Giovanni Del Treppo and Comcare
[2014] AATA 711
•30 September 2014
[2014] AATA 711
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2013/6637
Re
Giovanni Del Treppo
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President F J Alpins
Date 30 September 2014 Place Melbourne The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...................[sgd].....................................................
Deputy President F J Alpins
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – weekly compensation payments for incapacity – transitional provisions of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – effect of 65th birthday – reduction of payments to “former employee” – whether reduced payments correctly calculated – whether reduced payments to be indexed – whether estoppel against operation of provision reducing payments – whether any relief from reduction of payments on grounds of unfairness or financial hardship
Tribunal’s jurisdiction – review of decision affirming determination upon reconsideration – reviewable decision – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of periods not subject of reviewable decision – request for reconsideration of determination – characterisation of request for reconsideration
Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 25, 43
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 8, 13, 23, 60, 62, 64, 72, 123, 124, 132, 133, 134, Pt VI, Pt X
Cases
Awad v Australia Post [2004] AATA 408
Beesly v Hallwood Estates Ltd [1960] 2 All ER 314
Comcare v Burton (1998) 50 ALD 846
Comcare v Willems (1996) 70 FCR 244
Considine v Citicorp Australia Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 657
Cooper v Comcare (2002) 118 FCR 157
Daff v Comcare [2010] AATA 732
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade (1951) 84 CLR 105
Formosa v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 46 FCR 117
Re Gordon Slater and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] AATA 1085
Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford (2006) 151 FCR 253
Whitney v Comcare [2012] AATA 370
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President F J Alpins
30 September 2014
INTRODUCTION
This application for review concerns the calculation of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation payments under the transitional provisions contained in Pt X of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the “1988 Act”).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1982, the applicant, Mr Del Treppo, sustained an injury described as “left knee pain and effusion”, in respect of which he received compensation payments for incapacity under the predecessor of the 1988 Act, being the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the “1971 Act”).
Upon commencement of the 1988 Act, Mr Del Treppo continued to receive weekly payments of compensation for incapacity, pursuant to the provisions of that Act. Mr Del Treppo has continued to receive such payments to the present time.
From the commencement of the 1988 Act until immediately prior to Mr Del Treppo’s 65th birthday, which occurred on 10 March 1993, Mr Del Treppo received compensation payments pursuant to s 132(4) of the 1988 Act. From 1 July 1991 to 9 March 1993, the amount of compensation was increased by operation of s 133(1) of the Act, so as to equate to “minimum earnings” as therein defined. Mr Del Treppo’s compensation payments made under the 1988 Act, calculated in accordance with those provisions, gradually increased over time from an initial amount of $287.05 per week so that, immediately prior to his 65th birthday, Mr Del Treppo’s compensation payments were in the amount of $348.96 per week.
Since 10 March 1993, being Mr Del Treppo’s 65th birthday, Mr Del Treppo’s compensation payments have been reduced, to the fixed amount of $261.72 per week, said by the respondent to be the amount to which Mr Del Treppo has been, is and will continue to be entitled by operation of s 134 of the 1988 Act, as calculated according to the prescribed formula in that provision.
The respondent has made successive determinations under the 1988 Act in respect of Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to such compensation payments according to s 134. The determination which directly resulted in this application for review being brought was made by letter dated 20 February 2013 (the “determination”), when the respondent determined that Mr Del Treppo was entitled to compensation payments, again in the amount of $261.72 per week, in respect of the period 15 March 2013 to 13 March 2014 (the “relevant period”).
In about January 2013, Mr Del Treppo had complained to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that the compensation payments he was receiving were inadequate, in that they were insufficient to meet living expenses and should be indexed each year. That complaint was apparently referred to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent addressed that complaint, by letter dated 29 January 2013. The respondent explained that while the 1971 Act provided for incapacity payments to be made on an indefinite basis, the 1988 Act generally provided for them to cease upon a claimant’s 65th birthday and, in substance, explained how the transitional provisions of the Act, particularly s 134 operated so as to reduce such payments in circumstances such as his, and did not permit indexation following such reduction.
On 20 February 2013, which I note is the same date as the determination was made, Mr Del Treppo applied for relief under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration in respect of what he asserted was defective administration of the part of the respondent. In his application form of that date, he wrote that in about 1986 or 1987 he had been told that he would receive $348.96 per week “for life” (although I note that in fact he did not receive that amount until immediately prior to his 65th birthday) and that he believed that the 1988 Act should not apply to him so as to reduce his payments from the amounts he had previously received. He made reference in that form to the respondent having failed to pay him $87.24 per week “for 20 years”. He complained that the respondent should have told him to see the Ombudsman in 1993, when his payments were reduced. Mr Del Treppo gave oral evidence to similar effect.
