The cohabitation rule: Indeterminacy and oppression in australian social security law

Melbourne University Law Review

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2008, Pages

  Kieran, Tranter ^a   Lyndal, Sleep ^b   John, Stannard ^c  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c Welfare Rights Centre   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951934561     PISSN: 00258938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (399)

1. in relation to how being partnered affects the calculation of the Newstart allowance, see Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 1068(1)(a), (2). For the effect on the Aged Pension and Disability Support Pension,
2. see Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 1064(1)(a), (b), (4). For the difference between the Parenting Payment (Partnered) and the Parenting Payment (Single),
3. see Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 1068A, 1068B.
4. Single clients on Newstart receive a maximum fortnightly payment of $424.30 compared to $382.80 for partnered clients: Centrelink, A Guide to Australian Government Payments 20 March - 30 June 2007 (2007) 16 .
5. Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4(2).
6. Re El-Hourani and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1651 (Unreported, Senior Member Isenberg, 9 August 2007) [53], [59].
7. The cohabitation rule has always been limited to heterosexual relationships. Indeed, heterosexuality is a requirement of the rule in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4(2)(b)(i). For recent criticism of this requirement,
8. see Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Same-Sex: Same Entitlements: National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits (2007) 198-226.
9. See, eg, Zoe Fairbairns, The Cohabitation Rule -Why It Makes Sense' (1979) 2 Women's Studies International Quarterly 319.
10. Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4(2)(b).
11. Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4(3A).
12. See Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 4(2)(a), (b), (3). Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government, Determining Separation under One Roof (11 August 2008) Guide to Social Security Law .
13. See also Commonwealth Ombudsman, Marriage-Like Relationships: Policy Guidelines for Assessment under Social Security Law, Report No 14 (2007) 11-12 .
14. Bill Hayden made a classic defence of the cohabitation rule in Australia when he was Minister for Social Security (in Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 20 March 1974, 668):
15. The reason for granting a higher rate of pension to a single person is that a married couple can share the costs of day-to-day living whereas a single person needs a relatively higher rate in order to enjoy the same living standard.... Two single people could not beat the system by simply living together as man and wife. We could not countenance this. Our view, and that of our predecessors in office, was that a couple who live together in this way are in effect married, and they are treated accordingly by the Department of Social Security. I am talking about a male and a female in a de facto relationship.
16. Mareia Neave, 'From Difference to Sameness - Law and Women's Work' (1992) 18 Melbourne University Law Review 768, 796;
17. Meredith Edwards, 'Individual Equity and Social Policy' in Jacqueline Goodnow and Carole Pateman (eds), Women, Social Science and Public Policy (1985) 95.
18. See Meredith Ann Edwards, The Income Unit in the Australian Tax and Social Security Systems (DPhil Thesis, The Australian National University, 1983) 81-83
19. Julia Cabassi, 'Caught in the Poverty Trap' (1990) 15 Legal Service Bulletin 72, 74;
20. Helen Campbell, 'Single Mothers Deemed to Be Prostitutes' (1990) 15 Legal Service Bulletin 44;
21. Jocelynne AScutt, Women and the Law: Commentary and Materials (1990) 369-72;
22. Robin Joy, 'Single Mothers: Married to the State?' (1991) 8 Ormond Papers 142,149;
23. Meredith Wilkie, Women Social Security Offenders: Experiences of the Criminal Justice System in Western Australia (1993) 40-1;
24. Patricia Easteal, Less than Equal: Women and the Australian Legal System (2001) 69-74. For an example of a case in which this rule appeared to have this effect,
25. see Mary Jane Mossman, The Baxter Case: Social Security and Cohabitation Policy in Practice' (1976) 2 Legal Service Bulletin 66.
26. See below nn 90-92 and accompanying text.
27. th ed, 2006) 401-2.
28. st ed, 1990) 158,
29. nd ed, 2002) 14-15.
30. See Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006[Provisions] (2006) 17;
31. Welfare Rights Centre, 'Raid Powers Dumped' (2006) 24(4) Rights Review: News & Comment on Social Security Issues 7;
32. Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, in response to Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions], 23 November 2006, Submission No 12 (National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children Inc);
33. Evidence to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 10 November 2006, 5 (Helen Fleming, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman).
34. Tamar Hopkins, 'Divorcing Marital Status from Social Security Payments' (2005) 30 Alternative Law Journal 189;
35. Lyndal Sleep, Kieran Tranter and John Stannard, 'Cohabitation Rule in Social Security Law: The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same' (2006) 13 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 135;
36. Commonwealth Ombudsman, above n 9.
37. Terry Carney, Social Security Law and Policy (2006) 196-203. For general commentary on the relationship of welfare law and social values,
38. see Terry Carney and Peter Hanks, Social Security in Australia (1994) 249-251
39. Carney and Hanks, Social Security in Australia, above n 18, 253;
40. Terry Carney and Peter Hanks, Australian Social Security Law, Policy and Administration (1986) 239.
41. Stanley L Paulson, 'Lon L Fuller, Gustav Radbruch, and the "Positivist" Theses' (1994) 13 Law and Philosophy 313, 326-7;
42. Lon L Fuller, 'Positivism and Fidelity to Law-A Reply to Professor Hart' (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 630, 648-657
43. Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law (revised ed, 1969) 110.
44. Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law 1969 Ibid 43.
45. Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law 1969 Ibid 39.
46. Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law 1969 Ibid 42, 96.
47. Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law 1969 Ibid 38.
48. H L A Hart, 'Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals' (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 593;
49. Fuller, The Morality of Law, above n 21.
50. Fuller, The Morality of Law, above n 21, 107-8
51. . Hart famously suggested that a society comprising laws not accepted by the community 'might be deplorably sheeplike; the sheep might end in the slaughter-house': H L A Hart, The Concept of Law (1961) 114.
52. Old-Age Pensions Act 1900 (NSW) s 9(f).
53. Commonwealth, Royal Commission on Old-Age Pensions, Report on Royal Commission on Old-Age Pensions Together with Proceedings, Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and a Synopsis of the Evidence (1906) 42-3, 208, 242.
54. Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act 1908 (Cth) s 17(c).
55. Alan Jordan, 'As His Wife: Social Security Law and Policy on De Facto Marriage' (Research Paper No 16, Research and Statistics Branch of the Development Division of the Department of Social Security, 1981) 16-18.
56. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 14 May 1942, 1236-41
57. (Edward (Jack) Holloway, Minister for Social Services and Minister for Health);
58. Stephen Garton, Out of Luck: Poor Australians and Social Welfare 1788-1988 (1990) 135.
59. Wldows' Pensions Act 1942 (Cth) s 4.
60. Widows' Pensions Act 1942 (Cth) s 4 (emphasis in original).
61. Widows' Pensions Act 1943 (Cth) s 3(b). For a discussion of this change,
62. see Jordan, above n 31, 18.
63. Jordan, above n 31, 20.
64. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) ss 59-60.
65. See generally Jordan, above n 31, 23-35.
66. Social Security Act 1947 Ibid 26.
67. Social Security Act 1947 Ibid 32-35
68. nd ed, 1987) 135.
69. The introduction of the payment was an election promise adopted by the Whitlam-led Labor Party after the payment was pursued by a 'vigorous' campaign by the Council for the Single Mother and Her Child: Susan Barclay, 'Where There's No Will There's No Way: The Interaction of Community Attitudes and Government Policies for Sole Parents' (1990) 34 Refractory Girl 33, 34.
70. In the second reading speech, Bill Hayden glosses over this reform. He observed that: 'As with Widows' Pensions, Supporting Mothers' Benefit will not be payable if the women return to live with their husbands or if they are living with any man on a de facto basis': Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 22 May 1973, 2382-2383 (Bill Hayden, Minister for Social Security).
71. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) s 83AAA(10)(b). Section 83AAA was an amendment made to the 1947 Act by the Social Services Ad[No 3] 1973 (Cth) s 9 (emphasis in original).
72. Ronald Sackville, Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, Law and Poverty in Australia: Second Main Report October 1975 (1975) 192.
73. Social Services Act [No 3] 1975 (Cth) s 7.
74. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 15 October 1975, 2118 (Francis Stewart, Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Social Security).
75. Parliamentary Debates 1975 2118 Ibid.
76. Jordan, above n 31, 42-43
77. Mary Jane Mossman, 'De Facto Marriage and the Social Services Act' (1975) 1 Legal Service Bulletin 257, 257-258
78. Mary Jane Mossman, 'De Facto Marriage and the Social Services Act' (1975) 1 Legal Service Bulletin 257 Ibid 258.
79. On the administrative arrangements provided for by the 1975 policy,
80. see M J Mossman and Ronald Sackville, 'Cohabitation and Social Security Entitlement' in Susan Armstrong, M J Mossman and Ronald Sackville (eds), Essays on Law and Poverty: Bail and Social Security (1977) 80, 82-83
81. Jordan, above n 31, 37.
82. Mossman, 'De Facto Marriage and the Social Services Act', above n 50, 257.
83. M J Mossman, The Baxter Case: De Facto Marriage and Social Welfare Policy' (1977) 2 University of New South Wales Law Journal 1, 6-7.
84. M J Mossman, The Baxter Case: De Facto Marriage and Social Welfare Policy' (1977) 2 University of New South Wales Law Journal Ibid 4.
85. peter Hanks, 'Cohabitation and Natural Justice' (1979) 4 Legal Service Bulletin 177.
86. Ronald Sackville, 'Social Security and Family Law in Australia' (1978) 27 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 127, 157.
87. See also Mossman and Sackville, above n 51, 80.
88. Sackville, Law and Poverty in Australia, above n 45., 192;
89. Sackville, 'Social Security and Family Law in Australia', above n 57, 158.
90. Mossman, 'De Facto Marriage and Social Welfare Policy', above n 54, 17-18.
91. Mossman, 'Social Security and Cohabitation Policy in Practice', above n 13, 69;
92. Mary Jane Mossman, 'Decision-Making by Welfare Tribunals: The Australian Experience' (1979) 29 University of Toronto Law Journal 218, 229-30.
