Ambrose and Secretary of Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by Mr. Ambrose against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on the applicant's contention that his application for review was improperly handled, specifically regarding the decision-maker and the scope of review. The core of the respondent's argument was that the application was frivolous because, regardless of the merits of the decisions made by Matchworks, the Authorised Review Officer (ARO), or the AAT at Tier 1, the applicant could not achieve any practical benefit from a successful review, as his Newstart Allowance (NSA) had already been paid for the periods in question.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the application was frivolous and should be dismissed on that basis. A secondary issue that arose was the identification of the proper respondent to the proceedings. The applicant had sought review of an ARO's decision made on 26 November 2019, which was made pursuant to section 126 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Administration Act). The Tribunal needed to confirm that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services was the correct respondent, considering the provisions of the Administration Act and the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*.

The Tribunal reasoned that an application could be dismissed as frivolous if no decision made by the Tribunal could provide any practical benefit to the applicant. Applying this principle, the Tribunal found that regardless of the outcome of the proceedings, no decision could alter the payments the applicant had already received. Therefore, the application could yield no practical difference and was considered frivolous. Regarding the proper respondent, the Tribunal confirmed that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services was the appropriate party, as the ARO's decision was made under section 126 of the Administration Act, and the exceptions outlined in section 142A of the Administration Act did not apply.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 42B(1)(a) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*, finding that the proceedings were frivolous as they could not produce any practical benefit for the applicant.