a) Between 3 February 2025 and 19 October 2025, Mr Vandenberg was undertaking job search activities, under an employment pathway plan that was in force, for work of at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above relevant minimum wages, and satisfied subsection 1035A(3) of the Social Security Act 1991;

b) The date of effect of the decision is 31 October 2025.

SOCIAL SECURITY - mobility allowance - higher rate of allowance - job plans without job search conditions - Job Plans incorrectly coded - limits on the date of effect - decision under review set aside and remitted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This review concerns a decision of Services Australia (Centrelink) regarding the start date of a higher rate of mobility allowance.
2. Mr Vandenberg is a recipient of disability support pension. On 20 October 2025, he signed a Job Plan with [Agency 1] which contained a requirement that he look for employment for 15 or more hours per week. Given the terms of that agreement, Centrelink decided to pay Mr Vandenberg the higher rate of mobility allowance from 20 October 2025 and not from an earlier date. Mr Vandenberg's 2 Job Plans prior to 20 October 2025 did not include a requirement that he look for work for 15 or more hours per week.
3. On 31 October 2025, Mr Vandenberg sought internal review of the decision to pay him at the higher rate of mobility allowance from 20 October 2025 and not earlier. On 24 November 2025, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
4. On 24 November 2025, Mr Vandenberg made an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), seeking independent review of the Centrelink decision.
5. The matter was heard on 16 December 2025, and Mr Vandenberg participated in the hearing via MS Teams audio conference and gave affirmed evidence.
6. The Tribunal had regard to the evidence given by Mr Vandenberg at the hearing, the documents produced by Centrelink pursuant to section 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 numbered as pages 1 to 178 (the hearing papers), and materials lodged by Mr Vandenberg marked A1 to A277. Mr Vandenberg confirmed receipt of the hearing papers prior to the hearing.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to the matter are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
2. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is the date that the higher rate of mobility allowance was payable to Mr Vandenberg. Mr Vandenberg contends that the higher rate of mobility allowance should be payable from 3 February 2025, when he entered into his Job Plan with [Agency 2].