By letter dated 18 September 2013, the respondent informed Mr Del Treppo that it had reviewed his file and confirmed that “our decisions regarding your entitlements are correct”. The respondent referred to its letter of 29 January 2013.
On 1 October 2013, Mr Del Treppo prepared a document addressed to the respondent which stated:
“I, Giovanni Del Treppo, request a reconsideration of a determination for my current compensation incapacity payments at $261.72 per week, as dated 18/9/13 in letter from [Comcare officer] and 29/1/13 in letter from [Comcare officer].”
Before the Tribunal there was also a copy of a handwritten document of the same date apparently prepared by Mr Del Treppo and addressed to Comcare which, in vituperative terms, complained in substance about the reduction of his compensation payments under the 1988 Act when compared with those made to him under the 1971 Act and referred in that context to events in and since 1993. It is not apparent whether that document was provided with or merely at the same time as the other document of that date.
By letter dated 5 December 2013, the respondent affirmed the determination made on 20 February 2013. Mr Del Treppo applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The 1988 Act, which repealed and replaced the 1971 Act, commenced on 1 December 1988. Part X of the 1988 Act contains transitional provisions in respect of Commonwealth employees who were entitled to compensation under the 1971 Act (see s 123 (including the definition of “former employee”) and s 124).
Sections 132-134 appear in Div 3 of Pt X, that Division being headed “[s]pecial transitional provisions relating to certain former employees”. Section 132 concerns former employees under 65 who are not in receipt of superannuation benefits and are unable to engage in any work, as the respondent accepted was so in Mr Del Treppo’s case prior to his 65th birthday.
During the relevant period, s 134 of the 1988 Act relevantly provided:
“134 Reduction of compensation on reaching 65
(1) When a former employee to whom section ... 132 ... applies reaches 65, the amount of compensation payable per week to the former employee but for this section shall be reduced by an amount calculated under the formula:
5 x (65 - A) × C
100
Where:
A is the age of the former employee, expressed in completed years, as at the commencing day; and
C is that amount of compensation payable per week to the former employee.
(2) Neither section 8 nor section 13 applies to the amount of compensation payable to an employee from time to time in accordance with subsection (1).”
Section 134(2) was inserted by Act No 168/1995, with effect from 15 January 1996. Section 8 provides for the calculation and indexation of the “normal weekly earnings” of a relevant employee for the purposes of the Act, that expression being employed in s 132(4), amongst others. Section 13 provides for the indexation of certain compensation benefits payable under the Act in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
While s 134 provides for the reduction of compensation, it is in fact a beneficial provision. While the 1971 Act did not provide for weekly compensation payments to cease upon the recipient turning 65, the 1988 Act does (see s 23 of the 1988 Act). Accordingly, s 134 serves to protect people who were receiving compensation under the 1971 Act immediately prior to the commencement of the 1988 Act from the full effect of s 23 of the 1988 Act. It does so by providing for the reduction, rather than the cessation, of their compensation payments. The formula in s 134 reflects a gradual withdrawal of compensation payments to such people over a 20 year period from the commencement of the 1988 Act (see Cooper v Comcare (2002) 118 FCR 157 at 161-2).
The following provisions, which are contained in Pt VI of the 1988 Act, bear upon the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this application for review. Section 62(2) of the 1988 Act provides for the reconsideration of a “determination” upon request by the claimant, which includes “a determination, decision or requirement made ... under Division 3 or Part X” (s 60(1)). Section 62(3)(a) provides that a request for reconsideration shall “set out the reasons for the request”. Section s 62(3)(b) provides that such a request shall “be given to the determining authority within 30 days after the day on which the determination first came to the notice of the person making the request, or within such further period (if any) as the determining authority, either before or after the expiration of that period, allows”. A decision made upon reconsideration may affirm, revoke or vary the determination (s 62(5)). Although s 62(6) provides that such a decision must be made within the period prescribed by the regulations, it seems that no such time limit has been prescribed.
A decision made pursuant to s 62 upon reconsideration of a determination constitutes a “reviewable decision” as defined in s 60(1) of the 1988 Act. Section 64(1) provides that an application may be made to this Tribunal for review of such a reviewable decision.
CONSIDERATION
The following issues arose for the Tribunal’s consideration. The first issue is whether the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this proceeding is confined to consideration of Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to compensation for the relevant period. It was apparent at the hearing, as had been the case in previous documents prepared by the applicant, that the applicant’s complaint as a matter of substance concerns the proper amount of the weekly compensation payments made to him during the entire period since the commencement of the 1988 Act (in December 1988) up to and including the relevant period.
