Leong-Fook Ng and Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

[2014] AATA 377

[2014] AATA 377 

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2014/0448
Re	Leong-Fook Ng
APPLICANT
And	Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President K Bean
Date	4 June 2014
Date of written reasons	17 June 2014
Place	Adelaide

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the application for review.  Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed.

........................................................................

Deputy President K Bean

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - Respondent notified applicant that it had no power to review allegations of misconduct made by the applicant against certain medical practitioners and bodies - No provision which confers jurisdiction on Tribunal to review respondent's "decision" or applicant's allegations of misconduct - Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 25

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), s 6

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President K Bean

17 June 2014

1. The applicant, Dr Ng, filed an application with the Tribunal on 28 January 2014.  In that application he sought review of what he described as a “decision” of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (the Agency) dated 15 January 2014.

2. That “decision” consisted of a letter from the Agency to Dr Ng, responding to his letter of 24 December 2013 seeking a review of the dismissal of certain notifications he had made concerning alleged inappropriate conduct by a number of medical practitioners and bodies.  Those notifications were apparently made in October 2012 to the Victorian Board of the Medical Board of Australia, a body which is supported by the Agency, and were dismissed by the Board in February 2013.[1]

   [1] Applicant’s material lodged on 12 February 2014 and 17 February 2014.

3. In its letter, the Agency advised Dr Ng that it had no power to review Board decisions, or to “review allegations of misconduct involving organisations, or practitioners conducting functions on behalf of other organisations”. 

4. In these circumstances, the first question which arises from Dr Ng’s application is whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to review any “decision” disclosed by the Agency’s letter dated 15 January 2014, or the other material filed by Dr Ng. It is important to point out that by virtue of s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act), this Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review decisions specified as reviewable by the Tribunal in a Commonwealth Act.

5. Having researched the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to health practitioners, I note that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Commonwealth Minister for Health which relate to medical practitioners and services provided by them.  However, I have not been able to locate any provision which confers jurisdiction on this Tribunal to review decisions of the Agency in relation to the conduct of medical practitioners.  Nor have I located any provision of any Commonwealth Act which confers jurisdiction on this Tribunal to review decisions made by any Medical Board.  

6. Although he has provided detailed submissions and supporting documentation to the Tribunal, Dr Ng has not directed me to any provision which gives this Tribunal jurisdiction to review the “decision” the subject of his application.  Indeed, Dr Ng conceded at the hearing before me on 4 June 2014 that the Tribunal did not appear to have jurisdiction with respect to his application.  Mr Schatz, who appeared for the Agency, also submitted that Dr Ng’s application did not relate to any decision the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review.

7. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Dr Ng’s application does not relate to any decision which this Tribunal has jurisdiction to review.  Accordingly, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to Dr Ng’s application, I must dismiss his application for that reason.

8. For completeness, I should add that I decided to dismiss Dr Ng’s application at the hearing on 4 June 2014, and gave oral reasons for my decision.  Later that day, Dr Ng made a request for written reasons, and this written version of my oral reasons has been prepared in response to that request.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the application for review.  Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding 9 (nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President K Bean

........................................................................

Associate

Dated 17 June 2014

Date of hearing	4 June 2014
Date of written reasons	17 June 2014
Applicant	In person
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr A Schatz
Solicitors for the Respondent	Australian Government Solicitor