Girle and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

[2021] AATA 2579

Girle and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2579 (29 July 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Numbers:2021/0181         

2021/0477

Re:Lynette Mary Girle  

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member D Mitchell

Date:29 July 2021

Place:Brisbane

The applications are dismissed pursuant to section 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth).

........[SGD].....................

Member D Mitchell

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the Applicant has failed to comply with directions and reasonably progress the applications – application dismissed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

CASES

Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2019] HCA 16

MBJY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 11

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1

Minister for Home Affairs v Brown [2020] FCAFC 21; 275 FCR 188

Re Control Investment Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member D Mitchell

29 July 2021

BACKGROUND

1. The applications in this matter relate to a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) of the Tribunal on 8 December 2020. The reviewable decision of the SSCSD was in relation to the cancellation of Mrs Lynette Mary Girle’s (the Applicant) age pension and the subsequent disability support pension and age pension debts that were raised.

2. The Applicant’s son Mr Jason-Max Girle (Mr Girle) asserted that he had authority from the Applicant to bring the applications to the Tribunal. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant is aware of the applications or that she has appointed Mr Girle as her representative in these matters.

3. The Applicant has failed to comply with directions dated 21 May 2021 and 8 July 2021.  Submissions have been made by Mr Girle questioning the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4. In submissions dated 20 July 2021, the Respondent sought that the Tribunal dismiss the applications on the basis that the Applicant failed to comply with directions of the Tribunal within a reasonable amount of time. At Hearing the Respondent expanded their submissions to include requesting that the applications be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant had failed within a reasonable amount of time to proceed with the applications.

   THE APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS MATTER

5. By way of email on 9 January 2021, Mr Girle sought to make an application for review of a decision made by the SSCSD on 8 December 2020. 

6. Clarification was sought by the Tribunal on 21 January 2021 from Mr Girle as to whether the application for review intended to cover both decisions made by the SSCSD (albeit the matters were heard together and a single decision was issued addressing both matters).  On 27 January 2021, Mr Girle confirmed that review was being sought in relation to both decisions.

7. On 19 May 2021, Mr Girle provided written submissions with a number of attachments in relation to the application. The attachments included notices Mr Girle had addressed to Members of the SSCSD seeking that his questions be answered as to establish their and the Tribunal’s legitimacy and authority. Mr Girle provided:

   Should you be unable to establish your legitimate standing, and continue your belligerent conduct, refusing assurance in corrective action of this unlawful trespass and theft by false pretext causing continued harm and damage to the living woman, Lynette Mary: Girle, it shall be taken as an act of war in time of peace; you will be pursued to the full extent of the Law as well as for compensation resultant to the significant harm and damage caused by your wanton act of unjust enrichment.

8. In relation to the listed telephone conference scheduled to occur on 21 May 2021, Mr Girle provided:

   Regarding the hearing scheduled for 10:30am, 21May21, the presiding party will need to forgive my limited knowledge at Law and procedure, however, be advised; to stay in honour I will be attending on behalf of my Mother Lynette Mary, by ministerial invitation if you will. I will be occupying the station of beneficiary, as entitlement holder I state that securities were not abandoned.

9. Mr Girle and the Respondent attended the telephone conference on 21 May 2021. At the conclusion of the conference a direction was issued as follows:

   1.        If the Applicant intends to provide further information such as:

   (a)       a statement detailing special circumstances;

   (b)       medical reports or records;

   (c)       financial records;

   (d)       asset valuations; or

   (e)       any other documents

   such information must be provided to the Tribunal and the other party by 18 June 2021. If the Applicant does not intend to do so, the Applicant must notify the Tribunal and the other party by the same date.

   2.On or before 16 July 2021, the Respondent must give to the Tribunal and the other party a Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions.

   3.Within 28 days of receiving the Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Respondent, the Applicant must give to the Tribunal and the Respondent a Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions in reply.

10. On 3 June 2021, Mr Girle, by way of email sent the direction dated 21 May 2021 back to the Tribunal on which he had added his own notations and requirements of which he sought to place upon the Respondent and the Tribunal. Mr Girle described the document as a “completed presentment/offer to contract made by the AAT.” Mr Girle sought to alter direction 1 to read that:

    1.    The Applicant intends to provide further information to a court of competent jurisdiction:

    a.    a statement detailing special circumstances;

    b.    any other documents the Applicant deems suitable.

