Dismissal of application - jobseeker payment - no rent assistance paid - application for review of decision relating to rent assistance - whether parties consent to dismissal

1. The issue for the Tribunal in this matter is whether it is appropriate to dismiss the application for review under section 96 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act).
2. The Applicant was paid jobseeker payment from 22 July 2022 and her rate of payment from that date did not include an amount of rent assistance.
3. Following a request for an internal review, on 29 August 2024 an authorised review officer affirmed the decision to not pay the Applicant an amount of rent assistance as a component of her jobseeker payment. The authorised review officer's stated reasons for affirming the decision were as follows:

Rent Assistance is a supplement added to the rate of pension, benefit, allowance or Family Tax Benefit payable to eligible income support recipients who pay rent above the applicable rent threshold. Therefore, if a recipient qualifies for Rent Assistance, it is payable on the same basis as the primary payment.

For members of a couple, the rules for payment of Rent Assistance vary depending on the payment type being received by each partner. If the Rent Assistance recipient is an allowee (e.g. a JobSeeker recipient) and their partner receives a pension, then Rent Assistance is paid to the pensioner at the combined rate. As of 1 July 2024, the maximum payment of Rent Assistance for a couple combined is $177.20 per fortnight.

You have been in receipt of a JobSeeker Payment from 22 July 2024. Your partner is in receipt of an Age Pension. Rent Assistance is paid to your partner at the combined rate. As such, the decision made to not pay you Rent Assistance from 22 July 2024 is correct.

1. The policy contained in the Social Security Guide was referred to by the authorised review officer as part of the basis for their decision.
2. The Applicant sought a review of the decision by the Tribunal and on 17 April 2025 the Tribunal at first review affirmed the decision that rent assistance was not payable to the Applicant. In affirming the decision, the Tribunal at first review followed the policy in the Social Security Guide, which provides that where one member of a couple is receiving a pension and the other member of the couple is receiving an allowance, the person receiving the pension is paid the total amount of rent assistance payable to the couple.
3. The Applicant has sought a second review of the decision by the Tribunal.
4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal at a directions hearing on 11 November 2025 and both appeared by telephone.
5. At the directions hearing, the Applicant's representative indicated that the Applicant was present with him, but would not allow the Tribunal to speak directly to the Applicant. The Tribunal noted that it was conducting a directions hearing to manage the matter to a final hearing and the Applicant's representative stated that the matter "is finished" and he was "talking about a different thing". The Applicant's representative stated, variously, that the Applicant had never requested rent assistance, that there were other things to deal with and that the Tribunal was talking nonsense. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's representative disconnected twice during the directions hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted to the Tribunal that the Applicant's representative was clear that rent assistance was something that had been dispensed with and that he had other matters he was applying to them for a review of (relating to a debt and a compensation claim).
7. Given the presentation of the Applicant's representative at the directions hearing, the Tribunal issued directions after the directions hearing, dated 11 November 2025, that:

(i) The Applicant's representative indicated at the directions hearing held on 11 November 2025 that the rent assistance decision, currently listed before the Tribunal, is finished and he is seeking a review of another matter by the Tribunal.

(ii) The Applicant is to advise, by 25 November 2025, if this is incorrect and the Applicant is seeking the Tribunal proceed to review the rent assistance decision.

1. The Notes to the directions stated that:
   • - The Tribunal understands that the Applicant is agreeing to the matter being dismissed. If this is not correct, you are able to tell us otherwise on or before 25 November 2025.

• - Section 96 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 allows for a matter to be dismissed if the Tribunal has the consent of the parties to the proceeding.

• - If the Tribunal does not receive a response from the Applicant, it will be taken that there is agreement for the matter to be dismissed under section 96.

1. On 11 November 2025, the Applicant's representative responded in writing to the directions, in which he referred to himself as a "Public Prosecutor" and provided the following submissions:

The Melbourne Centerlink Center Director has been harassing my wife and I for nine years to collect a $6,000 debt. Both my wife and I have had our Centerlink payments and Workforce medical certificates cancelled. There were two shocking incidents. 1. A bank employee was dispatched to Brisbane to monitor my home. A Centerlink medical professional diagnosed me with severe diabetes, and my legs were becoming paralyzed. This surveillance was conducted to confirm with my own eyes the cancellation of my Workforce exemption. 2. The Melbourne Center Director personally visited me at Brown Plains Workforce. All he said to me was to go to Centerlink and reapply for my Age Pension. He said he flew from Melbourne to Brisbane to personally convey this message to me. No one in the world would accept such a blatant lie. The hidden motive was to obtain the $6,000. I thought it was a silent threat that my old-age pension would be cancelled if I didn't repay the debt. In fact, my old-age pension was cancelled three days after meeting with him. He forgot his civil servant status and travelled across the country seeking credit, a grave and nationally detrimental mistake. This is a truly deplorable incident. Pension application issues are resolved immediately with a summons from the local CenterLink. There is absolutely no reason for the Melbourne Center Director to mee with me in person regarding pension issues.

1. The Respondent submitted, in response to this information, that the Applicant's representative had expressed at the directions hearing that they no longer wished to continue with the application for review. The Respondent noted that the Applicant's representative's submissions addressed dissatisfaction with the Agency interactions but did not relate to the matter currently before the Tribunal.
2. Section 96 of the ART Act provides that the Tribunal may, at any time, dismiss an application made to the Tribunal if the Tribunal has the consent of the parties to the proceeding in relation to the application, other than any non-participating party to the proceeding.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's representative, acting on her behalf at the directions hearing, stated to the Tribunal that he considered the matter finished and he was focused on other issues that had arisen with Centrelink. The Applicant's representative was given further time after the directions hearing to advise the Tribunal otherwise and did not do so. The Tribunal found from the representations made by the Applicant's representative at the directions hearing, in addition to the lack of response to the Tribunal's directions to advise otherwise, that the Applicant consents to the application being dismissed. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent also consents to the dismissal in these circumstances.
4. Having weighed up the information before it, and given the findings made above, the Tribunal has decided to dismiss the application under section 96 of the ART Act.

The Tribunal dismisses the application under section 96 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.