Druett and No Respondent

[2006] AATA 1043

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1043

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2006/1219

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		GARRY DRUETT

Applicant

NO RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member

Date4 December 2006

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.

………………………..

Ms N Isenberg
    Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

JURISDICTION – no Respondent – various decisions for review for alleged unfairness – conspiracy – mental illness – excessive solicitor costs – divorce – - removal of children - care of children - no relevant Commonwealth legislation – AAT has no jurisdiction under section 25

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, section 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 December 2006 Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member

1.      A hearing was held before me on 13 November 2006 at which the Applicant appeared without representation, and as no Respondent had been identified, his was the only appearance before the Tribunal.

2.      Mr Druett enquired as to why there was no other party to the proceedings as he believed that the ‘Department of Human Resources and Centrelink’ should have been present. That, I told him, depended on the decision he sought to have reviewed.

3.      At the outset I invited Mr Druett to identify the decision in relation to which he sought review.  He was not able to refer me to one particular decision but rather he gave me a history of past decisions which he considered to be unfair.

4.      Mr Druett told me that there had been a conspiracy, one in which his children have been ‘kidnapped’. He referred me to a 1999 decision which refused his application for return of the children to his care, after having been removed some time earlier by the police on the instructions of the Department of Community Services.  That decision was affirmed on appeal.  In particular, he thought it was unfair that on appeal the judge considered him to be ‘mentally sick’ on the basis of his evidence and his conduct of the case.  Mr Druett objected that the judge had come to this view without medical evidence to that effect.

5.      He also referred me to proceedings he has commenced in the New South Wales Supreme Court wherein he had named a number of defendants including Forstaff Pty Ltd, a job agency which had placed him in a number of employment positions in the past few years.  That company successfully sought to be removed as a defendant and Mr Druett was ordered to pay its costs which were assessed at over $1600.  He thought the solicitor’s costs were excessive and he is now being sued for those costs.

6.      He said that one of the reasons he had joined Forstaff as a party was because he thought that on at least two occasions, just as he was about to be given a permanent position by his employer, he was removed by Forstaff.  He is bringing unfair dismissal proceedings elsewhere.

7.      He identified a number of ongoing issues which clearly distress him including: 

·     He thought his wife had been ‘encouraged’ to divorce him;

·     Understandably, he is very bitter about the treatment provided to his son, Gregory, at Blacktown Hospital when he was born.  He did not find the intervention of the Health Care Complaints Commission to provide any satisfaction. He thought that his landlord may have colluded with Blacktown Hospital, the result of which was that the children were taken away;

·     He has not seen his children for six or seven years, they having been all separately fostered.  His daughter has recently run away from foster care.  He thought foster carers were only in it for the money.  It was unclear if he had, in recent times, made any applications for access to his children, who are now aged between 10 and 15.  He thought there was a possibility of his ex-wife’s reconciliation with the children and he believes she sees them two to three times each year.

8.      On the basis of the material before me I turned to address whether the matters about which the Applicant complains may be considered by the Tribunal.  

9.      The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 does not itself set out the decisions that may be reviewed by the Tribunal. Instead, section 25 states that an enactment may provide for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred under that enactment, or, conferred by an instrument such as rules, regulations or by-laws made under that enactment. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction unless there is a legislative instrument conferring jurisdiction. Therefore, in order to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a particular decision, reference must be made to the legislation governing the original decision. There are several hundred pieces of legislation which give jurisdiction to the Tribunal, however, they may not give jurisdiction for all decisions made under each piece of legislation, so care must be taken to ensure that jurisdiction has indeed been given in relation to the particular decision under consideration.

10.     Having regard to the contentions of the Applicant I reviewed relevant legislation with a view to ascertaining if that legislation was one which gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal.

11.     His ultimate concern stems from the removal of the children.  This issue was, and remains, one for the NSW Department of Community Services.  His concerns about the foster care are similarly appropriately addressed by that State Government Department.  Also, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address his renewed applications for access to his children.

12.     Mr Druett is bringing the proceedings alleging unfair dismissal in the Industrial Relations Commission.  His concern about the solicitor’s costs may be able to be addressed through the Legal Services Commission, but not by this Tribunal.

13.     I understand that his serious concerns about the hospital treatment of his child have already been addressed by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

14.     I could find no Commonwealth legislation to be relevant to the other complaints of the Applicant.

DECISION

15. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to hear the Applicant’s complaints.

I certify that the 15 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member

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

Associate

Date of Hearing  13 November 2006 
Date of Decision        4 December 2006
Appearance for the Applicant        Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent        No Respondent