11. On 1 June 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant and Respondent seeking availabilities for Hearing.

12. On 18 June 2021, Mr Girle provided a reply to the Tribunal’s correspondence of 1 June 2021. Mr Girle posed a number of questions, none of which went to the review process or applications before the Tribunal.  Mr Girle continued to seek that the Tribunal satisfy him of its legitimacy and jurisdiction asking:

    Where is your evidence in document form, that endorse in harmony with, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, your legitimacy, (do you not have proof of jurisdiction, or have chosen not to substantiate your authority?) without which indicates that you, the Dept of Social Services, indeed the ‘Australian Government’, have no more standing than a service corporation.

13. On 4 June 2021, the Respondent sought that a telephone directions hearing be listed on the basis that:

    One, the applicant in this matter is Ms Lynette Girle who did not appear at the conference. Rather, Mr Jason Girle purported to appear on her behalf. We note the application for second review to this Tribunal was not made by the applicant and no application form was completed. Rather, Mr Girle emailed the Tribunal in response to the first review decision requesting further review. We understand the Tribunal has not been provided with a power of attorney or any other authority establishing Mr Girle’s standing to act on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, we seek Mr Girle establish his standing to act on behalf of the applicant in this matter.

    Two, on the assumption that Mr Girle continues to act on behalf of the applicant, at various points during the conference Mr Girle questioned the validity of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the power of the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter. Accordingly, if Mr Girle maintains his objections to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal then we seek for those issues to be ventilated and resolved as a preliminary issue before the matter progresses.

14. On 21 June 2021, the Tribunal listed a telephone directions hearing at 2 pm on 22 July 2021. In the correspondence sent to Mr Girle, the Tribunal provided the following:        

    Ahead of the telephone directions hearing, the Tribunal requests that by close of business on 6 July 2021 you provide evidence that Mrs Lynette Girle has provided consent for the applications known as file numbers 2021/0181 and 2021/0477 to be made and that she has appointed you to represent her in those matters.  It would be appropriate for such consent and any appointment of representation to be in written form, signed by Mrs Girle.  This could be provided by way of statutory declaration.  It should be noted that if this matter proceeds to hearing that Mrs Girle may be required to give evidence at that hearing.

    Further if you continue to have concerns in relation to the Tribunal’s power to hear and determine the applications, please provide submissions in relation to such concerns by close of business on 6 July 2021.

    At the telephone directions hearing the Tribunal will discuss the status of applications 2021/0181 and 2021/0477, any concerns you may have in relation to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine those applications and the requirement for directions of the Tribunal to be followed.

15. On 5 July 2021, Mr Girle provided a response dated 2 July 2021, to the listing notice and letter sent by the Tribunal titled ‘Notice to Let the Master Answer’. In that letter Mr Girle made reference to him continuing to wait for the Respondent to personally “validate her claim of right to trespass” and to provide proof that she had given her representatives instruction. Mr Girle also provide that:

    Kathryn, you have been satisfied that I hold consent to deal with these matters on behalf of Lynette Mary for years now.

    The magistrate shall have my Authority.

    It is impossible for Lynette Mary to be represented, as Lynette Mary is Lynette Mary.

    ….

    Regarding the legitimacy of the AAT, that is your concern. My Mother, Lynette Mary and myself stand as Sovereigns born on this land commonly known as Australia, under the Commonwealth of Australia, and as such clearly have no business in your military tribunals. To a layman it would appear there is significant barricade to the AAT establishing its standing under the Administrative Appeals Act 1975, the AAT has had multiple opportunities to ventilate and resolve my multiple questions surrounding the issue to date I have received no response*, for Lisa Palmer: MILLS OAKLEY; Lawyer; Government & Administrative Law, to raise this at this time, confirms collusion. As stated clearly and repetitively at the conference, should the AAT fail to prove its standing you are to refer this matter to a court of competent jurisdiction ….

    Given the facts, recent discoveries, and my belief that Lisa Palmer did not attend the initial conference in good faith, seeking settlement, I see no value in, and therefore can provide no consent to a further directions hearing.

