1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant lodged an online claim for jobseeker payment with the Respondent on 17 December 2024. In the claim form, he stated that he was single and did not have children under 18 in his care. He stated that he had ceased work on 26 November 2024 for medical reasons. At the time of claim, he stated he had $60 in a savings account, $14,000 in a second savings account and did not have any cash on hand.
2. Subsequent to the claim being lodged, the Applicant provided a range of supporting documentation relevant to the claim. This included an employment separation certificate, dated 20 December 2024, stating that the Applicant had ceased work on 8 December 2024 and had ceased work voluntarily. His final gross payment was $1,025, including leave and redundancy payments. The Applicant also provided bank statements for his accounts and a medical certificate dated 20 December 2024. The certificate stated the Applicant's primary diagnosis was "umbilical hernia repaired" and there was post-surgical infection. The duration of the functional impact was expected to be from 13 weeks up to 24 months. No date of onset was identified in the certificate, although the Applicant was assessed as incapacitated for work, study or activities from 8 November 2024 to 8 February 2025.
3. It is also not in dispute that the Applicant transferred amounts to his sister shortly after the claim for jobseeker payment was made. The Applicant transferred $5,000 on 3 January 2025, $3,000 on 4 January 2025 and $4,000 on 5 January 2025. Following the three transfers, the Applicant's balance in the account in question as of 5 January 2025 was $1,666.92.
4. Section 598 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Social Security Act) provides for a liquid assets test waiting period in specified circumstances, where a person's liquid assets exceed their maximum reserve. Section 620 of the Social Security Act provides for an ordinary waiting period in specified circumstances. Because of the amounts stated to be held in the bank accounts at the time of claim, consideration of each of these provisions is relevant to the Applicant's claim. The Tribunal considered each waiting period in turn, in respect of the claim lodged with the Respondent on 17 December 2024.

1. The basic qualification requirements for jobseeker payment are contained in Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 2.12 of the Social Security Act. Section 593 of the Social Security Act provides the qualification requirements for jobseeker payment and includes, in part, that the person is unemployed and meets age and residency requirements. Subsection 598(1) of the Social Security Act then provides for a liquid assets test waiting period in the following circumstances:

(1) Subject to subsections (4A), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (8B), if:

(a) the value of a person's liquid assets exceeds the person's maximum reserve on:

(i) if subparagraph 593(1)(a)(ii) does not apply in relation to the person--the day following the day on which the person ceased work or ceased to be enrolled in a full time course of education or of vocational training; or

(ia) if subparagraph 593(1)(a)(ii) applies in relation to the person--the day on which the person becomes incapacitated for work or study; or

(ii) in any case--the day on which the person claims a jobseeker payment; and

(b) the person is not a transferee to a jobseeker payment;

the person is not qualified for a jobseeker payment for a period unless the person has served the liquid assets test waiting period in relation to the claim before the beginning of that period.

1. Subparagraph 598(1)(a)(ii) requires the Tribunal to consider the value of the Applicant's liquid assets at the date of claim, being 17 December 2024. "Liquid assets" are defined at subsection 14A(1) of the Social Security Act and include, in relevant part, a person's cash and readily realisable assets including amounts deposited with, or lent to, a bank or other financial institution by the person, whether or not the amount can be withdrawn or repaid immediately.
2. "Maximum reserve" is also defined in subsection 14A(1) to be, in relation to a person:

(a) if the person is not a member of a couple and does not have a dependent child - $5,000; or > > (b) in any other case - $10,000.