93. Hanks documented in 1979 the situation of a client who had been disentitled to her pension on the basis of cohabitating, only to have it reinstated upon commencement of proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the High Court: Hanks, above n 56, 178-179
94. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) pt IVAAA.
95. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) pt IV.
96. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) ss 6(1), 83AAA.
97. The inclusion of fathers was achieved by the Social Services Amendment Act 1977 (Cth) s 3,
98. which amended the Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) to include s 83AAA.
99. Prior to the 1977 amendment sole fathers were granted a Special Benefit at the Department's discretion: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 4 November 1977, 2917 (Ralph Hunt, Minister for Health).
100. Jordan, above n 31, 59.
101. -(1980) 49 FLR 98.
102. Parliamentary Debates 1947 Ibid 107-9 (Senior Member Todd, Members Oxby and McLelland);
103. John Kirkwood, Social Security: Law and Policy (1986) 61-2;
104. Carney, above n 18, 188.
105. -(1981) 38 ALR 405.
106. Re Lambe and Director-General of Social Services [1981] AATA 24 (Unreported, Senior Member Hall, Members Pascoe and Billings, 8 April 1981) [47].
107. Lambe (1981) 38 ALR 405, 413 (Evatt, Fisher and Ellicott JJ).
108. -(1983) 52 ALR 128, 131 (Fitzgerald J).
109. -[1981] AATA 42 (Unreported, Senior Member Todd, Members Oxby and Wickens, 5 June 1981) [22]-[29].
110. th ed, 1989) 22.
111. -(1991) 32 FCR 164.
112. Peter Johnson, The Annotated Social Security Act 1989 Ibid 166 (O'Loughlin J) (emphasis in original).
113. Peter Johnson, The Annotated Social Security Act 1989 Ibid 170.
114. Lynam (1983) 52 ALR 128, 131 (Fitzgerald J).
115. Jordan made this point clearly when, having considered the 1980 and 1981 decisions of the AAT and Federal Court, he suggested that the Department of Social Security's 1975 policy had been 'vindicated' by those decisions: Jordan, above n 31, 68.
116. See, eg, Lois Bryson, 'Women as Welfare Recipients: Women, Poverty and the State' in Cora V Baldock and Bettina Cass (eds), Women, Social Welfare and the State in Australia (1983) 130,141;
117. Edwards, above n 12;
118. Regina Graycar and Deena Shiff (eds), Life without Marriage: A Woman's Guide to the Law (1987) 115.
119. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act [No 3] 1989 (Cth) ss 24-25
120. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 October 1989, 1606 (Brian Howe, Minister for Social Security).
121. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) s 3A,
122. amended by Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act [No 3] 1989 (Cth) s 25.
123. Explanatory Memorandum, Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill [No 3] 1989 (Cth) 18.
124. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1989 Ibid.
125. This was confirmed by textbooks on social security law which restated the existing principles within the statutory framework. The first edition of Peter Sutherland's annotation of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) stated that the s 4(3) 'criteria reflect the principles developed under the 1947 Act':
126. st ed, 1992) 7. This approach continues in the latest edition, which regards the AAT and Federal Court decisions concerning the phrase 'living with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis' as authority for the current rule:
127. nd ed, 2005) 10. Carney's text also adopts this continuity:
128. see Carney, above n 18, 189.
129. Helen Goodman, whose study period corresponded with the introduction of the statutory criteria, was also of the opinion that the statute 'reflected] the previous understanding of relevant case law': Helen Goodman, 'Social Security Appeals Tribunal Decisions and De Facto Relationships: Some Pointers to Variance with the Department of Social Security Decisions' (1997) 4 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 92, 93.
130. Goodman, above n 84, 101-2;
131. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act [No 3] 1989 (Cth) s 28.
132. Social Security Act 1947 (Cth) s 43A(1).
133. This section was inserted into the Act via Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act [No 3] 1989 (Cth) s 28.
134. See, eg, Cabassi, above n 13, 74;
135. Campbell, above n 13, 44-5;
136. st ed, 1990) 152-3;
137. Joy, above n 13, 149;
138. Neave, above n 11, 796.
139. Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4(3A).
140. Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Act 1999 (Cth).
141. There was no mention in Parliament when this Bill was introduced as to the specific reason for removal of ss 4(4) and (5) except that it was part of the clarification of social security law associated with the introduction of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth):
142. see Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 3 June 1999, 5936 (Warren Truss, Minister for Community Services).
143. There are no similar provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).
144. Social Security Legislation Amendment Act [No 2] 1994 (Cth) s 29(b).
145. Social Security (Parenting Allowance and Other Measures) Legislative Amendment Act 1994 (Cth) sch 4.
146. Social Security (Home Child Care and Partner Allowances) Legislation Amendments Act 1994 (Cth) s 5,
147. amending the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) to include s 771HA(1)
148. ; Social Security (Parenting Allowance and Other Measures) Legislative Amendment Act 1994 (Cth) sch 1(1),
149. amending the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) to include s 905.
