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

This matter concerned an application for review before Deputy J Sosso P of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant sought to challenge a decision of the AAT, which had itself reviewed a decision made by a Subject Matter Expert (SME). The core dispute revolved around whether the AAT had the jurisdiction to review the SME's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the SME's decision was a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), and consequently, whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review the SME's decision. The Tribunal was required to determine if the statutory preconditions for review had been met.

Deputy J Sosso P reasoned that a SME's role is to provide an independent explanation of an agency decision to a customer, but they do not possess the authority to conduct a formal review of an initial agency decision as contemplated by section 235 of the Administration Act. It was not contested that the initial agency decision rejecting the applicant's claim for a Disability Support Pension had not been reconsidered by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO). The Tribunal found that the AAT's review powers are governed by the enabling legislation, in this instance, Part 4A of the Administration Act. As the initial agency decision had not been reviewed by an ARO, the subsequent decision by the SME was not a reviewable decision, and therefore, the AAT lacked jurisdiction to review it.

Consequently, the application for review was dismissed pursuant to section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The appropriate course for the applicant was to request a review of the original agency decision by an ARO, after which the statutory review scheme could be activated if necessary.