3. At the time of claim, the Applicant provided evidence by way of bank account statements that his assets included:
   • $14,232.76 in an account (Bank Account 1);
   • $61.18 in a second account (Bank Account 2); and
   • An amount of $11.05 with a third account (Bank Account 3).
4. The Tribunal accepted that the above amounts were held in accounts in the Applicant's sole name, at the time the claim was made.
5. The Respondent submits that the above amounts are "liquid assets" within the meaning of the Social Security Act. In written submissions, the Respondent referred to the AAT matter of Biddlecombe and Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 528, in which the AAT stated (at [17]) that:[1]

The Tribunal in the decision Re Jacobsen and Secretary, Department of Social Security (20 March 1992, AAT Decision No. 7846) (Jacobsen) took a literal interpretation of the term as described in s.14A(1) of the Act and said "that the term liquid assets means no more than assets which are capable of ready conversion into cash. Such an assessment is not to be influenced by the possible existence of liabilities...". This Tribunal agrees with this interpretation and notes that the section does not include provision for the existence of liabilities in relation to the asset sum. Section 14A simply refers to amounts deposited with a bank or other financial institutions and the applicant's monies in the sum of $12,500 held with the Commonwealth bank at the time of her application must necessarily be caught by this section. Her responsibilities in relation to the use and or payment of the monies is irrelevant so far as the liquid assets test is concerned.

1. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant's position at the time of claim was consistent with that described in Attard and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2015] AATA 990, where the applicant in question had borrowed funds from a bank and there had been no restrictions on how the funds should be applied. There was evidence of cash withdrawals and retail purchases using the funds. The AAT in Attard found that the funds represented liquid assets for the purposes of the liquid assets waiting period.[2]
2. Subsection 14A(5) of the Social Security Act states that:

(a) a person has or had a debt not related to the person's principal home or to any other residential property in which the person holds or held, solely or jointly, any right or interest; and

(b) since becoming unemployed or incapacitated for work or study (as the case requires), the person has, in order to discharge the debt in whole or in part, made a payment that the person was not obliged to make; and

(c) since becoming unemployed or incapacitated for work or study (as the case requires), the person had not already made such a payment in order to discharge that debt in part;

the amount of the payment referred to in paragraph (b) is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining the amount of the person's liquid assets.

1. Part 3.1.2.30 of the Social Security Guide which sets out Departmental policy about the circumstances in which voluntary one-off payments are not treated as liquid assets. The Guide provides that:

When voluntary one-off payments of non-housing debts are NOT liquid assets

A recipient or their partner can make one voluntary payment on a debt or on a number of debts after becoming unemployed or incapacitated, with the non-compulsory amount/s being disregarded in calculating the recipient's liquid asset level. This applies only if:

• the debt is not related to the principal home or any other residential property, and
• the payment is voluntary (i.e., more than the minimum payment), and
• the payment is the first voluntary payment made on that debt since the recipient became unemployed or incapacitated.

Example: A person has an outstanding credit card balance of $2,000. The minimum payment is $25. Recipient pays balance in full. Liquid asset are reduced by $1,975.

The payment can still be disregarded if the recipient makes the payment while serving a LAWP - that is, AFTER the claim is processed. In this case, the claim may need reassessing to reduce the length of the LAWP.

A one-off debt payment CANNOT be disregarded if the payment is made after the LAWP has been served. In this case there is no need to reassess the claim.

1. The first questions for the Tribunal are, what were the Applicant's liquid assets at the time of the claim, and can any of the transfers to the Applicant's sister be disregarded in line with subsection 14A(5) of the Social Security Act?
2. The Applicant has consistently claimed that amounts in his bank account that were transferred to his sister should not be considered as part of his assets for the purposes of his jobseeker payment claim.
3. In his written application for first review of the authorised review officer's decision, the submissions refer to a statutory declaration the Applicant had prepared in January 2025 and states, in relevant part, that:

The Statutory Declaration clearly indicates that monies in my account belongs to my sister to whom I owe over $20,000+. The Statutory Declaration was witnessed by my doctor, [name of doctor]. Bear in mind, that my sister suffers from depression and grief over the loss of her husband just over a year ago. She has to outlay monies for her property.

1. The Tribunal noted that this information echoed the information that had been provided in the statutory declaration in question, which also referenced the Applicant owing his sister "$20,000+".
2. At the first review hearing, the Applicant was reported to have given the following evidence about the circumstances surrounding the transfers to his sister:[3]

[The Applicant] provided statements from his account with [institution and account's last four numbers]. It indicates that the balance of that account as of 18 December 2024 was $14,082.76. He agreed that this money was income from his employment.