1. Mobility allowance provides support to persons with disabilities or illness to assist with transport costs if they meet a travel test and are unable to use public transport without substantial assistance. Under section 1044 of the Act, there are 2 rates at which mobility allowance is payable.
2. Section 1035 of the Act sets out the qualification criteria for the standard rate of mobility allowance. Sub-paragraph 1035(1)(a)(iii)(C) of the Act, relevantly, includes that the Secretary be satisfied that the person is engaged in gainful employment for at least 32 hours in every 4 weeks on a continuing basis.
3. Subsection 1035A(3) of the Act provides for the payment of mobility allowance at a higher rate. To be qualified an individual must be receiving disability support pension and be working at least 15 hours per week on wages that are above minimum wages or undertaking job search activities under an agreement in an employment pathway plan that is in force for work of at least 15 hours per week.
4. Job Plans agreed to between Mr Vandenberg and [Agency 2] between 17 February 2025 and 17 May 2025, and 19 June 2025 and 19 September 2025, required Mr Vandenberg to undertake training to increase his employability, attend appointments as agreed to, and undertake health maintenance programs. Neither agreement contained any requirement that Mr Vandenberg look for work for 15 or more hours per week.
5. The Tribunal had before it a letter dated 21 October 2025 from [Mr A] of [Agency 2] in which he advised that the Job Plans had been incorrectly coded and that the Job Plans Mr Vandenberg entered into with [Agency 2] also required him to 'research potential employers, prepare job applications, and contact four employers each fortnight'.
6. On 20 October 2025, Mr Vandenberg signed a Job Plan with [Agency 1] for the period between 17 June 2025 and 17 April 2026 which contained a requirement that he look for employment for 15 or more hours per week. The Tribunal observes that this Job Plan should have attracted the higher rate of mobility allowance for Mr Vandenberg.
7. On 25 November 2025, [Mr A] of [Agency 2] provided a further letter that stated that the Job Plans entered into between [Agency 2] and Mr Vandenberg on 3 February 2025, 17 February 2025 and 9 June 2025 were incorrectly coded. He stated, 'I can confirm that the participant did actively engage in 15 hours or more per week of job search activity, as well as being engaged in various vocational training for work licences and qualifications during this period of time.' [Mr A] stated that the employment consultant and Mr Vandenberg were unaware that by not having the job code 'JS06' included in the Job Plan, would have the result of Mr Vandenberg receiving a lower rate of mobility allowance. Mr Vandenberg confirmed in his evidence that he was neither aware of the coding error nor of the higher rate of mobility allowance available.
8. Email correspondence between Mr Vandenberg and [Mr A] leading up to the production of the 25 November 2025 letter showed that Mr Vandenberg had requested [Mr A] to include those words in his correspondence. The Tribunal discussed the reliability of the letter with Mr Vandenberg at the hearing in view of that correspondence. Mr Vandenberg confirmed that [Mr A] was not expected to give evidence to the Tribunal but that he could produce documentary evidence to support [Mr A's] statements in his letter.
9. Those documents, being the emails between Mr Vandenberg and [Agency 2], were provided to the Tribunal after the hearing with the Tribunal's consent. Mr Vandenberg contends that the documents demonstrate that he was actively engaged in job search activities for 15 hours per week under the Job Plans he had entered with [Agency 2].
10. Having reviewed the materials provided, the Tribunal has been satisfied that between 19 February 2025 and 17 May 2025 Mr Vandenberg was regularly engaged with his employment consultant, often several occasions per week, with respect to the employment seeking activities he was engaged in. He had attached confirmation of jobs for which he had lodged applications for from his Seek account. In June 2025, Mr Vandenberg transitioned to [Agency 1] who became his employment services provider.
11. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Vandenberg was undertaking job search activities under an employment pathway plan that was in force for work of at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above relevant minimum wages. The Tribunal is satisfied that while the Job Plan did not include that requirement, this was a result of an oversight and lack of understanding on his part to include that in the Job Plan. Mr Vandenberg has persuaded the Tribunal that he was continuously undertaking job search activities in furtherance of the employment pathway plans in place with [Agency 2] that spanned the periods between 3 February 2025 and 3 May 2025, 17 February 2025 and 17 May 2025, and 9 June 2025 and 19 September 2025.
12. Further, the Job Plan entered into with [Agency 1] includes the requirement that Mr Vandenberg undertake job search activities under an employment pathway plan that was in force for work of at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above relevant minimum wages for the period between 17 June 2025 and 17 April 2026.
13. The Tribunal therefore finds that Mr Vandenberg satisfied the requirements to be paid the higher rate of mobility allowance from 3 February 2025.

1. There is no time limit to seek review of the decision under review; however the practical effect of the favourable decision made by this Tribunal is impacted by the application of section 109 of the Administration Act. Section 109 of the Administration Act limits the date of effect of any favourable determination. A "favourable determination" includes a decision to increase a person's rate of pension or allowance.
2. If a person requests review of a decision more than 13 weeks after being notified of the decision, any favourable decision made on review only takes effect from the date on which the person requested review (subsection 109(2) of the Administration Act). Where a person requests review within 13 weeks of being given notice of a decision, or no effective notice of a decision has been given, the decision has effect from the date on which the original decision took effect (subsections 109(1) and 109(3) of the Administration Act).
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that on 13 May 2025, Mr Vandenberg was sent a notice advising him of the rate of mobility allowance to be paid to him via an online portal. The letter advised that the period to seek review of that decision was 13 weeks from the date of notification and that any review outside of that date could take effect from the date that formal review is sought. Mr Vandenberg requested review of this decision on 31 October 2025. As the request for review was made outside of the 13-week review period from the original decision on rate, the application of subsection 109(2) of the Administration Act means that the date of effect of this favourable decision is 31 October 2025.
4. The Tribunal accepts Mr Vandenberg's evidence that he was unaware that there was a higher rate of mobility allowance payable until he was paid the higher rate from 20 October 2025. There is, however, no discretion in the legislation to extend the 13-week review period. This means that no arrears will be payable to Mr Vandenberg.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:

a) Between 3 February 2025 and 19 October 2025, Mr Vandenberg was undertaking job search activities, under an employment pathway plan that was in force, for work of at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above relevant minimum wages, and satisfied subsection 1035A(3) of the Social Security Act 1991;

b) The date of effect of the decision is 31 October 2025.