Merit Review under the Housing Affordability Act Assignment Samples

Eligibility for Merits Review

Eligibility for merits review in the context of Ms. Sasha Thomas's case under the Housing Affordability Act 2023 (Cth) has been providing different considerations. Under the Section 149 of the Act, it is stated that the criteria and process for seeking a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Section 43(1) of the “Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)” AAT has been stating that the all the powers and discretions that the original decision-maker had .

In the case of Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) as decided by the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court), the process of merit review involves a thorough re-evaluation of the facts and the use of administrative discretion by the initial decision-maker to assess if the decision made was the most appropriate or correct based on the available information. This kind of review, which is guided by principles such as those set out in section 43 of the AAT Act, allows the reviewing administrative body to effectively "step into the shoes" of the original decision-maker. As a result, the reviewing body has the authority to confirm, modify, or completely replace the original decision with a new one. This ensures a comprehensive reassessment of the original decision, taking into account all relevant facts and the proper application of administrative discretion.

In the case of Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) as ruled by the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court), Chief Justice Bowen and Justice Deane differentiated the review capabilities of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) from those of traditional courts. They explained that the AAT's role is fundamentally administrative, focusing on reassessing the administrative decision being challenged. Unlike a court, which is confined to determining whether a discretionary power granted by statute has been lawfully exercised, the Tribunal is not limited to such legalistic considerations. Instead, it has a broader scope to review and evaluate the administrative decision in question. On the other hand, it is also observed that application for a review needs to be lodged within a specified period from the date the applicant received notice of the decision . According to Section 149(2), this period is 28 days amd for that, Ms. Thomas needs to ensure her application for review is submitted within this timeframe.

Scope of the review has been defined under the section 149 of the Housing Affordability Act 2023 (Cth) . Furthermore, under Section 149, the Tribunal has stated that the the authority to affirm the original decision, set it aside and substitute a new decision. Furthermore, it has also been eradicating the aspects related to remit the matter back to the decision-maker with directions. This means the Tribunal has the power to comprehensively reassess the facts, law, and policy aspects of the original decision .

Section 149(5) has stated that the Tribunal's hearing is 'de novo' that means the Tribunal considers the matter afresh as if no decision had been made previously. It has also been allowing a thorough re-evaluation of all aspects of the case. Under section 33(1)(b) of the AAT Act, the tribunal is instructed to conduct its proceedings with minimal formality and technicality, and to do so as swiftly as possible, consistent with the Act's requirements, any other applicable laws, and a proper examination of the issues at hand. This approach is not unique to the AAT and is also seen in similar mandates, such as section 98(1)(d) of the VCAT Act, although it may vary in detail when compared to the more specific directives in the ADT Act, sections 73(3)-(4). The emphasis on informality and a non-adversarial approach is a fundamental aspect of merit reviews, reflecting their purpose to offer an alternative to the often rigid and technical nature of judicial proceedings. This directly has been impacting to make her an "affected party" as defined by administrative law principles. In administrative law, an "affected party" is someone who experiences a direct and personal impact from a decision made by a public body. Ms. Thomas's reliance on the scheme for housing and her current living situation in a community shelter underscore her direct interest in the outcome of this decision.

Under Section 149 it identified that the AAT can affirm, substitute and remit the decision. This broad scope has been allowing the Tribunal to reassess the entire decision-making process including the evaluation of evidence and the application of relevant legal principles. The Tribunal has also examined whether the decision to reject Ms. Thomas’s application has been made in compliance with the Housing Affordability Act and it has also been focusing on whether the use of a computerized system as per Section 4B is appropriate and whether the criteria for establishing "genuine hardship" have been correctly applied.

A de novo review has been implying the disregarding the original decision's findings. It has been indicating her case is evaluated on its merits without bias from the previous decision. The Tribunal will independently assess her circumstances including her current financial situation, her living conditions at the community shelter. It has also been focusing on her past history including time spent in foster care and any associated behavioral issues.

Grounds for Review

Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)

Under the administrative law, it is identified that the principle of natural justice will be applied. It has been identified that procedural fairness has been perceived as a fundamental principle of administrative law and it has been required that decisions be made fairly and impartially . In Ms. Thomas's case, there have been major concerns about the fairness of the decision-making process. Moreover, it has also been focusing on the use of an automated system and it has been authorized by Section 4B of the Housing Affordability Act 2023 (Cth). Therefore, the questions about whether Ms. Thomas had a fair opportunity to present her case and the decision maker could be in the form of the positive and the negative aspects. In case, the automated process has been failed to consider critical aspects of her situation or personal circumstances it will constitute a breach of procedural fairness.