[The Applicant] submitted, however, that these funds did not belong to him, but to his sister. He is sharing her home and was meant to pay her $200 per week for "board and lodging". He has not paid her for over a year, as his sister had allowed him to temporarily hold on to the funds for "emergencies". He declared bankruptcy in April 2024 and has been in severe financial hardship for a long time.

[The Applicant] provided further bank statements in early January 2025 showing that his account balance had reduced to $1,666.92 as of 5 January 2025. He had made three lump sum transfers to his sister ($5,000 on 3 January 2025, $3,000 on 4 January 2025 and $4,000 on 5 January 2025). [The Applicant] submitted that he was now in financial hardship due to unavoidable expenditure as he had to repay the money to his sister.

[The Applicant] told me that his sister tragically lost her husband in 2023 and she has been suffering from depression since then. His sister had also been "battling their local Council" over a development application for a granny flat. She had spent nearly $20,000 to meet Council requirements but the application was still not approved. [The Applicant] said that giving the money back to his sister was therefore his priority because she had been going through very hard times and he also wanted to "make it real" for Centrelink that the money was not his.

[The Applicant] said that he only kept an amount of about $1,666 to pay for his car registration and insurance and to pay for an MRI scan because he thought Centrelink would give him the money earlier. He now had to postpone the MRI scan because he could not afford it.

1. The Applicant's sister had provided a written letter in support of his application for first review at the Tribunal. The letter, dated 11 March 2025, stated that:

I, [name of sister], hereby declare as the sister of [the Applicant] that this document serves as a Statutory Declaration to attest to my brother's need for financial assistance (Centrelink) to support his daily living expenses.

My brother has experienced financial hardships due to unsuccessful business ventures. During the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), I provided him with a substantial loan and have continued to offer financial support as needed.

Due to the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, [the Applicant] faced significant financial challenges. The real estate market experienced a downturn, with occupancy rates in building complexes dropping sharply. This, coupled with increasingly high rental costs, put [the Applicant] in a difficult financial position. As a result, he was compelled to file for bankruptcy in April 2024, unable to sustain his financial obligations in the face of these economic pressures.

[The Applicant] has also incurred debts from other sources, which he is striving to repay gradually when possible.

As a consequence of his business failures, [the Applicant] has been residing with me. Following my husband's passing in 2023, I have been relying on a single income and have had to ask [the Applicant] to contribute towards living expenses.

Over the past year, [the Applicant's] health has deteriorated, resulting in multiple hospitalizations. This has led to his unemployment and renewed dependence on my support.

I suggested [the Applicant] maintain a reserve of money in his bank account specifically for addressing his health concerns. Secondly, I advised him to focus on rebuilding his financial foundation in the aftermath of his bankruptcy. Lastly, I proposed that he develop a plan to systematically repay his creditors over time, rather than attempting to settle all debts immediately.

Given these circumstances, [the Applicant] requires financial support.