150. Social Security (Non-Budget Measures) Legislation Amendment Act 1995 (Cth) s 14(c).
151. Sutherland and Anforth, above n 84,16.
152. Sleep, Tranter and Stannard, 'Cohabitation Rule in Social Security Law', above n 17, 138.
153. See Commonwealth of Australia, Determining a Marriage-Like Relationship (2008) Guide to Social Security Law
154. See, eg, Re Perera and Department of Family and Community Services (2004) 78 ALD 739.
155. -[2005] AATA 1147 (Unreported, Senior Member McCabe, 18 November 2005).
156. -[2005] AATA 1147 Ibid [22] (Senior Member McCabe).
157. See also Re McKenzie and Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 92 (Unreported, Senior Member Imlach, 6 February 2006) [15].
158. Wilkie, above n 13, 43.
159. ARO review is the first tier of the merits review scheme for decisions under social security law: Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 129. Section 135(1) allows 'authorised review officers' to exercise the Secretary's review power and s 235 allows the Secretary to authorise AROs. There exists a pre-formal review stage called the Original Decision-Maker ('ODM') Reconsideration process. On the relationship between the ODM and ARO stages,
160. see generally Australian National Audit Office, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System, Report No 35 (2005);
161. Australian National Audit Office, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System Follow-Up Audit, Report No 40 (2007).
162. Answers to Questions on Notice to Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, Parliament of Australia, Centrelink - Fraud - Debt Recovery, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2006-2007, 31 October 2006, Question No HS32, 3 (Department of Human Services and Agencies).
163. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006 (2006) 86.
164. Answers to Questions on Notice to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Centrelink - Marriage-Like Relationships, Budget Estimates, 1 November 2005, Question No HS36, 2 (Department of Human Services).
165. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102, 86.
166. Answers to Questions on Notice to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, Additional Estimates, 15 February 2005, Question No HS44, answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
167. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004 (2004) 140.
168. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
169. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
170. Goodman, above n 84, 101.
171. Commonwealth Ombudsman, above n 9, 5.
172. Australian National Audit Office, 'Review of the Parenting Payment Single Program' (Report No 44, Department of Family and Community Services, 2003) 88.
173. 'Review of the Parenting Payment Single Program' 2003 Ibid.
174. -(2006) 151 FCR 546.
175. Re Pelka and Department of Family and Community Services (2005) 85 ALD 787, 787-788 (Member Savage Davis).
176. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 556-557
177. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR Ibid 556.
178. Re Cullinane and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 1078 (Unreported, Hack DP, 14 December 2006) [22], [33];
179. Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Finn (2006) 92 ALD 223, 228 ('Finn').
180. Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Muller [2007] AATA 73 (Unreported, Member Webb, 26 February 2007) [11].
181. Re Kenny and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 725 (Unreported, Member Carstairs, 31 July 2006) [23].
182. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 555-6. This explanation of the decision-making process has been cited by the AAT in subsequent cases:
183. see, eg, Re Nguyen and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 1106 (Unreported, Hack DP, 21 December 2006) [43];
184. Finn (2006) 92 ALD 223, 226;
185. Re Bolton and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 685 (Unreported, Member Carstairs, 8 August 2006) [8].
186. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 555-556
187. Kieran Tranter, Lyndal Sleep and John Stannard, 'After Pelka: Marriage-Like Relationships under Social Security Law' (2007) 32 Alternative Law Journal 208.
188. -(2007) 210 FLR 121, 127-128
189. Re Marei and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 656 (Unreported, Member Way, 26 July 2006) [29].
190. Marei (2007) 210 FLR 121, 137 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
191. Many of the changes were as a result of the Commonwealth Ombudsman report process:
192. see Commonwealth Ombudsman, above n 9, 13-14.
193. Commonwealth of Australia, Determining a Marriage-Like Relationship, above n 96 (emphasis in original).
194. This is a change from the 2005 wording of the Guide: Commonwealth of Australia, 'Summary' in Guide to Social Security Law (2005) [2.2.5.10] (copy on file with authors).
195. See also Sleep, Tranter and Stannard, 'Cohabitation Rule in Social Security Law', above n 17, 138.
196. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 556.
197. Indeed, it appears that there was little personal gain for Marilyn Pelka. After the case was returned to the AAT by the Federal Court, the AAT made a detailed decision that considered and balanced all the evidence for each of the criteria in s 4(3). They ultimately decided that Marilyn Pelka was in a marriage-like relationship:
198. see Re Pelka and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2007] AATA1868 (Unreported, Hotop DP and Member Tovey, 16 October 2007). Ms Pelka also appealed this second decision to the Federal Court. The appeal was dismissed:
199. Re Pelka v Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) 102 ALD 22.
200. See, eg, Re EI-Hourani and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1651 (Unreported, Senior Member Isenberg, 9 August 2007) [58].
