Hadden and Decision Maker

[2024] AATA 360

Hadden and Decision Maker [2024] AATA 360 (29 January 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2024/0589

Re:Paul Hadden  

APPLICANT

AndDecision Maker

RESPONDENT

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris

Date of written reasons:        29 January 2024

Place:Melbourne

Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application.

...................[SGN].....................................................

Senior Member D. J. Morris

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for review of various decisions – some of decisions not made by Commonwealth entities – some of grievances of the applicant are general in nature – tribunal unable to distill a reviewable decision – applicant also requested extension of time – tribunal decided it does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions sought – not necessary therefore to consider whether to enlarge time – application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Senior Member D. J. Morris

29 February 2024

1. The Applicant has lodged an application for a review of certain decisions.

2. In summary, the decisions relate to a review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, a warrant  executed by the Australian Federal Police, what the Applicant describes as “gross negligence by multiple government agencies and authorities” and “gross incompetence” by the same; violation of United Nations resolutions by government agencies and authorities, and negligence, incompetence and violation of UN resolutions by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In the section of the application form where an applicant can say why they think the decision is wrong, the Applicant refers to denial of social security benefits to him in 2016 and 2019 and actions by Victoria Police in 2022 and 2023.

3. Mr Hadden claimed he is “owed relief by Centrelink and Services Australia” and that he agreed to discontinue a matter in the Federal Court of Australia in order to ‘allow’ the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme to occur.

4. At the hearing, the Tribunal explained that it has no inherent powers of review. It can only review administrative decisions where another enactment (i.e. another Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia) so provides.

5. It would appear from the information the Applicant has provided that he has a long history of involvement with Centrelink and has been aggrieved by his treatment by the agency at various points.

6. Mr Hadden applied for compensation from the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (‘CDDA scheme’) without success.

7. The Tribunal is unable to review decisions made by the administrators of the CDDA scheme because those decisions are discretionary, not decisions made under an enactment which empowers the Tribunal to review a decision.

8. Mr Hadden may have other avenues to pursue his grievances through the Federal Court of Australia. The Tribunal notes he previously lodged a matter with that Court and then withdrew it. He said in the interlocutory hearing that he did so in good faith. Mr Hadden indicated he may relodge an application with that Court.  That is a matter for him, because the Tribunal cannot provide legal advice to a person.

9. The Tribunal also made clear to the Applicant at the interlocutory hearing, which he said he accepted, that it has no power to award compensation.

10. The Tribunal accepts on the material before it that Mr Hadden has certain declared health conditions and past family circumstances which place him in the category of being a vulnerable person.

11. The Tribunal notes that some of the matters the Applicant raises relate to actions by State bodies and agencies which are not created by an enactment. Their actions may be reviewable by a State tribunal, but not by this Tribunal.

12. The Tribunal recommends to Mr Hadden that, if he wishes to pursue the matters he has raised, he contacts a community legal service such as (for example) Social Security Rights Victoria. That organisation may be able to assist him further.

13. However, in this case the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no decision before it that can be distilled as being reviewable by the Tribunal.

14. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that Mr Hadden indicated in his application form that he received the decision he wanted reviewed on 13 July 2022 and that he also wished to apply for an extension of time for his application to be received. One of the reasons he articulated at the hearing in regard to the extension of time was that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had been abolished and he thought a new tribunal could look at his matters afresh. The Tribunal explained that, although the Government has announced that the Tribunal will be abolished and replaced with a new merits-review body, which has not yet occurred.

15. The Tribunal decided it did not need to consider the question as to whether time should be extended for the application to be considered, because it was unable to identify a particular decision under an enactment which was reviewable.

    CONCLUSION

16. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decisions brought by the Applicant to the Tribunal for review are not reviewable.

17. Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application.

I certify that the preceding 17 (seventeen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

....................[sgn]....................................................

Associate

Dated: 29 February 2024

Date of hearing:	16 February 2024
Applicant:	Self-Represented