1. Following the hearing, a further statement (unsigned, but prepared in the Applicant's sister's name) was provided to the Tribunal. The statement reiterated that money had been given to the Applicant due to the global financial crisis and unsuccessful business ventures and that these funds were required to be returned following the loss of the sister's husband. The Applicant also provided a table of amounts the Applicant states he owes his sister, totalling $87,160. The Tribunal noted that no corresponding evidence was provided to substantiate each of the amounts claimed to have been borrowed.
2. The Tribunal noted that, in written submissions responding to the findings of the first review Tribunal - and, in particular, to the first review Tribunal's findings that it had been the Applicant's choice to repay his sister - the Applicant responded by stating that his sister does not have to ask him to repay her; that it is "clear to see that she needed the money for her ongoing DA approval and so on"; and that his motivation is to ensure his sister's wellbeing is safeguarded. The Applicant noted that his sister's husband had suddenly taken his life and the Applicant "wasn't going to take this chance as I believe all life is valuable". The Applicant further noted that his "choice to repay my sister is to alleviate any stresses from my sister's frame of mind".
3. At the second review hearing, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that his sister was suffering depression due to losing her husband to suicide and tells him almost daily that she wants to end her life. The Applicant submitted that the council had asked his sister to "do a DA flatelette" and his sister was in extreme stress and he said he had money. He stated it had not been his motivation to be paid jobseeker payment sooner, but rather his sister was in turmoil and was stressed and depressed.
4. The Applicant had provided numerous studies on suicide to the Tribunal as part of his documentary evidence. In his submissions at the second review hearing, he referred to the studies and references in the studies to having no way of determining when a person will commit suicide.
5. At the second review hearing, the Applicant gave evidence that there was no formal loan agreement documented between himself and his sister. He stated that there was, however, a "formal agreement that she's given me all this money", that he could provide a "specific letter" if required and that it is understood between his sister and himself.
6. The Applicant was also asked, at the second review hearing, about other transfers to another person ("JB") and gave evidence of repaying JB $2,000 per month due to owing her a lot of money, over $200,000, that was lent to him "to do something with it". The Applicant stated that JB had invested in him to obtain a house and he then went bankrupt. Instead of declaring bankruptcy and not paying her, he had been paying her $2,000 per month since 2010 or 2011. When asked whether he could pay JB less than the $2,000 per month, the Applicant then stated that he owed her over $300,000 and $2,000 per month was the best he could do at the time. He then stated that he had to give his sister the money because of the stress; she was saying she wants to die every day.
7. The Applicant was asked, at the second review hearing, why he hadn't paid his sister in smaller instalments. The Applicant stated his sister had to get "DA approval" and was in a panic. When asked whether he had paid his sister for the DA approval and not for a loan repayment, the Applicant responded by stating that that is the money he owed her and she needed it to fix up her house.
8. The Applicant called his sister's friend as a witness at the hearing. The friend, KV, told the Tribunal that the Applicant's sister lost her husband and has good days but a lot of bad days. When KV was asked whether she had any knowledge of transactions between the Applicant and his sister, she stated that all she knows is his sister said she had lent the Applicant $10,000. When the Applicant put to the witness KV that it is "true that his sister lends him money and has him in the house rent free", the witness agreed it was "absolutely true".
9. The Respondent submits that the above description in the Guide does not meet the Applicant's circumstances, as the various bank transfers to the Applicant's sister were not one-off non-housing debt payments, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence of a debt. The Respondent referred in his written submissions to the approach taken by the AAT in Clark and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 95 (at [39]) that:[4]

In the circumstances, and given that Mr Clark has no receipt for any such payment, I cannot be reasonably satisfied that Mr Clark can benefit from the provisions of subsection 14A(5) which allow a one-off voluntary non-housing debt payment to reduce the liquid asset level used in the calculation of the LAWP. The evidence of Mr Clark is that he received a demand for reimbursement of $US3,110 from Dominguez in October 2006, and an updated invoice for $US3600 in mid February 2007. In the circumstances, the question must be asked as to why Mr Clark did not effect payment in late January 2007 (when his St George account at T19 page 48 showed a balance of $5,438) or even earlier if the funds were available, and thus prior to claiming NSA and being subject to an assessment of his liquid assets and the applicable LAWP that was applied.