201. Commonwealth of Australia, Determining a Marriage-Like Relationship, above n 96.
202. Tranter, Sleep and Stannard, 'After Pelka', above n 122, 210.
203. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 556.
204. See above nn 21-27 and accompanying text.
205. Centrelink does not keep a register of primary cohabitation decisions. However, appeal and prosecution figures for cohabitation decisions are currently available: Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answers [3], [6] (Department of Human Services).
206. A preliminary step of appeal is the requirement that the ODM reviews the initial decision. The Australian National Audit Office has been critical of this preliminary step:
207. Australian National Audit Office, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System, above n 100:
208. Australian National Audit Office, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System Follow-Up Audit, above n 100.
209. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976 (Cth) reg 19(6).
210. Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cah) s 142.
211. Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 179.
212. This includes client and Secretary appeals.
213. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink-Fraud-Debt Recovery, above n 101. 6 (Department of Human Services and Agencies).
214. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102, 86.
215. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink-Fraud-Debt Recovery, above n 101. 7 (Department of Human Services and Agencies).
216. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102, 86.
217. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink - Fraud - Debt Recovery, above n 101. 8-9 (Department of Human Services and Agencies).
218. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102, 86.
219. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink-Marriage-Like Relationships, above n 103. 2 (Department of Human Services).
220. Centrelink, Annual Report 2004-2005 (2005) 125.
221. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink - Marriage-Like Relationships, above n 103. 3 (Department of Human Services).
222. Centrelink, Annual Report 2004-2005, above n 148, 125.
223. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink-Marriage-Like Relationships, above n 103, 4-5 (Department of Human Services).
224. Centrelink, Annual Report 2004-2005, above n 148, 125.
225. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
226. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
227. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
228. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
229. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
230. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
231. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
232. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106,140.
233. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
234. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
235. Answers to Questions on Notice, Impact of 'Marriage-Like' Relationships on Payment Recipients, above n 105. answer [3] (Department of Human Services).
236. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 140.
237. A note of caution is required when reading Table 3. Due to the time taken to finalise SSAT and AAT appeals, it is highly unlikely that an ARO decision would be appealed to the AAT within a year. This means that the SSAT and AAT decisions would generally be appeals from ARO decision from the previous year.
238. Jane Mussett, 'Crime? and Punishment! Sole Parent Pensioners, Criminal Convictions and Administrative Review' in Julian Disney (ed), Current Issues in Social Security Law (1994) 95.
239. CDPP, Annual Report 2005-2006 (2006) 67.
240. CDPP, Annual Report 2004-2005. (2005) 27.
241. CDPP, Annual Report 2004-2005. Ibid 25.
242. CDPP, Annual Report 2002-2003 (2003) 23.
243. CDPP, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 167, 68.
244. CDPP, Annual Report 2004-2005, above n 168, 34.
245. CDPP, Annual Report 2003-2004 (2004) 27.
246. CDPP, Annual Report 2002-2003, above n 170, 24.
247. Indeed, in Wilkie's study four of the 10 women interviewed were prosecuted in relation to the cohabitation rule and six of the 10 served jail terms: Wilkie, above n 13, 13.
248. The basis for this assumption is twofold. First, our anecdotal experience from working within the social security appeal and prosecution system is that clients facing prosecution arising from an alleged cohabitation do not appear to be more likely to plead not guilty than other clients facing prosecution arising from other circumstances. Secondly, recent empirical studies of summary prosecutions of Centrelink clients have not reported that cohabitation clients appear as an identifiable group of defendants who plead not guilty more often:
249. see, eg, Greg Marston and Tamara Walsh, 'A Case of Misrepresentation: Social Security Fraud and the Criminal Justice System in Australia' (2008) 17 Griffith Law Review 285.
250. See above n 17 and accompanying text.
251. Claims of indeterminacy and oppressive administration are not unique to Australia's cohabitation rule. Indeed, similar claims have been made about a similar rule in other jurisdictions.
252. In New Zealand see, eg, Jessica Wiseman, 'Determining a Relationship in the Nature of Marriage: The Impact of Ruka on the Department of Work and Income's Conjugal Status Policy' (2001) 32 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 973.
253. In Israel see, eg, Shiri Regev, Revealing Realities beyond the Formal Law: Untold Stories of Israeli Single Mothers Living on Welfare (JSM Thesis, Stanford University, 2006). In the United Kingdom
254. see, eg, Gillian Douglas, The Family, Gender and Social Security' in Neville Harris (ed), Social Security Law in Context (2000) 267;
255. Ian Loveland, 'Policing Welfare: Local Authority Responses to Claimant Fraud in the Housing Benefit Scheme' (1989) 16 Journal of Law and Society 187, 195-6.
256. In the United States see, eg, Andrea Paterson, 'Between Helping the Child and Punishing the Mother: Homelessness among AFDC Families' (1989) 12 Harvard Women's Law Journal 237, 245-6;
257. Sylvia A Law, 'Women, Work Welfare, and the Preservation of Patriarchy' (1983) 131 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1249,1258-9.
