Neville and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner

This matter concerned an application by Mr Neville to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of a decision made by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. Mr Neville had lodged a complaint regarding the Commissioner's refusal to fund certain vitamins and supplements, which was based on advice that they offered no clinical benefit. The Commissioner affirmed this decision upon reconsideration, advising Mr Neville that he could contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Mr Neville subsequently sought to appeal the reconsideration decision to the AAT.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision. This required the court to determine whether the Commissioner's decision fell within the definition of a "complaints reviewable decision" or a "regulatory reviewable decision" as defined by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Rules 2018 (Cth). The AAT was required to consider the legislative framework governing the Commissioner's powers and the specific provisions that determined the reviewability of decisions made under that framework.

The AAT reasoned that the decision made in response to Mr Neville's complaint, specifically the decision to take no further action, constituted a "complaints reviewable decision" under Item 1 of section 98 of the Rules. However, the AAT found that the decision made by the Commissioner under section 100 of the Rules was expressly excluded as a "regulatory reviewable decision." The court relied on extrinsic material, including the explanatory statement to the Rules, which indicated that applications to the AAT for reconsidered complaints reviewable decisions were deliberately not intended for external merits review. Consequently, the AAT concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr Neville's application.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr Neville's application for review under section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.