1. The Respondent's representative, in oral submissions made at the second review hearing, noted that the Applicant had not provide any evidence of a specific loan to his sister, there was no written document and nothing in writing confirming how much a loan was. The Respondent's representative further submitted that any expenditure was not unavoidable or reasonable and there had been no evidence given about why minimum repayments were made, for the Applicant to meet his own necessary living expenses. The Applicant had, further, provided no evidence of moneys owed to JB and did not provide evidence of the minimum requirement of $2,000 per month.
2. Turning first to the liquid assets held by the Applicant at the time of claim, the Tribunal finds that, at that time, the Applicant had three bank accounts in his sole name. Those accounts had combined savings of $14,304.99 in them. The Tribunal finds that the amounts are amounts deposited in a back account by a person, and meet the definition of "liquid assets" as defined in section 14A of the Social Security Act. The amounts were held in an account in the name of the Applicant only and, as the sole owner of the account, any moneys held in the accounts were legally the property of the Applicant. The Tribunal did not accept that any of the money held by the Applicant at the date of claim was legally the property of his sister, for the reasons set out below.
3. As to whether the amounts transferred from the Applicant to his sister are able to be disregarded due to the operation of subsection 14A(5) of the Social Security Act, the Tribunal was not persuaded on the evidence before it that any transfer was a voluntary one-off payment of a non-housing debt. The Tribunal notes the Applicant gave evidence at the first review hearing that the claimed debt was due to $200 per week board and lodging which he had not paid to his sister. In contrast, the Applicant's sister in two statements has stated she had made loans to the Applicant during the global financial crisis, in addition to ongoing support as needed; there was no reference to amounts from board and lodging that formed the basis of any loan agreement. The Tribunal considered that the Applicant's evidence that he had repaid his sister because he was concerned for her mental health, within the context of her needing assistance for a housing issue, could also be considered inconsistent with the Applicant repaying his sister due to owing a specific amount from a debt or a loan. Finally, the Tribunal notes the absence of any written loan agreement and the inconsistency between his claims that he owes his sister "$20,000+" and the witness KV's evidence that his sister advised she had lent him $10,000. Taking into account all of these matters, the Tribunal finds that none of the three transfers made from the Applicant to his sister was a voluntary one-off payment of a non-housing debt.
4. The relevant time for determining a person's liquid assets is set out in paragraphs 598(1)(a)(i) to (ii). The Tribunal accepted, from written submissions provided by the Respondent, that the Tribunal must consider the Applicant's liquid assets as at 17 December 2024. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's liquid assets on that date totalled $14,304.99.
5. The Applicant's "maximum reserve", as defined by subsection 14A(1) of the Social Security Act, was $5,000. As the Applicant's liquid assets exceeded the maximum reserve, subsection 598(1) of the Social Security Act provides that the Applicant was not qualified for jobseeker payment unless he had served a liquid assets test waiting period.
6. The duration of the liquid assets test waiting period is calculated by the formula in subsection 598(2A) of the Social Security Act, which requires that the number of "formula weeks" is worked out by taking the maximum reserve amount from the amount of liquid assets, and dividing by the relevant divisor. Where a person is not a member of a couple and does not have a dependent child, the relevant divisor is $500.
7. Subsection 598(2B) of the Social Security Act provides that, where the number of formula weeks is equal to or greater than 13 weeks, the liquid assets test waiting period in relation to the claim is 13 weeks.
8. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's liquid assets test waiting period is calculated as follows:[5]

$14,304.99 - $5,000/$500 = 18.6 weeks is to be rounded down to 18 weeks as per subsection 598(2A) of the Act.

1. The Respondent's calculations were not disputed by the Applicant and the Tribunal accepted these as correct. Subsection 598(2B) of the Social Security Act provides that the liquid assets test waiting period for the Applicant is a period of 13 weeks.
2. Subsection 598(3) of the Social Security Act then provides the following, in relation to the start date of the liquid assets test waiting period:

(3) If the person is not a member of a couple, the liquid assets test waiting period in relation to the claim starts on:

(a) if subparagraph 593(1)(a)(ii) does not apply in relation to the person--subject to subsection (3AA), the day following the day on which the person ceased work or ceased to be enrolled in a full time course of education or of vocational training; or

(b) if subparagraph 593(1)(a)(ii) applies in relation to the person--subject to subsection (4), the day on which the person became incapacitated for work or study.

1. The Respondent provided the following submissions about the commencement date of the liquid assets waiting period (page references omitted):[6]

The Applicant stated in his claim form that he ceased work for his employer, [name of employer], on 26 November 2024. However, his employment certificate dated 20 December 2024 states that the Applicant ceased employment on 8 December 2024.

Contrastingly, [name of Applicant's doctor] (General Practitioner) opined in a medical certificate dated 20 December 2024 that the Applicant had an incapacity for work, study or participating in activities from 8 Nov 2024 to 8 February 2025. The Applicant's statutory declaration dated 6 January 2025 states that he was unemployed since 8 November 2024 due to medical reasons including two surgical operations and subsequent hospitalisation for fluid removal and these health issues prevented him from continuing his casual employment with [name of employer].

