1. On 5 April 2023, Centrelink sent an SMS message as follows:

A Services Australia Service Officer will call you today from a private number. Please answer this call. Do not reply by SMS

A further SMS message in the same terms was also sent on 5 April 2023, after the first attempt to call the Applicant, made at 11.36 am, was unsuccessful. A second attempt to call her at 12.16 pm was also unsuccessful. The final SMS message sent to the Applicant on 5 April 2023 was in these terms:

Rebook your missed appointment by 06/04/23 or your claim may be rejected. Sign into myGov to access your Centrelink online account. Do not reply by SMS

1. The Applicant did not rebook her appointment and her claim was subsequently rejected. She was notified that her claim had been "assessed" by SMS message dated 8 April 2023. She was advised to sign in to her online account or the app to access the relevant details. She was also sent a formal letter dated 6 April 2023 notifying that her claim had been rejected due to her failure to attend an interview.
2. Centrelink's records show that the Applicant subsequently started another online JSP claim on 11 May 2023 but asked that it be cancelled on 19 May 2023; she had been unable to withdraw it online. Further claims she commenced in May 2023 and January 2024 expired, which I infer means they were not lodged.
3. In June 2024, the Applicant lodged a claim for parenting payment as a single person; this claim was granted with effect from 27 March 2024.
4. The Applicant has provided a deal of written material in support of her case. An email dated 3 July 2025 includes:

The assertion that I failed to comply with Centrelink's requirements is misleading. While I

acknowledge that I did not attend the scheduled phone appointment on 5 April 2023, this

occurred during a period of acute psychological distress, as documented by my treating

clinical psychologist. Reducing this to simply being "stressed" fails to recognise the

seriousness of my condition at the time - which included diagnosed acute stress disorder,

major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress. These are not minor or temporary

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to imply that I should have uploaded additional

documentation after the claim was cancelled for non-attendance. I do not recall receiving

any texts or clear communication about the consequences of missing the appointment. I did not realise that failing to attend would result in the claim being cancelled altogether. Once I discovered the claim had been cancelled, I contacted Centrelink and was told I would need to submit an entirely new claim. This became yet another barrier. I went on to submit several further claims over time - all while still unwell - and none of it was

straightforward. The system is not designed to support people in crisis; it's designed to

1. In a later email dated 25 September 2025, the Applicant raised further points in support of her position:
   • She did not recall receiving any of the SMS messages or phone calls and, given the passage of time, she was unable to verify whether these contacts had occurred;
   • She was in a state of acute psychological distress at the time, referring to a report from her clinical psychologist. This should be considered a reasonable excuse for any failure on her part in the circumstances;
   • She was eventually granted parenting payment (single) (PPS) after many failed attempts to claim JSP; she would have been entitled to PPS from the outset.

1. In her claim, the Applicant stated she was not involved in any type of business inside Australia. The material before me shows she did conduct business activity via her private company. I note she indicated in the claim that she last worked on 31 March 2023, the date of lodgement. An obvious question arising in the context of her claim for JSP was whether she was unemployed, a critical requirement to qualify for this payment. A person devoting significant time and commitment to running a business, even if no or inadequate income results, may not necessarily be considered to be unemployed in terms of qualifying for JSP. The Applicant's financial circumstances were also, at face value, not straightforward.
2. I consider Centrelink's approach to promptly attempt to interview the Applicant was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. I also consider notification by SMS messages of the requirement to participate in a telephone interview on 5 April 2023 was reasonable. As to the Applicant's contention of not recalling any SMS messages or telephone calls on 4 and 5 April 2023, I note that section 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 has the general effect that such SMS messages are taken to have been received by the Applicant when they reached her electronic address. The provision is in the nature of a deeming provision, with the evident intent to address circumstances where an intended recipient claims not to have received nor been aware of the electronic communication. However, I accept the Applicant's contention that none of the SMS messages notifying her of the interview on 5 April 2023 informed her of the effect of a failure to attend the interview. It follows that this failure did not render JSP not payable: see subsections 63(7) and 64(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act).
3. The last SMS message sent to the Applicant on 5 April 2023 required her to rebook her missed appointment by 6 April 2023; it warned failure to do so may result in her claim being rejected. The requirement to contact Centrelink via her online account or otherwise was authorised by subsection 63(2) of the Administration Act. I am satisfied that notification via SMS message was reasonable in the circumstances: paragraph 63(5)(b) of the Administration Act.
4. The final requirement relating to this particular SMS was that it inform the Applicant "of the effect" of section 64 of the Administration Act. If it did not do so, then subsection 64(1) (which, if satisfied, operated to render JSP not payable to the Applicant) would not apply: subsection 63(7) of the Administration Act.
5. So far as is relevant, section 64 provides:

Effect of failing to comply with requirement to attend Department etc.

Person receiving, or claiming, social security payment

(a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; and

(b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection 63(2), (2AB) or (4); and

(c) the requirement in the notice is reasonable; and

(d) the person does not comply with the requirement; and

(e) except if the person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a participation payment--the Secretary is not satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement; and

(f) the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person;

the payment that the person is receiving or has claimed is not payable.

(a) a social security payment is not payable to a person because of subsection (1); and

(b) the Secretary is satisfied that it is no longer reasonable for that subsection to apply to the person in relation to the requirement in the notice given to the person under subsection 63(2), (2AB) or (4);

the Secretary may determine that, on and after a day specified by the Secretary, subsection (1) ceases to apply to the person in relation to that requirement.