16. On 8 July 2021, the Tribunal issued a direction requiring that the Applicant provide written evidence to the Tribunal that she had provided consent for the applications known as file number 2021/0181 and 2021/0477 to be made and that she had appointed   Mr Jason-Max Girle to represent her in those matters on or before 16 July 2021. In the accompanying letter, the Tribunal notified the Applicant and Mr Girle that:

    It is noted that you have not addressed the request in our letter dated 21 June 2021 to provide evidence that Mrs Lynette-Mary Girle has provided consent for the applications known as file number 2021/0181 and 2021/0477 to be made and that she has appointed you to represent her in those matters. You have made reference to Ms Campbell being aware of you holding consent to deal with matters on behalf of Mrs Girle, however evidence of such consent has not been provided by you to this Tribunal. As such please find attached a direction requiring you to provide such evidence by close of business on 16 July 2021.

    Please be aware that the Tribunal has the power pursuant to sections 33(2) and 33(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) to give directions as to the procedure to be followed at or in connection with the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal. A proceeding before the Tribunal includes an application to the Tribunal for review of a decision.

    The issuing of a direction is not a starting point for negotiation, it requires the parties of the proceedings to do the things they are directed to do in relation to the relevant application that has been made. To that extent the Tribunal notes your previous submission dated 3 June 2021 in relation to the direction issued by Conference Registrar Toohey on 21 May 2021 and advises that direction 1 has not been complied with.

    Direction 1 required:

    1.If the Applicant intends to provide further information such as:

    (a)a statement detailing special circumstances;

    (b)medical reports or records;

    (c)financial records;

    (d)asset valuations; or

    (e)any other documents

    such information must be provided to the Tribunal and the other party by 18 June 2021. If the Applicant does not intend to do so, the Applicant must notify the Tribunal and the other party by the same date.

    The Tribunal has decided to revoke direction 2 and direction 3 of Conference Registrar Toohey’s direction pending the finalisation of the telephone directions hearing listed to occur at 2 pm on 22 July 2021.

    Please be aware that pursuant to section 42A(5)(b) of the AAT Act if an Applicant for a review of a decision fails within a reasonable time to comply with a direction by the Tribunal in relation to the application, the Tribunal may dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision.

    If you are unable to comply with the attached direction dated 8 July 2021, you may seek an extension of time. Please note that any request for an extension of time must be sent to the Tribunal and the other party along with reasons as to why an extension of time to comply is required and the date to which the extension of time is sought. The Member who issued the direction will then consider the request and decide whether or not the extension of time will be granted.

    The Tribunal further notes that in your correspondence dated 2 July 2021 you stated that you “see no value in, and therefore, can provide no consent to a further directions hearing.” Section 33(1A) of the AAT Act provides the Tribunal with the power to hold directions hearings in relation to a proceeding. Please be aware that pursuant to section 42A(2)(a) of the AAT Act, if an Applicant fails to appear (either themselves or by a representative) at a directions hearing held in relation to the application the Tribunal may dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision. As such parties are required to attend direction hearings as listed.

    If you are unable to attend a scheduled direction hearing you should advise the Tribunal and the other party of this ahead of the scheduled time, providing reasons as to why you are unable to attend. The Member who will be conducting the directions hearing will then consider the request and decide whether or not the directions hearing will be vacated and relisted or will proceed as listed.

    As such, it is important that I advise you that unless the Member decides to vacate the telephone directions hearing (which is presently listed to be held at 2pm, Qld time on 22 July 2021), if you do not attend that directions hearing the Member may proceed with the directions hearing in your absence and may dismiss the applications.

17. On 19 July 2021, Mr Girle provided a response dated 18 July 2021, to the Tribunal’s direction and letter, in the form of the direction with the words “Invalid Correspondence” written across it and a letter titled ‘Notice to Evidence your Claim Again’. Mr Girle provided the following along with a list of related questions:

    Again, for the umpteenth time; where is your evidence of your claim that you hold legitimate standing with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900?

    1.    Does a Commonwealth Act require Royal Assent to effect Commencement and Authority?

    2.    What date did the AAT Act receive its Assent, Proclamation and Gazetting in harmony with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900/1?

    3.    If you claim the representative of the Queen of the Commonwealth, ie the Governor General of Australia provided this, then it necessarily follows you can evidence the correct appointment of the Governor General and letters patent?

    4.    Does failing to evidence your claim of legitimacy, then make your standing that of a service corporation, as was my initial claim?