258. In Canada see, eg, Errlee Carruthers, 'Prosecuting Women for Welfare Fraud in Ontario: Implications for Equality' (1995) 11 Journal of Law and Social Policy 241, 252-254
259. The decisions were identified through using searches of the key terms 'marriage-like', 'marriage', '4(3)' and 'separate and apart' on Austlii. Decisions in which social security cohabitation was not the central issue were excluded. Crosschecking with Table 2 reveals that these 79 decisions are not all AAT decisions for 2005-2007. For the 12 months between July 2005 and June 2006 there were 56 AAT cohabitation appeals, suggesting that for a three-year period (including the 56 decisions occurring in July 2005-June 2006) there have been more AAT decisions than 79. However, whilst the 79 decisions are not all of the AAT decisions for 2005-2007, they do form a substantial sample.
260. The payment noted for each case was the principle payment that the client was receiving for the longest period covered by the appeal. Where a payment has undergone a name change but its eligibility requirements have remained consistent (for example Sole Parent Pension becoming Parenting Payment Single in 1998) the current name was used. Where there were two AAT decisions concerning the same client and same circumstances, such as in Pelka, only the first decision was included.
261. The analysis revealed a significant variation in how AAT members draft decisions. Some members do not provide much detail concerning the administrative history of the matter. However, most provided an administrative history within the first couple of paragraphs and most provide an insight into the client's experience through providing a summary of the client's 'evidence-in-chief'.
262. This analysis of AAT decisions follows the approach used by Sleep, Tranter and Stannard, 'Cohabitation Rule in Social Security Law', above n 17.
263. A copy of the schedule is available from the authors.
264. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interviews ranged from 40 minutes to two hours in length. Transcripts were coded using codes that were built up through repeated analysis of the transcript. The interview data is to provide a window or snapshot into how some clients experience the Centrelink cohabitation decisions. We do not claim that the sample size is 'representative'. Gauging what would be a representative sample would be difficult as the number of cohabitation investigations and decisions made by Centrelink annually is unknown. We stopped recruiting at 16 as we had only a limited group of National Welfare Rights Network clients to draw from, there were an expected high number of declines and we were keen to maintain confidentiality by not interviewing all possible participants. We also stopped recruiting as we believed that we had achieved a good balance of ages and payment types. Furthermore, after 16 interviews it was felt by the research team that we had reached theoretical saturation, that is, we had started to see many patterns and regularities in the client's accounts. In what follows we do not ground claims about Centrelink's administration solely from the interview data. Instead we triangulate the interview data with data from the AAT analysis and data drawn from other sources. The interview data provides a rich source on the subjective experience for clients of the current regime.
265. Aliases are fictitious and were chosen at random.
266. The same criteria to determine the principle payment and use of current name for payment used in the AAT analysis above was adopted for the interviews: see above n 180.
267. Commonwealth of Australia, PP Reviews (2007) Guide to Social Security Law < http://www.facsia.gov.au/guides-acts/ssg/ssguide-6/ssguide-6.2/ssguide-6. 2.4/ssguide-6.2.4.10. html>.
268. The application of this policy can be seen in Re Lenard and Department of Family and Community Services (2004) 80 ALD 421.
269. See generally Lucie E White, 'No Exit: Rethinking "Welfare Dependency" from a Different Ground' (1993) 81 Georgetown Law Journal 1961, 1964-1969
270. See, eg, Finn (2006) 92 ALD 223;
271. Re Department of Family and Community Services and Glachan [2005] AATA 899 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 16 September 2005) ('Glachan').
272. see, eg, Re Department of Family and Community Services and 'VBH' (2006) 89 ALD 293;
273. Re McKenzie and Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 92 (Unreported, Senior Member Imlach, 6 February 2006).
274. See, eg, Re Whell and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1741 (Unreported, Senior Member Carstairs, 7 September 2007);
275. Re A and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 253 (Unreported, Member Sourdin, 16 March 2006).
276. See, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Donnelly [2007] AATA 1366 (Unreported, Senior Member Pascoe, 25 May 2007) [2] ('Donnelly');
277. Re Kenny and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 725 (Unreported, Member Carstairs, 31July 2006) [4];
278. Re Milosev and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 363 (Unreported, Member Horton, 26 April 2005) [5],
279. later reported in (2005) 85 ALD 784;
280. Re Department of Family and Community Services and Mehanna [2005] AATA 575 (Unreported, Senior Member Bell, 16 June 2005).
281. see, eg, Re Marei and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 656 (Unreported, Member Way, 26 July 2006) [10].
282. see, eg, Re Pisano and Department of Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 763 (Unreported, Senior Member Hastwell, 7 September 2006) [27];
283. Re Lasan and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 724 (Unreported, Member Way, 27 July 2005) [9]-[10].
284. see, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Gilson [2007] AATA 1361 (Unreported, Purvis DP, 25 May 2007) [13].