In substance, Mr Del Treppo argued that his weekly compensation payments should not have been reduced when he reached the age of 65. Furthermore, he complained that amounts payable under s 134 should be indexed, to meet necessary living expenses. Furthermore, as I have indicated, he complained in substance that he had been told prior to the commencement of the 1988 Act that he would receive the weekly compensation payable to him under the 1971 Act “for life” and that the reduction in the amounts paid to him when he turned 65 was unfair and has caused, and continues to cause, him financial hardship.
It may well be the case that the substantive issues raised by Mr Del Treppo arise to the same extent and in the same way not only in respect of the relevant period but also in relation to prior periods from the commencement of the Act, with the possible exception, at least, of the period preceding the insertion of s 134(2), in 1996, when s 134 took a different form. Nevertheless, for the reasons given below, the Tribunal has confined its consideration to the issue of Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to compensation payments for the relevant period, although given Mr Del Treppo’s arguments, events prior to the relevant period nevertheless arise for consideration in that context.
Jurisdiction
In Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84 at [32], the Full Federal Court described Pt VI of the 1988 Act as establishing a “three tiered decision-making process”, comprising the “original decision or determination”, a “reconsidered determination” and “a decision of the AAT reviewing the reconsidered determination”. Accordingly, the Tribunal is only empowered to review a decision made under s 62 of the 1988 Act, being the “reviewable decision” for the purposes of s 64. The powers and discretions that the Tribunal may exercise under s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the “AAT Act”), being those conferred by the 1988 Act, are to be exercised “[f]or the purpose of reviewing” that “reviewable decision” and accordingly are not to be exercised at large (ibid at [39]).
For the Tribunal in this proceeding to consider the amount of Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to compensation payments in respect of periods preceding the relevant period would impermissibly involve consideration of issues which were not the subject of the reviewable decision, which dealt solely with the determination made on 20 February 2013, which concerned the relevant period (ibid at [55]). I therefore accept the respondent’s submission that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this proceeding is confined to consideration of Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to compensation payments with respect to the relevant period (see also s 25(1) of the AAT Act).
Having said that, in my view, contrary to the respondent’s submission, the respondent erred in its characterisation of Mr Del Treppo’s request for reconsideration. I note that the proper characterisation of that request for reconsideration is a question of fact (see Comcare v Willems (1996) 70 FCR 244 at 248). In my view, that correspondence ought properly to have been characterised as a request for reconsideration not only of the determination made on 20 February 2013, which concerned the relevant period, but also in respect of all determinations relating to the period from the commencement of the 1988 Act until the relevant period. I say that because, even if the other document of that date was not provided with the request, it is apparent from the request, read fairly, that Mr Del Treppo understood that he was requesting reconsideration of matters the subject of the respondent’s correspondence of 18 September 2013 and 29 January 2013, despite referring to “a determination for my current compensation incapacity payments”.
I note in that regard that it was stated in the letter sent in September that “I can confirm that our decisions regarding your entitlements are correct” (emphasis added) and reference was made to the correspondence sent in January. That earlier correspondence referred not only to the amount of compensation Mr Del Treppo was currently receiving - it also dealt with his entitlement to compensation since the commencement of the 1988 Act. Although the respondent in its written submissions focussed on Mr Del Treppo’s reference to his “current” compensation payments, it seems to me that, read fairly in context, Mr Del Treppo ought to have been understood as distinguishing his payments under the 1988 Act from those made to him under the 1971 Act.
As the Full Court stated in Willems, s 72 of the 1988 Act requires that the respondent (and the Tribunal standing in its shoes) be guided by “equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities”. Given that provision and given also that the Act is beneficial legislation, Mr Del Treppo’s correspondence should not have been read with an insistence “upon formality” (at 249).
As I have said, Mr Del Treppo made his request for reconsideration on 1 October 2013. It is true that the time prescribed by s 62(3)(b) of the 1988 Act for a request for reconsideration of determinations preceding the determination made on 20 February 2013 had expired at the time that Mr Del Treppo made his request. However, contrary to the respondent’s written submissions, as the Full Court observed in Willems at 250-251, the respondent’s obligation to consider allowing a further period for a request for reconsideration of a determination to be made for the purposes of s 62(3) arises “automatically upon receipt of an out of time application for reconsideration”, irrespective of whether an express request for such an extended period has been made (and irrespective of whether it is made together with the request for reconsideration or separately). A “request for reconsideration given after the 30 day period remains a request but the delay requires the determining authority to consider whether to allow the further period “ (ibid at 259).