The Secretary therefore contends that in accordance with subsection 598(3) of the Act, the LAWP for the Applicant starts on the day on which the person became incapacitated for work or study which is 8 November 2024.

The Secretary contends that the LAWP is from 8 November 2024 to 6 February 2025.

1. The Applicant did not dispute this aspect of the Respondent's submissions. The Tribunal accepts that the liquid assets test waiting period commenced on 8 November 2024, being the date the Applicant became incapacitated for work or study. It is required to run for 13 weeks and ends on 6 February 2025.

Does the Applicant have to serve the entire liquid assets test waiting period?

1. Subsection 598(5) of the Social Security Act provides for circumstances in which a discretion may be exercised, to determine that the whole or part of a liquid assets test waiting period is not required to be served. This is in circumstances where:

(5) If the Secretary is satisfied that a person is in severe financial hardship because the person has incurred unavoidable or reasonable expenditure while serving a liquid assets test waiting period, the Secretary may determine that the person does not have to serve the whole, or any part, of the waiting period.

1. "Severe financial hardship" is defined at subsection 19C(2) of the Social Security Act to be where the value of the person's liquid assets is less than the fortnightly amount at the maximum payment rate of the payment, benefit, pension or allowance that would be payable to the person, if the person's claim were granted and - in the case of a person to whom an income maintenance period applies - if that period did not apply.
2. "Unavoidable or reasonable expenditure" is then defined at subsection 19C(4) of the Social Security Act to be:

(4) Unavoidable or reasonable expenditure, in relation to a person who is serving a liquid assets test waiting period or is subject to a seasonal work preclusion period, or a person to whom an income maintenance period applies, or in relation to working out if a person is subject to an ordinary waiting period, includes, but is not limited to, the following expenditure:

(a) the reasonable costs of living that the person is taken, under subsection (6) or (7), to have incurred in respect of:

(i) if the person is serving a liquid assets test waiting period--that part of the period that the person has served; or

(ii) if the person is subject to a seasonal work preclusion period--that part of the period that has expired; or

(iii) if an income maintenance period applies to the person--that part of the period that has already applied to the person; or

(iv) in relation to working out if the person is subject to an ordinary waiting period--the 4 weeks immediately before the person's start day mentioned in paragraph 500WA(1)(a), 549CA(2)(a), 620(1)(a) or 693(a);

(b) the costs of repairs to, or replacement of, essential whitegoods situated in the person's home;

(e) essential expenses arising on the birth of the person's child or the adoption of a child by the person;

(f) expenditure to buy replacement essential household goods because of loss of those goods through theft or natural disaster when the cost of replacement is not the subject of an insurance policy;

(g) the costs of essential repairs to the person's car or home;

(h) premiums in respect of vehicle or home insurance;

(k) any other costs that the Secretary determines are unavoidable or reasonable expenditure in the circumstances in relation to a person.

However, unavoidable or reasonable expenditure does not include any reasonable costs of living other than those referred to in paragraph (a).

1. Reasonable costs of living are defined at subsection 19C(5) to include (but not be limited to): food costs; rent or mortgage payments; regular medical expenses; rates, water and sewerage payments; gas, electricity and telephone bills; costs of petrol for the person's vehicle; public transport costs; and any other cost that the Secretary determines is a reasonable cost of living in relation to a person.
2. The Respondent submitted that the fortnightly amount at the maximum payment rate of the allowance that would be payable if the Applicant's claim were granted was $750.04 per fortnight and the Tribunal accepted this as correct. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant was not in "severe financial hardship" because his account balance for one of the accounts remained above $750.04 per fortnight throughout the liquid assets waiting period.
3. The Tribunal had access to the Applicant's bank statements and noted that the Applicant's balance in Bank Account 1 was around $18,000 at the beginning of the liquid assets waiting period. The amount dropped to $1,666 as of 5 January 2025 (after the three transfers to the Applicant's sister) and the balance remained above $750 for the remaining period to 6 February 2025. As of that date the balance was $810. In addition, the Applicant had smaller amounts, between very few dollars and up to around $200, in Bank Account 2 with the same bank. The Tribunal found from the information in the bank statements that the Applicant was not in severe financial hardship during the liquid assets test waiting period. Subsection 598(5) of the Social Security Act does not apply to the Applicant's circumstances. There is a liquid assets test waiting period applicable to the Applicant's jobseeker payment that commenced on 8 November 2024 and ended on 6 February 2025.