Legality and Jurisdictional Error

It has been identified that the legal error has been concerning the use of the computerized system for decision-making . Therefore “The Housing Affordability Act” has been stating that Section 4B(1A)(b) that the use of computer programs been applying to decisions regarding the approval or rejection of applications for the Affordable Housing Scheme. If Ms. Thomas's application needs to focus on the processes and has been rejected by a computer system, this has also been a clear violation of the Act which constitutes a jurisdictional error.

Unreasonableness/Irrationality

The decision to reject Ms. Thomas's application might be challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness or irrationality. The Act has been stating that a person has been facing genuine hardship including living in a community shelter has qualified for the Scheme. Ms. Thomas's current residence at the Sydney Shelter for Women and Children should have been a strong consideration. In case, the decision failed to reasonably consider these circumstances or relied on arbitrary criteria, it could be deemed irrational or unreasonable.

Error of Law

An error of law has been argued that in case the decision to reject Ms. Thomas's application has been based on a misinterpretation or misapplication of the relevant legal provisions under the Housing Affordability Act. It has been including the assessment of constitution of "genuine hardship" and the public interest criteria under Section 94 . Moreover, the consideration of Ms Thomas's past behavior antisocial behavior during foster care and speculative future conduct in the decision-making process cannot align with the legal standards have been stated in the Act.

Conclusion

Ms. Thomas has been appearing that the eligibility to apply for a merits review from the Tribunal. The decision's reliance on an automated system has also been promoting the genuine hardship faced by Ms. Thomas, and questionable public interest considerations present substantial grounds for review.

Task 2 (Advocacy Component)

Honorable Member Deem and esteemed members of the Tribunal

Problem statement

As a Junior Counsel representing Ms. Sasha Thomas in the merits review of the decision to reject her application for the Affordable Housing Scheme under the Housing Affordability Act 2023 (Cth). It is also identified that this is merely about the application of statutory provisions. It is a fundamentally about ensuring that the principles of fairness, justice, and the intended spirit of the Housing Affordability Act are upheld .

Ms. Thomas is a young woman and she has been facing significant financial and personal hardships sought the support of the Affordable Housing Scheme to secure stable accommodation a basic human necessity. However, her application was rejected based on a process. It has also been contend failed to consider her individual circumstances adequately and can have breached the principles of procedural fairness.

Moreover, the decision has been disappeared as misinterpreted or misapplied the criteria of genuine hardship and public interest as outlined in the Act. It is also identified that through the analysis of decisions related to Ms Thomas’s application, it was not presented as a disservice of the misapplication of the different principles. The application was not adequately related to the Housing Affordability Act and it has also been focusing on the different aspects related to the Affordable Housing Scheme.

Argument

In the matter of Ms. Sasha Thomas's application for the Affordable Housing Scheme, a critical issue has been arising related to the procedural fairness. It is a cornerstone of administrative law. Procedural fairness has been promoting the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias mandates. The decisions have been affecting individuals' rights and interests must be made through a fair, unbiased, and transparent process.

The principle has ben focusing on the pertinent in Ms. Thomas's case and it has also been considering her vulnerable status and the profound impact that the decision on housing assistance has on her life. The decision is to reject her application made through an automated system as authorized under Section 4B of the Housing Affordability Act 2023. Furthermore, it is also identified that the hallmark of automated systems has been a lack of the capacity for complex understanding and empathy necessary in complex individual cases.

Ms. Thomas's situation has been characterized by her young age. Furthermore, her efforts to balance employment with education have been providing warrant a personalized and compassionate assessment. These factors have been playing crucial role to her eligibility and need for the housing scheme. The apparent failure of the decision-making process has been proving such a humanized evaluation not only undermines the fairness of the decision but also disregards the essence of procedural fairness as mandated in administrative law.

Contentions

Relating to the Question Posed by the Tribunal

Eligibility under genuine hardship

In terms of addressing the eligibility of Ms. Sasha Thomas for the Affordable Housing Scheme under the criterion of "genuine hardship" and it is stated under the Section 94(3)(c) of the Housing Affordability Act 2023. It is essential also essential for the gravity of her current situation. Ms. Thomas has been residing in the Sydney Shelter for Women and Children as a fact that unequivocally aligns with the Act's definition of genuine hardship.

Further compounding her situation is her financial status. While Ms. Thomas earns approximately $300 per week, this income is grossly insufficient when considering the high cost of living in Sydney, notably the rental prices which far exceed her financial capabilities. The Department's assertion that her earnings suffice to cover rent in Sydney fails to consider the full spectrum of her living expenses, including but not limited to food, transportation, educational expenses, and other basic necessities.

It has also been observed that a condition is not just a temporary arrangement but a clear indicator of her precarious housing situation It is identified that the long-term accommodation is related to the Affordable Housing Scheme is designed to provide.