Indeed, Mr Del Treppo’s request was not made within the prescribed time with respect to the determination made on 20 February 2013 either, yet the respondent must necessarily be taken to have allowed a further period for the request to be made with respect to that determination, whether because of the preceding correspondence or otherwise.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the reviewable decision dealt solely with Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to compensation payments with respect to the relevant period and accordingly the Tribunal’s power is similarly confined, that being the “issue or question discerned by Comcare from what was asked of ... it” (Comcare v Burton (1998) 50 ALD 846 at 850 per Finn J). The Tribunal’s function is not to determine entitlements to compensation as such (as a primary decision-maker) but rather to review decisions that have been made concerning such entitlements (ibid at 852).
The respondent’s failure to make a reconsideration decision with respect to any of its determinations relating to periods preceding the relevant period could not, in my view, somehow empower the Tribunal to extend its consideration to those earlier periods. Given that there is no prescribed time period within which a determination must be reconsidered for the purposes of s 62, s 25(5) of the AAT Act does not operate so as to create a “deemed decision” with respect to those earlier periods (see Re Gordon Slater and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] AATA 1085 at [19]-[22] per Deputy President Hack S.C.).
Accordingly, I consider that the respondent’s apparent failure, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, to consider the exercise of its discretion to extend the time for a request for reconsideration of any of those prior determinations does not somehow give rise to a “reviewable decision” with respect to those prior periods. Given the nature of this proceeding, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the respondent ought to have extended the time for reconsideration of any of the determinations made prior to that concerning the relevant period.
As the respondent submitted, as a matter of general principle it is open to the Tribunal in this proceeding to make findings of fact pertaining to periods preceding the relevant period, even if they are inconsistent with the findings of fact upon which the determinations preceding the determination the subject of the reviewable decision were based (Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford (2006) 151 FCR 253). However, the respondent in its written submissions sought to rely upon the principles stated by the Full Court in Hannaford in support of a submission that it is therefore open to the Tribunal to consider the “correctness or otherwise of the prior reduction in the weekly amount imposed by section 134 of the [1988] Act during the period on and from 10 March 1993 and the subsequent freezing of that reduced weekly amount without any future indexation”.
I do not accept that submission. The Full Court’s conclusions were concerned with findings of fact, not conclusions of law (see at [8]-[11], [57]-[59]). The respondent is inviting the Tribunal to consider the construction and application of s 134 in respect of compensation payments which were not the subject of the reviewable decision. I consider such a course to be impermissible. The principles in Hannaford do not, in my view, provide authority for the Tribunal to expand the issues under consideration in this proceeding in order to draw conclusions about the application of the 1988 Act (in the form it took at relevant times) to compensation payments made to Mr Del Treppo during periods preceding the relevant period.
Indexation
As I have said, Mr Del Treppo argued in substance that his compensation payments should not have been reduced under the 1988 Act when he turned 65 and also that his reduced compensation payments under s 134 of that Act should have increased over time by indexation. Given the nature of this proceeding, for the reasons I have explained, the issue before the Tribunal is whether the determination that Mr Del Treppo was entitled to compensation payments in respect of the relevant period fixed in the amount of $261.72 per week was correct.
I accept the respondent’s submission that Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement fell to be determined in accordance with s 134 of the 1988 Act upon his reaching the age of 65. Furthermore, I accept the respondent’s calculation of the amount of reduced compensation payable per week to Mr Del Treppo by operation of that provision, being $261.72. The “amount of compensation payable per week” to Mr Del Treppo “but for this section” for the purposes of s 134(1) was $348.96 per week. When he reached the age of 65, that amount was required to be reduced by an amount of $87.24, calculated under the formula prescribed in s 134(1), as follows:
5 x (65-60)) × 348.96 = $87.24.
100$348.96 - $87.24 = $261.72.
I also accept the respondent’s submission that the amount of compensation payable to a former employee in accordance with s 134 of the 1988 Act in the form it took during the relevant period is not to be indexed, whether by operation of s 13 or s 8 of that Act. That much is made clear by the terms of s 134(2) and is confirmed by the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the relevant Bill which introduced that provision (see s 15AB(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)).
Given the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this proceeding, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the same can be said in respect of the period from the commencement of the Act, on 1 December 1988, until s 134(2) came into effect, on 15 January 1996. I note in passing from the Explanatory Memorandum that s 134(2) was inserted in the 1988 Act to serve as what was said to be a clarificatory provision. I also note in passing that the provision was inserted following the decision of this Tribunal in Re Brede and Department of Defence (1994) 33 ALD 669.