    5.    Therefore, are any AAT Directions orders, Hearing applications etc, issued by you, no more than a presentment?

    6.    As holder in due course of said presentment, am I not entitled to fill up and complete, as I see fit?

    7.    Without legitimate proof of your claim of authority as a De Jure Government department what gives you the right to alter a non-negotiable contract?

    …

    Again, if you cannot provide a court of competent jurisdiction and offer complete justice to a living sentient sovereign, then you are commanded to forward this matter to a venue that can.

    ….

    Again, my Mother and i believe we have at all times acted honourably, again; it is my assertion i enjoy my Mothers full approval to act on her behalf and I will forward that material proof of consent to the AAT immediately, upon the AAT evidencing its jurisdiction.

18. The Respondent provided a submission dated 20 July 2021 in reply to the material that had been provided by Mr Girle. The Respondent submitted that:

    (a)While Mr Girle may be the Applicant's nominee for the purposes of her interactions with Services Australia, this does not equate with a power of attorney nor does it afford him the authority to make an application to this Tribunal on her behalf or represent her in these proceedings.

    (b)In the second notice, Mr Girle states " .. .it is my assertion I enjoy my Mother's full approval to act on her behalf and will forward the material proof of consent to the AAT immediately, upon the AAT evidencing its jurisdiction". Accordingly, the Respondent contended this is not a situation where Mr Girle had not had reasonable time to comply with the direction or that he is unable to comply. Rather, Mr Girle had deliberately elected to not comply with the direction asserting that it is for the Tribunal to establish its jurisdiction.

    (c)Section 32 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) provides that a party to the proceeding may be represented by another person. However, Mr Girle failed to provide any evidence to establish that the Applicant provided her consent for the applications to be made or that she appointed him as her representative. In the absence of such evidence, the Respondent submitted the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applications were properly made.

    (d)In circumstances where it is Mr Girle who lodged the applications in this Tribunal and in the absence of any articulated submission in relation to his concerns regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Respondent submitted these issues can be taken no further. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted any request for the applications to be referred to a court should be refused.

    (e)In circumstances where Mr Girle failed to comply with the direction of this Tribunal to provide evidence of his authority to make the applications on behalf of the Applicant or represent her in these proceedings, the Respondent submitted the applications should properly be dismissed. Mr Girle was put on notice that failure to comply with the Tribunal's direction may result in dismissal of the applications and in circumstances where the Respondent contended that Mr Girle's non-compliance is deliberate, the Respondent sought that the applications be dismissed pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act.

    THE HEARING

1. A Telephone Directions Hearing (the Hearing) was conducted at 2 pm on 22 July 2021. The Tribunal was initially unable to contact Mr Girle, however after a number of attempts contact was established.

2. At the Hearing, when asked to provide an explanation as to why the directions issued by the Tribunal in relation to the present applications had not been complied with, Mr Girle said that he had set everything out in writing. Mr Girle sought that the Tribunal provide evidence as to where powers lie under the Constitution for the Tribunal to issue directions and specifically the date of proclamation and royal assent of the Commonwealth Act under which the Tribunal is working. Mr Girle asserted “it is up to the Tribunal to prove its standing and jurisdiction to hear the applications”.

3. It was explained to Mr Girle that it was not the role of the Tribunal to explain and justify the legislative process, its powers are provided by the AAT Act. Mr Girle asserted that: “You telling me you have me you have the power is fine, I am sure you believe it, but you have to prove that and evidence that standing to me... If [you] cannot do that… then who are you.”

4. When asked whether he intended to make further submissions, Mr Girle provided:

   I do have plenty of submissions to pass onto the relevant authority and when you prove you are that authority and have that standing I will pass them on. As I have made abundantly clear in writing.

5. Mr Girle told the Tribunal that “If you cannot prove you are a De Jure government, that you are a de facto corporation then anything you send me is nothing more than a presentment that I can fill up and complete as I wish. Prove your standing or put it in some other venue that has the ability to hear it.”

6. When asked who, or where it was, he thought has standing to hear the matters, beyond stating that it would be “someone that is in harmony with the Constitution”, Mr Girle was unable to provide any insight as to where he considers the review path to lie for the matters at hand. Mr Girle stated that the Tribunal should know the answer to that.

