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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Paschke to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) seeking a review of a general policy decision of Services Australia. The AAT, constituted by A. Nikolic Am Csc SM, considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application, given that Mr Paschke had not sought a review of an earlier Authorised Review Officer (ARO) decision by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the AAT (AAT1).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the policy decision as sought by Mr Paschke. This involved determining whether the procedural requirements for accessing the AAT’s review jurisdiction had been met, specifically in relation to the tiered review process established by the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction under s 25(1) of the AAT Act is confined to reviewing decisions made under Commonwealth statutes. The relevant statute here was the Administration Act, which provides for a two-tiered review process. Crucially, the Tribunal held that s 179(1) of the Administration Act mandates that a decision by AAT1 is a necessary prerequisite for the jurisdiction of the General Division of the AAT (AAT2) to be enlivened. As Mr Paschke had not sought a review of the favourable ARO decision in 2012 before AAT1, the jurisdiction of AAT2 had not been activated.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr Paschke’s application and dismissed it pursuant to s 42A(4) of the AAT Act.