What is the effect of section 64? In general terms here, if the Applicant was given appropriate notice of a reasonable requirement under subsection 63(2) and she failed to comply with the requirement, provided the Secretary (or Centrelink decision-makers originally, now the Tribunal on review) is satisfied it is reasonable for subsection 64(1) to apply, then JSP is not payable. However, there is a discretion available under subsection 64(4), if the relevant decision-maker is satisfied it is no longer reasonable for subsection 64(1) to apply to the Applicant in relation to the requirement in the notice given under subsection 63(2).

1. In practical terms, the application of section 64 could well have had the effect that JSP was not payable to the Applicant. If JSP was not payable, then a decision to reject her claim would have been appropriate. However, a determination JSP was not payable so that the claim had to be rejected was not inevitable, given the matters to be considered under section 64 before an adverse determination could be made. The SMS message warned that failure to rebook an appointment by 6 April 2023 may result in the Applicant's claim being rejected. In my view, that warning was sufficient to inform the Applicant of the practical effect of section 64 of the Administration Act.
2. Having failed to attend a telephone appointment on 5 April 2023, I consider it was a reasonable requirement for the Applicant to have to rebook the appointment by 6 April 2023. She failed to do so. Unless there is a favourable assessment under subsection 64(4) of the Administration Act, I am satisfied it was reasonable for subsection 64(1) to apply in the circumstances.
3. The Applicant relies on her state of psychological distress in early April 2023 in this context. The material she has provided includes two reports from her clinical psychologist. They are in similar terms, although the report dated 9 July 2024 contains somewhat more detail. This material indicates that the Applicant was initially referred in 2015 and they had been working on and off on issues which triggered occasional flare-ups of her anxiety and depression. Based on her initial presentation, possible diagnoses of Acute Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (Moderate) and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder were proffered. Also noted was a recent breast cancer diagnosis in May 2024 (the Applicant underwent chemotherapy treatment for this condition). The report of 9 July 2024 also included:

This is my clinical opinion that [the Applicant's] emotional condition at that time could seriously impact her ability to effectively perform everyday tasks and therefore her lack of diligence in lodging her Centrelink claims form (19/08/2023 and 02/05/2023) on time and missing the face-to-face interview appointment can be attributed to the impact of the extreme psychological stress she was under rather than the intentional attempt to avoid lodgment. The occurrences of procrastination (which is defined as an anxious avoidance due to agitated anxiety) is a well-known phenomenon associated with states of high, agitated arousal.

1. A few observations about this evidence seem appropriate. The Applicant has contended she was experiencing acute psychological distress in April 2023. There is no mention of this in the records of her contact with Centrelink on 10 and 19 May 2023. The first mention of issues of this kind impacting in the context of her claim on 31 March 2023 occurred in about June or July 2024. Further, there is nothing before me which indicates the Applicant was seeing her clinical psychologist at any time in 2023. I proceed on the basis he was attempting to assist her with these reports, based on her recounting of relevant circumstances in 2023. The critical timeframe here is from lodgement of claim on 31 March 2023 to 6 April 2023. The reports say nothing of this period; why dates in May and August 2023, as well as missing a face-to-face appointment, are detailed is not clear. Nevertheless, I accept that the Applicant has had longstanding issues with anxiety and depression and that, when she has a "flare-up", her functional capacity is significantly affected.
2. However, I note the Applicant was able to lodge her online claim on 31 March 2023. Her response in the claim indicated she was working at that point in time; I infer she was working in her business. She contacted Centrelink on 10 May 2023 and was told she would have to complete a new claim. She started to do so on 11 May 2023 but decided not to proceed with it and asked for it to be cancelled on 19 May 2023. The evidence indicates she was able to undertake overseas travel for a month from 6 June 2023.
3. Against this more contemporaneous background, I am not persuaded the Applicant was unable, by reason of her mental health or otherwise, to take Centrelink's phone calls on 5 April 2023 or rebook an appointment by 6 April 2023. I am not satisfied that it is no longer reasonable for subsection 64(1) of the Administration Act to apply her in relation to the notice given by SMS message on 5 April 2023 requiring her to rebook her missed appointment by 6 April 2023. That was a reasonable requirement at the time and, in my view, it remains so. It follows JSP was not payable to her so that the decision to reject her claim was appropriately made. Accordingly, that decision will be affirmed.
4. A couple of other matters warrant mention. In her written material, the Applicant referred to a decision in Re Secretary, DSS & Stokes [2012] AATA 131 where, it was contended, psychological illness affecting capacity to comply was considered a reasonable excuse. I have been unable to locate this decision; the citation given relates to Burkett and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs where the issue to be decided was whether Ms Burkett was a member of a couple for family payment purposes. That decision does not assist in this case.
5. The Applicant has raised the claim that she should have been entitled to PPS from the outset. Of course, that is not what she applied for on 31 March 2023. There was no positive duty on Centrelink to advise her to make such a claim, although that may have been helpful to her. I note that entitlement to PPS in 2024 could not establish that the Applicant was qualified for JSP at the time of her claim on 31 March 2023. The only decision I have jurisdiction to review is the JSP rejection decision; I have no jurisdiction to consider whether there might be any basis upon which her successful PPS claim in 2024 could be granted with effect from a date earlier than 27 March 2024.

Ms S Navaratnam, Litigation Branch, Services Australia