7. Mr Girle submitted that he has “not failed to comply with directions at all, [he] simply asked the venue to prove its standing so that [he] can fulfill that request”.

8. Mr Girle said he has his mother’s power of attorney and will provide it once the Tribunal proves its standing. He questioned why his authority to act on the Applicant’s behalf with Centrelink had not been transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal explained that approval to act provided to one agency does not automatically carry across to another.

9. The Respondent provided submissions consistent with those set out in their written submissions and as outlined in paragraph 18 above. Towards the end of the Hearing, the Respondent submitted that not only was this a matter where Mr Girle had failed to comply with directions of the Tribunal but given what had occurred to date and the discussions that had occurred at the Hearing where it had been outlined on a number of occasions to Mr Girle that it is not up to the Tribunal to prove its standing, that the situation became one where Mr Girle was failing to proceed with the applications before the Tribunal. The Respondent contended that this supported the submission that the applications should be dismissed under section 42A(5) of the AAT Act.

10. Mr Girle submitted that he would provide the Applicant’s power of attorney to the Secretary of Social Services.  However, when the Tribunal explained that it was the Tribunal who had sought that evidence by direction of the Tribunal, he said: “No worries at all. Show me the authority and you will get it. Simple.”

11. Mr Girle maintained that the Tribunal “has to evidence its claim”.

12. The issue before the Tribunal is whether or not the Applicant had failed to comply with a direction of the Tribunal or to proceed with the applications within a reasonable time.

13. For the reasons set out below, pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act the Tribunal considers it appropriate to dismiss the Applicant’s applications for review as it finds that the Applicant has failed to within a reasonable time comply with directions issued by the Tribunal or to proceed with the applications.

    REASONS FOR DECISION

14. It is not for the Tribunal to justify why or how it exists. The Tribunal was established by virtue of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act).[1] The Tribunal’s powers are primarily provided by the AAT Act[2] and other enactments that instil jurisdiction in the Tribunal to review decisions.[3]

    [1]     Section 5 of the AAT Act.

    [2]     Part IV of the AAT Act – Reviews by the Tribunal of decision.

    [3]     Section 25(1) of the AAT Act.

15. This position was made clear by Davies J in Re Control Investment Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88 at 91 who explained that:

    Having regard to [its] provisions …. It can hardly be doubted that the [AAT] Act gave effect to [the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee’s] recommendation. The Act provides for the tribunal some of the members of whom [sic] are not lawyers but are selected because of their special knowledge or skill in relation to a class of matters in respect of which decisions may be made. The Act confers upon the Tribunal fact-finding powers and confers the power to set aside a decision and to make a decision in substitution for the decision so set aside. The Act empowers the Tribunal to exercise all the powers and discretions that are conferred by any relevant enactment upon the person who made the subject decision. Clearly the Act established a tribunal whose function and duty it is to review administrative decision on their merits.

16. The role of the Tribunal has long been accepted to be:[4]

    … to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker whose decision is under review so as to determine for itself on the material before it the decision which can, and which it considers should, be made in the exercise of the power or powers conferred on the primary decision-maker for the purpose of making the decision under review..

    [4]     Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2019] HCA 16 at [51] making reference to Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at 299 [40], 315 [100], 324-325 [134].

17. These foundation principles are enshrined in the Tribunal’s objective as set out in section 2A of the AAT Act:

    2A Tribunal’s objective

    In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:

    (a)  is accessible; and

    (b)  is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and

    (c)   is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and

    (d)  promotes public trust and confidence in the decision-making of the Tribunal.

18. It is not the role of the Tribunal to provide justification of or evidence of the parliamentary process that was undertaken in establishing the Tribunal or the AAT Act. The role that the Tribunal plays in the Australian legal system has been widely accepted by the Federal Court and High Court of Australia.[5] For example in MBJY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 11 at [3], Allsop CJ provided:

    ….. The Tribunal under its constitutive legislation is an independent quasi-judicial body of skill and stature. A fair-minded lay observer would be taken to appreciate such matters. The stature and independence of the Tribunal is a feature of importance in the review of, and public confidence in, Commonwealth decision making.

    [5]     See for example: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286; Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2019] HCA 16; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1; Minister for Home Affairs v Brown [2020] FCAFC 21; 275 FCR 188; and MBJY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 11.

