Alan Hewit and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

[2012] AATA 314

[2012] AATA  314

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number(s)	2012/1275; 2012/1276
Re	Alan Hewit
APPLICANT
And	Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Senior Member J F Toohey
Date	10 May 2012
Date of written reasons	25 May 2012
Place	Sydney

For the reasons given orally at the hearing on 10 May 2012, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear these applications for review.

..........[sgd]..............................................................

Senior Member J F Toohey

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION - oral decision - written reasons requested - no reviewable decision made under an enactment - no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member J F Toohey

25 May 2012

BACKGROUND

1. On 3 April 2012, Mr Alan Hewit lodged with the Tribunal seven applications for review.  They fell into two categories: one concerning his applications for newstart allowance and disability support pension, and the other concerning requests for access to documents. 

2. As it appeared that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine any of the applications, a hearing was convened on 10 May 2012 to determine the question of jurisdiction.

3. The Tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing for its determinations that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with all seven of Mr Hewit's applications.  Mr Hewit has asked for written reasons for the Tribunal's decision in respect of two of those applications.  These written reasons reflect those given orally at the hearing.

   MR HEWIT'S APPLICATIONS

4. In the first application, Mr Hewit described the decision of which he sought review as being dated 25 May 2011 and regarding:

   1Failure to connect myself with the job service provider within 48 hours of 25th May 2011.

   2Failure to connect myself with a DES Provider.

   3Failure to attempt to make an appointment with a DES provider.

5. Mr Hewit stated the reasons for his application as follows:

   1The decision breaches the Code of Conduct for providers (Centrelink) for job capacity assessments.

   2The decision breaches the DEEWR Guidelines for job capacity assessments.

6. In the second application, Mr Hewit described the decision of which he sought review as being dated March 2012 and regarding:

   1Cancellation of my voluntary registration with Job Services Australia

   2Cancellation of my appointment on 5 April 2012 with Job Services           Australia.

7. Mr Hewit stated the reason for his application was that it “breaches the [Social Security Administration] Act”.

   HAS THE TRIBUNAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATIONS

8. By s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act), an enactment may provide that an application can be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment. Applications may also be made for the review of decisions made in the exercise of the powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

9. Section 3 provides that an enactment is:

   (a)an Act;

   (b)an Ordinance of a Territory other than the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory Norfolk Island; or

   (c)an instrument (including rules, regulations or by-laws) made under an Act or such an Ordinance;

   It includes an enactment amended by another enactment.

10. The Tribunal has the power to review any decision in respect of which an application is made to it under any enactment: s 25(4). It has no general power to review decisions; it may only review those decisions in relation to which it has been given jurisdiction by an enactment.

11. So, the first question in any matter is whether an enactment confers on the Tribunal the power to review a decision made under it.

12. The matters that Mr Hewit complains of appear to go to Centrelink’s procedures or processes.  He has not identified, and the Tribunal cannot identify, any relevant decision under an enactment or any provision by which jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal to review those matters.

13. As there is no decision made under an enactment for the purposes of s 25 of the AAT Act, it follows that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these two applications for review.

I certify that the preceding 13 (thirteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey.

........[sgd]..............................................................

Associate

Dated 25 May 2012

Date(s) of hearing	10 May 2012
Applicant	In person
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr A Markus, Australian Government Solicitor