Applicant’s other arguments
I will now address Mr Del Treppo’s complaint that he was previously told by the respondent that he would receive $348.96 in weekly compensation payments “for life”. As I have indicated, I am not prepared to find that Mr Del Treppo was told that at the time that his claim was accepted, as his correspondence suggests, as he did not in fact receive that amount until immediately prior to his 65th birthday, which occurred after the commencement of the 1988 Act. In any event, I accept that Mr Del Treppo was at some stage informed by an officer of the respondent that he would receive weekly compensation payments of a fixed amount under the 1971 Act “for life”, and nothing turns on the details of what he was in fact told.
Unfortunately for Mr Del Treppo, any advice given to him could only have reflected the law as it stood at that time. If the law changes, as it did when the 1971 Act was repealed and replaced by the 1988 Act, then he like all other claimants affected by those changes is subject to the law in its changed form, irrespective of what he might previously have been told.
Estoppel “cannot ... be invoked ... to negative the operation of a statute” (Beesly v Hallwood Estates Ltd [1960] 2 All ER 314 at 324, cited with approval in Considine v Citicorp Australia Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 657 at 662). Particularly, no conduct on the part of the respondent could operate as an estoppel against the operation of the 1988 Act (see Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade (1951) 84 CLR 105 at 117). Furthermore, estoppel “does not operate so as to sanction the appropriation of public moneys without the authority of the Parliament” (Formosa v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 46 FCR 117 at 125 per Davies and Gummow JJ (as His Honour then was)).
As I have said, Mr Del Treppo also complained that the reduction of his compensation payments which occurred upon his 65th birthday by operation of s 134 of the 1988 Act is unfair and has caused and continues to cause him financial hardship. Unfortunately for Mr Del Treppo, there is no exception or discretion under the 1988 Act by which he might be relieved from the reduction of his weekly compensation payments under s 134, whether on these grounds or otherwise (Awad v Australia Post [2004] AATA 408; Whitney v Comcare [2012] AATA 370 at [10]; Daff v Comcare [2010] AATA 732 at [38]).
As I have also said, s 134 is in fact a beneficial provision which relieves him and other claimants within the compass of the transitional provisions in Pt X of the 1988 Act, to varying extents depending upon their age when that Act commenced, from the cessation of benefits which would otherwise have occurred by operation of s 23 upon him reaching the age of 65.
OTHER COMMENTS
I consider it appropriate to make some further comments for Mr Del Treppo’s benefit even though they are not necessary for the purposes of this application for review.
I note that the respondent has, in correspondence, previously asked Mr Del Treppo to “refrain from using inappropriate and abusive language” in his communications with its staff. It is apparent from documents prepared by Mr Del Treppo’s since that time, including his written submissions lodged in this proceeding, that he has not complied and is perhaps not inclined to comply with that request. In contrast, I note that Mr Del Treppo behaved courteously before the Tribunal. I wish to express my hope that he will behave with similar courtesy in his future dealings with the respondent.
It is apparent that Mr Del Treppo sees the respondent as being engaged in a vendetta against him. It is important for Mr Del Treppo to understand that the respondent is merely administering the law as it stands and as it applies to all claimants. Furthermore, the respondent cannot exempt Mr Del Treppo, nor any other claimant, from the operation of the 1988 Act. The 1971 Act no longer exists. Mr Del Treppo is not the first person to be affected by these transitional provisions, nor is he the first person to come before the Tribunal complaining of differences between their entitlement to compensation under the 1971 Act and their entitlement under the 1988 Act.
As I have said, under s 134 of the 1988 Act Mr Del Treppo in fact continues to receive compensation payments which, although reduced from their previous level, are better than would be available to other claimants not within the terms of the transitional provisions in that Act. For such other claimants, their compensation under the 1988 Act ceases when they reach the age of 65. In that respect, Mr Del Treppo is more fortunate.
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it seems that Mr Del Treppo has not inquired, at least to any serious extent, about the availability of an age pension, nor about any effect it might have on his payments under the 1988 Act, as has apparently previously been suggested to him. It is not clear to me why he has not done so. It seems to me that it would be best for him to make such inquiries with Centrelink and perhaps ask a friend or fellow member of his community for assistance in that regard if necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal will affirm the decision under review, being the respondent’s decision made on 5 December 2013 under s 62 of the 1988 Act to affirm its determination made on 20 February 2013 with respect to Mr Del Treppo’s entitlement to weekly compensation payments for the relevant period.
I certify that the preceding [49] (forty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President F J Alpins.
......................[sgd]..................................................
Associate
Dated 30 September 2014
Date of hearing 24 April 2014 Date last submissions received 30 May 2014 Applicant In person Counsel for the Respondent Mr R Seit Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore
0
12
0