Callen and Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

[2007] AATA 2010

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 2010

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/4876

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		FRANCIS CALLEN

Applicant

And DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms Naida Isenberg, Senior Member

Date4 December 2007

PlaceSydney

Decision The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to hear the Applicant’s complaints.  The undertaking by the Respondent’s advocate is noted.

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

Ms Naida Isenberg
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – jurisdiction – decisions made by respondent not reviewed internally or by social security appeals tribunal  – Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 – sections 129, 135, 142 and 179

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – sections 25 and 27

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 December 2007   Ms Naida Isenberg, Senior Member        

1.      An interlocutory hearing was held before me on 29 November 2007 to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has jurisdiction to consider an application made by the Applicant (“Mr Callen”).  Mr Callen who appeared by telephone, was self represented and assisted by Ms Diane Shaw. The Respondent was represented by Ms Mantaring from Centrelink Legal Services, who also appeared by telephone.

2.      At the outset, I invited Mr Callen to identify the decision or decisions in relation to which he sought review.  Mr Callen told me that his initial concern was that he had been “pushed” from being on an age pension, to receiving carer payment, in respect of his late wife (from whom he was separated).  He thought that he had been “robbed” in respect of his entitlement, given that he had provided 24 hour care for his wife, and had only received a total benefit of $90 per fortnight. Whilst on the age pension, however, he had received between $200 and $300 per fortnight.

3.      Ms Mantaring outlined to the Tribunal a number of Centrelink decisions that had been made in relation to Mr Callen. These included:

·Mr Callen’s transfer from the age pension, to carer payment, with effect from 7 February 2003, and the rate of his carer payment;

·A decision to raise a debt of $3258.84, against Mr Callen, for overpayment of the carer payment between 31 January 2003 and 7 February 2006.  Upon review, the debt was reduced to $1783.41;

·The decision to grant age pension to Mr Callen with effect from 5 October 2006, and the rate at which the age pension is paid; and

·Cancellation of Mr Callen’s age pension with effect from 18 April 2007.

4. At the hearing, I discussed with Mr Callen that the Tribunal does not have the power to directly review Centrelink decisions, and that the legislation has implemented a three tier review process. Firstly, decisions must be internally reviewed by an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”): sections 129(1) and 135(1) Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (“Administration Act”). If dissatisfied with the ARO decision, a further application may be made for review to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”): section 142 of the Administration Act. Only then can an appeal, by way of application for review, be considered by this Tribunal: section 179(1) of the Administration Act, and sections 25 and 27 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

5.      Although it was clear that Mr Callen has a long history of dealings with Centrelink, it does not appear that the above decisions have been subject to a formal internal review by an ARO. Certainly, no application has been made in respect of any matter to the SSAT.  Until the decisions have been reviewed by the SSAT, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear Mr Callen’s complaints.

6.      In the course of the hearing, Ms Mantaring undertook to facilitate a review of each of the above decisions by an ARO.  I explained to Mr Callen that this will commence the three tier review process by the ARO, SSAT, and if necessary, this Tribunal. 

7.      I accept Mr Callen has found his dealings with Centrelink to be not only unsatisfactory, but frustrating.  I note that Centrelink’s decision in relation to the transfer from age pension to carer payment is now nearly five years old.  In managing the review process, I would expect Centrelink to consider Mr Callen’s entitlement, not only expeditiously, but also holistically.

8.      I also accept that Mr Callen was distressed that, in order to obtain assistance from the Centrelink office at Mayfield, he has been obliged (notwithstanding that he is nearly 80 years old) to stand in a queue for an hour and a half.  I suggested that it might be appropriate for him to make an appointment in future so as to avoid that additional stress.

DECISION

9. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to hear the Applicant’s complaints.  The undertaking by the Respondent’s advocate is noted.

I certify that the 9 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Naida Isenberg, Senior Member

Signed:         .............[sgd]...................................................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  29 November 2007
Date of Decision  4 December 2007
Solicitor for the Applicant          Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent   Ms Susan Mantaring