Скачать или смотреть Unlawful uses of section 1073B (as in force 2003-20)?

This video continues discussion of the Lessons in Lawfulness report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, focusing on its claim that s 1073B (as in force from 2003-2020) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) was applied unlawfully through its 17-year operation. Importantly, as I note in this video, no determinative statement by a court or other curial body, nor any statement from the any minister of the government, has been made or furnished in respect of the unlawful operation of this section. Indeed, professional legal advices said to be held by the relevant agencies remain unpublished. Accordingly, this video attempts to comment on a strictly speculative and provisional basis about why s 1073B is said now by the Ombudsman to have been applied unlawfully.

Important sources of information about the construction of s 1073B have been omitted from this video but will be identified in an accompanying blog post published at substack.welfare.com. These include: provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) that may give definition or shape to certain words in s 1073B (eg, 'instalment period'); several AAT1 decisions (around 28) that identify debts calculated contrary to s 1073B from 2016 through to 2019; submissions for the applicant in the Amato decision, alleging s 1073B is prohibitive of the robodebt-style apportionment at issue in that case; analysis of the section from the Australian Government Solicitor in 2020; and references to the section itself from those within DHS (now Services Australia) contained in documents obtained by the Robodebt Royal Commission and published in its Document Library from 2014 and 2015 period when the NPP for robodebt was still in development.

Music from https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-sto...
License code: VOXAPC2SDGA2YWCD.