19. Applications seeking review of decisions can be made to the Tribunal by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the decision.[6] It is reasonable to expect that a person who is making an application for review of a decision to the Tribunal is doing so in good faith. The making of an application to the Tribunal dictates the belief that the person making the application considers that the Tribunal has the power to review the decision they are unhappy with.

    [6]     Section 27 of the AAT Act.

20. Further section 33(1AB) of the AAT Act places an obligation on the parties to a proceeding and any person representing such a person to use his or her best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to fulfil the objectives in section 2A of the AAT Act. As such it is not only reasonable for the Tribunal to expect that Mr Girle (if he is acting as the representative of the Applicant) would cooperatively participate in the Tribunal process, especially given he had made the applications to the Tribunal and that the AAT Act requires him to do so.

21. That has not been the case in the present matter. Mr Girle has continually sought that, the Tribunal, through providing responses to his questions, satisfy him that it has the power to review the decisions in issue.

22. Mr Girle has demanded that if the Tribunal is unable to do so it should transfer the applications to a competent authority. In the absence of any cogent submissions from the Applicant or Mr Girle in this regard, the Tribunal refuses to refer the present applications to a court.

23. The Tribunal considers that jurisdiction to hear the applications in questions has been provided by section 179(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1999 (Cth).

24. The Tribunal considers that Mr Girle made it abundantly clear both in his written material and at Hearing that until he was satisfied by the Tribunal, as to the Tribunal’s standing he does not consider the directions of the Tribunal to be valid and as such he would not comply with them. He would not provide information that the Tribunal directed him to provide. This is despite also telling the Tribunal that he has further material to provide in relation to the applications.

25. Further in the absence of evidence that the Applicant was aware of the applications made to the Tribunal and her consent for Mr Girle to act on her behalf, the Tribunal cannot be confident that the present applications have been properly made. At Hearing Mr Girle said that he holds a power of attorney allowing him to act on behalf of the Applicant, as such if his concern is that he does not want to stress the Applicant, it is not unreasonable to require him to provide such a document in support of the validity of the applications he made to the Tribunal.

26. The Tribunal notes that after the conclusion of the Hearing Mr Girle contacted the Tribunal Registry and asked that the Tribunal hold off on making a decision in relation to dismissing the applications until he provided evidence of the power of attorney. Mr Girle proceeded to then provide a photograph of the front page of an enduring power of attorney, which provides instructions on how to complete the document and a certification that the document is a true and correct copy of the Applicant’s enduring power of attorney dated 21 February 2017. This single page provides no details with regard to the contents of the power of attorney, nor does it alleviate the concerns held by the Tribunal in relation to the validity of the making of the applications before it. Rather, it demonstrates Mr Girle’s continual refusal to comply with reasonable directions issued to him by the Tribunal or to properly engage with the Tribunal process.

27. Section 42A(5) of the AAT Act provides that if an applicant for a review of a decision fails within a reasonable time to either proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal in relation to the application the Tribunal may dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision.

28. It is not for the Tribunal to satisfy Mr Girle of its legitimacy, standing or jurisdiction, nor given the conduct to date of Mr Girle does it consider it would be able to. It should be remembered that Mr Girle made the application to this Tribunal seeking review of the decisions of the SSCSD. 

29. The fact that Mr Girle has sought to renegotiate directions of the Tribunal or deem them invalid does not in any way cease the requirements for those directions to be complied with in a reasonable time as required by section 33(2A) and 42A(5) of the AAT Act.

30. The Tribunal considers that Mr Girle has shown a total disregard for the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that Mr Girle’s continued assertion that the Tribunal must satisfy him of its legitimacy, standing and jurisdiction before he will provide any further material of which he says is relevant, clearly shows that he has and would continue to fail to comply with directions made by the Tribunal and to progress the applications in a timely fashion.

31. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the applications on the basis that it is satisfied that the Applicant has failed to both proceed with the applications and to comply with a direction of the Tribunal in relation to those applications within in a reasonable time.

    DECISION

32. Accordingly, the Applicant’s applications for review are dismissed pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act.

I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Mitchell

............[SGD]............................................................

Associate

Dated: 29 July 2021

Date of hearing:	22 July 2021
Applicant:	Mr Girle, by phone
Advocate for the Respondent:	By phone, Mr Christopher Bishop
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mills Oakley