285. Re Department of Family and Community Services and Nahas (2005) 86 ALD 659, 677-678 (Senior Member Handley).
286. See, eg, Re Yakoubian and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 452 (Unreported, Member Friedman, 19 May 2005);
287. Re Demirand Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 906 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 24 October 2006);
288. Re R1 and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 827 (Unreported, Senior Member Constance, 26 August 2005).
289. see, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Williams [2007] AATA 1781 (Unreported, Member Tovey, 19 September 2007) [34], [93];
290. Re QX2006/7 and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 600 (Unreported, Member Levy, 6 July 2006) [35].
291. Re Holmes and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1502 (Unreported, Senior Member Levy, 3 July 2007) [21].
292. Re Stead and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 292 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 31 March 2006) [10], [51]-[52].
293. -[2006] AATA 153 (Unreported, Member Horton, 23 February 2006) [8]-[9], [21].
294. -[2006] AATA 8 (Unreported, Member Perton, 9 January 2006).
295. -2006, AATA, Ibid [6], [13], [22].
296. -2006, AATA, Ibid [28].
297. 2006, AATA, Ibid [34].
298. 'Meredith', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 30-35.
299. Meredith, Parenting Payment (Single), Ibid.
300. Meredith, Parenting Payment (Single), Ibid.
301. Meredith, Parenting Payment (Single), Ibid.
302. 'Rosie', Carers Payment, aged 50-55.
303. Repeated studies have shown that the limited financial resources, mental illness and care responsibilities means that a person is less likely to exercise appeal rights or take proactive steps to challenge an adverse decision: see, eg, Mary Anne Noone, 'Access to Justice Research in Australia' (2006) 31 Alternative Law Journal 30.
304. -[2006] AATA 8 (Unreported, Member Perton, 9 January 2006) [2], [8].
305. The current authority for this power is the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (ah) s 192.
306. A person can include a Commonwealth or state department or agency and, significantly, the obligation to release documents or information is not defeated by the operation of any state and territory laws: Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (ah) ss 191, 198.
307. Centrelink, Annual Report 1998-1999 (1999) 194.
308. Centrelink, Annual Report 1999-2000 (2000) 220.
309. Centrelink, Annual Report 2000-2001 (2001) 229-230
310. Centrelink, Annual Report 2001-2002 (2002) 7.
311. Centrelink, Annual Report 2002-2003 (2003) 81.
312. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 56, 58.
313. Annual Report 2003-2004, 56, Ibid 60.
314. Annual Report 2003-2004, 56, Ibid.
315. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102, 27.
316. Paul Henman, Targeted! Population Segmentation, Electronic Surveillance and Governing the Unemployed in Australia' (2004) 19 International Sociology 173.
317. Centrelink, Annual Report 2003-2004, above n 106, 51.
318. See, eg, Re Lasan and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 724 (Unreported, Member Way, 27 July 2005) [7.16];
319. Re Caldwell and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 523 (Unreported, Member Shanahan, 3 June 2005) [4].
320. see, eg, Re O'Brien and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1439 (Unreported, Hack DP, 18 June 2007) [6];
321. Re VCG and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2006) 93 ALD 215, 228-9 (Forgie DP);
322. Re Department of Family and Community Services and Webb [2005] AATA 668 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 6 July 2005) [6]-[7] ['Webb').
323. see, eg, Finn (2006) 92 ALD 223, 228 (Hack DP);
324. Cahill [2005] AATA 1147 (Unreported, Senior Member McCabe, 18 November 2005) [19].
325. See, eg, Re Demir and Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 906 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 24 October 2006) [44];
326. Re Ayres and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 627 (Unreported, Member Savage Davis, 30 June 2005) [7], [17].
327. See, eg, Re Shires and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1080 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 22 February 2007) [10];
328. Re Lasan and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 724 (Unreported, Member Way, 27 July 2005) [7.18].
329. See, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and lies [2007] AATA 1671 (Unreported, Senior Member Cunningham, 16 August 2007) [21];
330. Re Acin and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 877 (Unreported, Senior Member Shearer, 16 October 2006) [29].
331. see, eg, Re Whell and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1741 (Unreported, Senior Member Carstairs, 7 September 2007) [27]-[28];
332. Re Stead and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 292 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 31 March 2006) [10].
333. See, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and lies [2007] AATA 1671 (Unre ported, Senior Member Cunningham, 16 August 2007) [44];
334. Re Demir and Department of Family and Community Services [2006] AATA 906 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 24 October 2006) [28].
335. see, eg, Re Hodges and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 255 (Unreported, Member Webb, 17 March 2006) [10], [12];
336. Webb [2005] AATA 668 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 6 July 2005) [35].
337. See, eg, Re EI-Hourani and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1651 (Unreported, Senior Member Isenberg, 9 August 2007) [23];
338. Re O'Brien and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1439 (Unreported, Hack DP, 18 June 2007) [23].
339. see, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and George [2006] AATA 153 (Unreported, Member Horton, 23 February 2006) [9].
340. see, eg, Glachan [2005] AATA 899 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 16 September 2005) [70], [81].