These additional costs significantly related her financial hardship and it has also been demonstrated that her income does not realistically allow for affordable housing in the city. It is also related to the context where she is also committed to full-time studies. Therefore, in order to assess her ability to afford rent based solely on her weekly earnings presents a skewed and unrealistic view of her financial situation. Furthermore, it is also to be stated that the Ms. Thomas's circumstances have stated that the essence of genuine hardship as intended by the Housing Affordability Act. The Department's evaluation has appeared to have overlooked the depth of her financial struggles and the real challenges she faces. Furthermore, it is imperative for this Tribunal to recognize the genuine hardship endured by Ms. Thomas and reconsider her eligibility for the Affordable Housing Scheme. It has also been ensuring that the support reaches those who truly need it most as envisaged by the Act.

Summarising Junior Counsel’s Arguments

Public Interest Consideration

In the case of Ms. Sasha Thomas and her application for the Affordable Housing Scheme is a critical aspect that warrants scrutiny is the Department's interpretation. Application of the public interest criterion under the Housing Affordability Act 2023. The Department's decision to reject Ms. Thomas's application have been appeared as the unduly influenced by a narrow and arguably prejudiced view of her past behavior

It is also rather than a holistic assessment of her current circumstances and her commendable efforts to improve her situation. Furthermore, it is essential to address the Department's focus on Ms. Thomas's past behaviour for her time in foster care where she exhibited what was termed as "antisocial and delinquent behavior." It has also been creating the issues for problematic for several reasons. It has also failed to acknowledge the well-documented challenges faced by young individuals in foster care and more importantly. It has also not been focusing on the account the significant personal development and changes that can occur as one transitions into adulthood. Though the relying on the past behaviour as a primary determinant in assessing public interest overlooks the dynamic nature of human growth and the capacity for positive change. Furthermore, Ms. Thomas's circumstances have been focused on different aspects of her past. She is now a young adult who has demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting her life through education and employment.

Different challenges of managing full-time studies, Ms. Thomas has shown adequate resilience and determination. The commitment is related to self-improvement and stability has the personal interest and it has also been aligning the well with broader public interest values. It has also been including promoting self-reliance, education and productive citizenship.

Legality and Reasonableness

It has been more crucial to examine the legality and reasonableness of the decision-making process in the context of the decision to reject Ms. Sasha Thomas's application for the Affordable Housing Scheme. It has also been focusing on the fundamental principles in administrative law that have been developing the constitutional law in order to make the case justifiable. The core principles of legality have been found in the context of stating the foundation of the legal law.

In Ms. Thomas's case, it has been perceived that the provisions of the Housing Affordability Act 2023. The key concern has been found in the context of the Department's interpretation and core application of the eligibility has been concerns in the context of the genuine leadership approaches. A legal issue arises has been developed from the use of an automated system to determine Ms. Thomas's eligibility that has been indicated by Section 4B of the Act. Given that Section 4B(1A)(b)explicitly excludes the usage of the computer programmed in order to take decisions on applications for the Affordable Housing Scheme. It has been suggested that it has been found as a potential violation of the Act that could be the decision to reject her application legally flawed. The question has been raised regarding the legality decision-making process in her case.

The core evidence has been found in the perspectives of enhancing the administrative proposition in the perspectives of the doctrine of reasonableness in administrative law requires that decisions are not only legal but also rational and sensible in light of the available evidence. Furthermore, the core aspect of the decision has been made in the context of the judgements delivering. The decision has been made with the having of the proper judgments of the Thomas case and taking financial decision. In Ms. Thomas's case, the decision's reasonableness has been found questionable and the decision has been found more reasonable and her eligibility has been found as the genuine hardishp criteria.

The Department has been focusing on her income is sufficient to cover rent in Sydney and does not to take into account the full scope of her living expenses and the realities of the city's housing market. The oversimplification of her financial capabilities has been indicating that a lack of reasonable consideration of her overall circumstances. Furthermore, the decision appears to have been placing to undue weight on her past behavior during her time in foster care

Without adequately acknowledging her current positive contributions and efforts have been helping to enhance the situation of her. The reliance on historical behavior without sufficient consideration of her present circumstances and potential for future stability can also point to an unreasonable application of the public interest criterion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the merits review of Ms. Sasha Thomas's application for the Affordable Housing Scheme under the Housing Affordability Act 2023 necessitates a comprehensive re-evaluation based on the principles of fairness, justice, and the spirit of the legislation. The decision-making process, as it currently stands, seems to have fallen short in several critical aspects: procedural fairness, genuine hardship assessment, and public interest consideration.

Further, the procedural fairness owed to Ms. Thomas appears compromised, especially given her vulnerable status and the significant impact of housing assistance on her life. The use of an automated system lacks the nuanced understanding required for complex individual cases must be scrutinized for its lack of empathy and its potential breach of mandated procedural fairness.