1. Subsection 620(1) of the Social Security Act provides that - subject to subsections (2), (4) and (5), a person is subject to an ordinary waiting period unless:

(a) at some time in the 13 weeks immediately before the person's start day (worked out disregarding clauses 4A and 5 of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act), the person received an income support payment; or

(g) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is experiencing a personal financial crisis.

1. The Tribunal finds that none of subsections 620(2), (4) or (5) relate to the Applicant's circumstances (the provisions relate to exemptions by the Secretary from a specified activity, the death of a partner, and claims made between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021). The Applicant did not receive an income support payment in the 13 weeks immediately before his start day. The Tribunal must therefore consider whether paragraph 620(1)(g) applies to the Applicant's circumstances, that is, whether the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant was experiencing a personal financial crisis.
2. Subsection 19DA(1) of the Social Security Act states that a person is experiencing a personal financial crisis if and only if:

(a) the person is in severe financial hardship; and

(b) subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies to the person.

1. Subsection 19DA(2) refers to domestic violence and subsection (4) refers to circumstances prescribed in a relevant instrument. Subsection 19DA(3) states that the subsection applies to a person if the person is in severe financial hardship because the person has incurred unavoidable or reasonable expenditure in the four weeks immediately before the person's start day mentioned in paragraph 500WA(1)(a), 549CA(2)(a), 620(1)(a) or 693(a).
2. Subsection 621(2) of the Social Security Act states that, subject to subsections (3) and (5), if a person is subject to an ordinary waiting period and is disqualified for jobseeker payment due to a liquid assets waiting period, the ordinary waiting period is a period of seven days that starts on the day after the end of the liquid assets test waiting period.
3. The Respondent made the following written submissions about the application of these provisions (document references omitted):[7]

The Secretary contends that the Applicant is subject to an OWP because he was not in receipt of an income support payment within the 13 weeks immediately prior to his start day and in the alternative, the Applicant was not experiencing a personal financial crisis pursuant to section 620 of the Act.

The Secretary contends that the Applicant is not experiencing a personal financial crisis during the four weeks prior to start day pursuant to section 19DA of the Act because he was not in severe financial hardship as per the Secretary's submissions above and subsections 19DA(2), (3) or (4) of the Act does not apply to the Applicant. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant was subject to domestic violence during the previous fo[u]r weeks, was in severe financial hardship because he incurred unavoidable or reasonable expenditure in the previous four weeks or the person is one of the classes of persons prescribed by legislative instrument.

The Secretary therefore submits that the Applicant was subject to a 7-day ordinary waiting period from 7 February 2025 to 13 February 2025 because pursuant to subsection 621(2) of the Act, the OWP commenced on the day after the LAWP has ended.

1. The Tribunal had regard to the bank statements of the Applicant and accepted that the Applicant was not in severe financial hardship in the four weeks before the start date of the payment. The Applicant is also required to serve an ordinary waiting period of seven days. This commenced on 7 February 2025 and ended on 13 February 2025. Jobseeker payment was payable to the Applicant from 14 February 2025.

1. The Tribunal has reached the same conclusions as the first review Tribunal about the requirement to serve both a liquid assets test waiting period and an ordinary waiting period and about the dates of each of the waiting periods. The Tribunal is, in consequence, in agreement with the first review Tribunal that jobseeker payment is payable to the Applicant from 14 February 2025. For this reason, the decision under review is affirmed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal affirms the decision that jobseeker payment is payable to the Applicant from 14 February 2025.

[1] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 6.1.

[2] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issue and Contentions, paragraph 6.5.

[3] First review Statement of Reasons, paragraphs 18 - 23.

[4] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 6.9.

[5] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 6.15.

[6] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraphs 6.16 - 6.19.

[7] Secretary's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraphs 6.34 - 6.36.