341. see, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Sperring [2007] AATA 1050 (Unreported, Senior Member Isenberg, 8 February 2007) [30].
342. See, eg, Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Cranefield [2007] AATA 1562 (Unreported, Member Davis, 18 July 2007) [9];
343. Glachan [2005] AATA 899 (Unreported, Member Kenny, 16 September 2005) [44];
344. Webb [2005] AATA 668 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 6 July 2005) [53].
345. See, eg, Re Whell and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1741 (Unreported, Senior Member Carstairs, 7 September 2007) [41].
346. webb [2005] AATA 668 (Unreported, Senior Member Kelly, 6 July 2005) [37].
347. See, eg, Re Potros and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1556 (Unreported, Senior Member Isenberg, 17 July 2007) [12];
348. Re Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Huynh [2007] AATA 1846 (Unreported, Member Tovey, 8 October 2007) [97];
349. Re Nguyen and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 1106 (Unreported, Hack DP, 21 December 2006) [28].
350. See above nn 4-9 and accompanying text.
351. The detail of the proposed scheme is set out in Explanatory Memorandum, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 (ah) 11-33.
352. welfare Rights Centre, above n 16;
353. Evidence to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 10 November 2006, 36-7 (Michael Raper, President, National Welfare Rights Network);
354. Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, responding to the Senate inquiry into the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions], 23 November 2006, Submission No 12 (National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children Inc);
355. Evidence to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 10 November 2006, 5 (Helen Fleming, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman).
356. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions] (2006) 22-24
357. Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions] , 2006, Ibid 27.
358. The Opposition emphasised that during the inquiry, government senators opposed sch 2: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 28 November 2006, 63 (Chris Evans, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate).
359. commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 28 November 2006, 72 (Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs).
360. 'Arthur', Disability Support Pension, aged 40-45.
361. 'Jocelyn', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 25-30.
362. 'Arthur', Disability Support Pension, aged 40-45.
363. Arthur, Disability Support Pension, Ibid.
364. 'Rachel', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 40-45.
365. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions] (2006) 27.
366. see Mussett, above n 166, 95.
367. -(1993) 42 FCR 276.
368. 1993, 42, FCR, Ibid 284 (Spender, Gummow and Lee JJ).
369. The Court rejected the Secretary's argument that the AAT was bound by any criminal conviction and noted that evidence of a conviction was not conclusive and did not prevent the AAT from considering the evidence of the matter and coming to the correct and preferable decision. This explains Walters [2006] AATA 8 (Unreported, Member Perton, 9 January 2006) [27], where conviction was used as evidence of cohabitating, though it was not conclusive.
370. -[2006] AATA 824 (Unreported, Senior Member McCabe, 28 September 2006).
371. -2006, AATA, Ibid [2].
372. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink-Marriage-Like Relationships, above n 103. 6 (Department of Human Services).
373. Centrelink-Marriage-Like Relationships, Ibid 6-7.
374. Re Pelka and Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 120 (Unreported, Member Savage Davis, 8 February 2005) [5],
375. later reported in (2005) 85 ALD 787.
376. Centrelink, Annual Report 2005-2006, above n 102,15, 57, 81.
377. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions] (2006).
378. Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, responding to the Senate inquiry into the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions], 23 November 2006, Submission No 8 (Queensland Council for Civil Liberties).
379. Evidence to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 10 November 2006, 35 (Michael Raper, President, National Welfare Rights Network).
380. Raper's statement was quoted in the final report: see Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 [Provisions] (2006) 21.
381. Evidence to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Canberra 10 November 2006, 33 (Michael Raper, President, National Welfare Rights Network).
382. -[2007] AATA 1366 (Unreported, Senior Member Pascoe, 25 May 2007).
383. [2007] AATA 1366 2007 Ibid [7].
384. See also Re O'Brien and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1439 (Unreported, Hack DP, 18 June 2007) [6].
385. 'Sabrina', Newstart Allowance, aged 50-55.
386. 'Mary', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 30-35.
387. 'Jocelyn', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 25-30.
388. 'Sabrina', Newstart Allowance, aged 50-55.
389. 'Regina', Disability Support Pension, aged 60-65.
390. 'Mary', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 30-35.
391. 'Arthur', Disability Support Pension, aged 40-45.
392. 'Violet', Disability Support Pension, aged 60-65.
393. Violet, Disability Support Pension, Ibid.
394. Verdant', Widow's Allowance, aged 55-60.
395. 'Rachel', Parenting Payment (Single), aged 40-45.
396. Pelka (2006) 151 FCR 546, 556.
397. Answers to Questions on Notice, Centrelink - Fraud - Debt Recovery, above n 101, 8 (Department of Human Services and Agencies). This figure was arrived at by dividing the 'changed decisions' column from the 'decisions' column less the 'withdrawn appeals' column.
398. Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Annual Report 2005-2006 (2006) 129. This figure includes appeals instigated by clients and the Secretaries.
399. For a preliminary assessment of reform proposals, see Tranter, Sleep and Stannard, 'After Pelka', above n 122.