Kennedy and Decision Maker (Practice and procedure)
[2025] ARTA 1008
•11 April 2025
Kennedy and Decision Maker (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1008 (11 April 2025)
Applicant/s: Belinda Kennedy
Respondent: Decision Maker
Tribunal Number: 2024/8656
Tribunal:General Member M. Carey
Place:Melbourne
Date:11 April 2025
Decision:The decision of 23 September 2024 pursuant to the Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) is not a reviewable decision pursuant to section 12 of the ART Act and accordingly the proceedings in matter number 2024/8656 is dismissed pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act.
.......................[SGD].................................................
General Member M. Carey
Catchwords
DISMISSAL – decision made under Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – application for review lodged with ART – decision not a ‘reviewable decision’ for the purposes of section 12(1) ART Act – dismissal as decision not reviewable by Tribunal.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)Statement of Reasons
Ms Belinda Kennedy lodged an application for review of a decision with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 24 October 2024. That matter was accepted by the Tribunal’s registry and allocated a Tribunal number 2024-8656.
The decision complained of is one made on 23 September 2024 and was clearly a decision about workers compensation. In the application form, Ms Kennedy informed the Tribunal as follows:
Workcover Queensland Claim S24XJ161492 dated 23 September 2024 decision I am requesting this to be reviewed as per the below.
• the personal injury did not arise out of or in the course of your employment
As per my medical report the original injury occurred during my employment, the original injury occurred due to the environment I was exposed to sexual discrimination and toxic workplace culture, the meeting with my employer on the 22nd of August 2024 aggravated my original condition.
• the employment is not a significant contributing factor to the injury.
The meeting on the 22nd of August with my employer representative aggravated my original condition by continuing to dismiss the sexual discrimination complaint.
The AHRC process is part of my employment process as my employer has not addressed any of the complaints raised. The employer has not met their obligation to assist my return to work process, or address any of the complaints.
Workcover are advising that the process of reconciliation with my employer does not meet the significant contributing factor. I disagree and believe it’s a significant factor.
Prior to lodging my complaint to AHRC I went through the internal processes provided by my employer:
o 06/06/2022 raised with HR
o 24/10/2022 raised with Ethics
o Mr Hill was advised during the stage 2 review that Mr Ruffin and I attend mediation - no action
o Reported to Assistant Director General Peter Cook, by Kelley Beckett, Charmaine Carr and myself.
o Reported to AHRC
o Reported to Yvette D’Ath
o Reported to Steven Miles
to date none of these have been addressed and I am still on stress leave.
Jurisdiction to review
Section 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) provides:
12 Reviewable decisions
(1) A decision is a reviewable decision if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.
Background
Ms Kennedy advised the Tribunal that she was now 51 years of age and the psychological condition she suffered resulted in her taking a voluntary early retirement. She does not receive any compensatory income. She was paid her accumulated pro-rata long service and annual leave. She has not resumed any work since leaving her employment. She resides west of Ipswich in the State of Queensland.
The decision made concerning compensation was made pursuant to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA).
There is a provision for review of adverse decisions pursuant to s 538(1)(a) of the WRCA initially; an ‘Internal review by Insurer’ of ‘a decision to reject an application’. Where the adverse decision is maintained following internal review, there is a further right of appeal pursuant to s 549(1) WCRA to the Industrial Magistrate or Industrial Commission.
There is, in certain limited circumstances, right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).
Ms Kennedy informed the Tribunal that she had utilised the primary appeal mechanisms internally with the insurer and the Industrial Magistrate or Industrial Commission. At the Industrial Commission stage, she was told of the cost of legal representation. She explained that she did not get any assistance from solicitors she approached on a ‘no win no fee’ basis.
Ms Kennedy told the Tribunal that she had been advised when lodging her application with the ART Registry that the Tribunal could not proceed with the review. That is correct advice, but I advised her that the Registry will not reject the lodgement of an application and the power to dismiss is one that can only be exercised by a member constituted to make that decision.
Outcome
There is no provision in any legislation for review of any decision made for the purposes of the Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to the current Administrative Review Tribunal.
This Tribunal does review workers compensation decisions, but this jurisdiction is confined to reviewable decisions made pursuant to Commonwealth Acts such as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).
Accordingly, the application made in relation to the decision of 23 September 2024 pursuant to the Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 in ART matter number 2024/8656 shall be dismissed pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act as a decision that is not reviewable.
Date(s) of hearing: 1 April 2025 Applicant: In person
0
0
0