departmental records show there was no contact from Mr Thorpe from at least 11 January 2022 to 27 March 2022, and so no opportunity for Centrelink staff to advise him.[26]
[26] T8, 60; ST1, 120-122.
I do not believe that Mr Thorpe was lying in his evidence when he said that he contacted Centrelink numerous times in this period. However, on balance, I am persuaded by the evidence of the Departmental records showing that there was in fact no contact. Mr Thorpe is a long-term recipient of benefits and has no doubt made many calls to Centrelink over the years. He is seeking to recall conversations from several years ago. In his evidence he said he attempted to call a number of times and could not get through. His evidence also varied as to whether there may have been a one week or a two-week gap in his efforts to contact Centrelink. In my view his memory is not clear, and he may be conflating various events. If Mr Thorpe had spoken to Centrelink numerous times in the relevant period, I do not consider that the Department would have no record of any calls.
Most importantly, Mr Thorpe agrees that regardless of who he may or may not have contacted, he did not do the two things that he should have: he did not provide anyone with the required report of his job seeking activities, and he did not respond to any of what he described as numerous text messages from his ESP. He has not provided a satisfactory reason why he would decide to contact Centrelink rather than contact his ESP, as he had in the past. I accept that Mr Thorpe was very unhappy with the employee of his ESP that he dealt with, and that he strongly disputed that he missed a particular appointment. This may mean that he did not want to deal with his ESP at that time. His choices and actions are of course a matter for him. However, given the multiple text notifications to him from his ESP; the suspension letter from Centrelink; Mr Thorpe’s experience as a long-term recipient of benefits; and his acknowledgement in his evidence of his awareness of his mutual obligation requirements, I consider that Mr Thorpe was very aware that his JSP had been suspended. He knew that he had to take action to avoid the consequences of that, as he had done in the past. I do not believe that it was impossible for Mr Thorpe to either contact his ESP, or report his job search activities, despite the obstacles that he said he faced. He failed to do things that were required of him, and he knew there would be consequences, including the possibility that JSP would be cancelled.
On the evidence before me and the application of the relevant law, the decision to suspend JSP to Mr Thorpe on 10 February 2022 and the subsequent decision to cancel JSP to Mr Thorpe from 27 January 2022, made on 18 March 2022, both of which were made because of Mr Thorpe’s failure to meet his mutual obligation requirements, were correct.
The Applicant’s JSP having been cancelled, for him to receive it again, he needed to make a fresh application, which he did on 30 March 2022. Pursuant to section 42AP of the Administration Act, JSP could not be paid until 4 weeks after cancellation, that is, 4 weeks after 27 January 2022, which is 24 February 2022. The Applicant applied for JSP on 30 March 2022, that is, after 24 February 2022. The law regarding the start date of payments means that he could expect the starting date for the payment of JSP to be 30 March 2022.
Mr Thorpe’s belief that payments could be backdated appears to arise from statements made to him by “half a dozen” Centrelink staff that he should backdate his claim. The Applicant’s account was not challenged by the Respondent in cross-examination. I accept that the Applicant sought to backdate his claim on the basis of his understanding of such statements. That does not mean that the Centrelink staff were correct if they asserted that backdating was an available or appropriate option. It is unfortunate if Mr Thorpe was encouraged by such statements. The payment of benefits is covered by law, and (other than the deeming provision) there is no basis in either the Act or the Administration Act for backdating the start of JSP to a date before a written claim is lodged.
As I am of the view that the decision to cancel the payment of JSP from 27 January 2022 was correct, the only possible mechanism for backdating the payment of JSP is the deeming provision.
Operation of the deeming provision
Section 13 of the Administration Act allows payment to commence from the time a person contacts Centrelink regarding a payment, rather than from the time they lodge a written application for payment, in certain circumstances. I do not accept Mr Thorpe’s evidence that he contacted Centrelink between 11 January and 26 March 2022. The first relevant date on which he contacted Centrelink was 27 March 2022, and so this is the earliest date on which the payment of JSP for which he lodged a written claim on 30 March 2022, could commence.
In the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions provided on 26 September 2024, and at the hearing the next day, Ms Donaghy advised that the Secretary accepted that Mr Thorpe’s contact on 27 March 2024 in relation to an Australian Government Disaster Relief Payment satisfied paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Administration Act in relation to JSP. Further, the Respondent accepted that Mr Thorpe is in a ‘class of persons’ as determined by the Social Security (Administration) (Class of Person – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018 (“the Determination). Accordingly, the Secretary accepts that an available earlier starting date for the Applicant’s JSP claim of 30 March 2022, was 27 March 2022
This is the only basis on which payment of JSP can commence earlier than 30 March 2022. Given the Respondent’s position on this issue, I will remit the matter to the Respondent to recalculate the Applicant’s JSP on the basis of a start date of 27 March 2022.
DECISION
The AAT1 decision of 17 October 2023 is set aside and remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the Applicant’s JobSeeker Payment be recalculated with a commencement date of 27 March 2022.
64.

I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty -three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Stevens

....................................[sgd]....................................
Associate
Dated: 11 October 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 27 September 2024

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms N Donaghy, Services Australia

[2024] AATA 3623

11 October 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Date(s) of hearing:	27 September 2024
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms N Donaghy, Services Australia