Fatwidah Arifin and Decision Maker

[2013] AATA 502

[2013] AATA 502 

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number(s)	2013/2125
Re	Fatwidah Arifin
APPLICANT
And	Decision Maker
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Senior Member J F Toohey
Date	15 July 2013
Date of written reasons	16 July 2013
Place	Sydney

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear Ms Arifin's application.

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

Senior Member J F Toohey

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – claim for compensation for discrimination on the ground of disability – no reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member J F Toohey

16 July 2013

1. This decision concerns whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim by Ms Fatwidah Arifin for compensation for discrimination on the ground of disability.  These written reasons reflect reasons given orally at a hearing on 15 July 2013.

   BACKGROUND

2. In April 2012, Ms Arifin sought review of a decision by Centrelink concerning the date from which she was entitled to be paid disability support pension.  On 4 June 2013, the Tribunal decided that Ms Arifin was entitled to be paid from a date earlier than originally determined by Centrelink.

3. In the course of her application for review, Ms Arifin submitted to the Tribunal a large bundle of documents in which she referred to herself as a victim of mental health issues.  She described a range of matters including unfair termination of her employment on the ground of mental health issues, vilification and physical assault.  She referred to conduct directed at her by the police, Centrelink and her private health fund, and the circumstances in which her infant son died in 1999, which she said amounted to medical negligence.

4. In a telephone conversation with a Tribunal officer on 23 April 2013, Ms Arifin advised that she wished to claim compensation for the matters described in the bundle of documents.  Following this conversation, the Tribunal returned the bundle to Ms Arifin with a letter advising it did not have jurisdiction to determine claims for compensation for discrimination. 

5. On 2 May 2013, the Tribunal received an Application for Review of Decision form from Ms Arifin.  The application referred to the bundle of documents and attached a letter headed Appeal for Claiming of Compensation.  The letter outlined the same matters referred to in the bundle of documents.

   WHY THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE MS ARIFIN’S APPLICATION

6. The Tribunal has power to review a wide range of decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and some others.  However, it has no general power to review decisions. 

7. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review a decision if the legislation under which the decision is made gives it that power: s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.  Nothing in Ms Arifin’s application discloses a decision that is reviewable by the Tribunal.

8. Ms Arifin referred at the hearing to the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth) which makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of his or her disability in areas including employment, education, accommodation and services.

9. A person who believes she or he has been discriminated against can complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission and, if still not satisfied, can take the complaint to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court.  Nothing in the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth) or any other legislation gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine complaints of discrimination under that Act.

10. Ms Arifin also referred at the hearing to the Commonwealth Disability Strategy (2000) which provides a framework for Australian Government departments and agencies, including the Tribunal, to meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth), and to the Tribunal’s Disability Action Plan (2008-2011), both of which appear on the Tribunal’s website. These documents describe what the Tribunal has to do to meet its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth). They do not give the Tribunal power to consider whether any other body has met its obligations.

    CONCLUSION

11. For these reasons, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the matters described in Ms Arifin’s bundle of documents or in her application for review.

I certify that the preceding 11 (eleven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey.

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

Associate

Dated 16 July 2013

Date(s) of hearing	15 July 2013
Applicant	In person