Racz and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2007] AATA 1237

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1237

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  V2006/598

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		STEVEN RACZ

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS 

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date18 April 2007

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The application to reinstate this application is refused.

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

John Handley
Senior Member

  

CATCHWORDS – application to reinstate – written reasons requested ‑ application dismissed by failure to appear at hearing – applicant denied pharmacy allowance in total $12.42 – intention to appeal not to recover that sum but to “expose” decision‑making processes of Centrelink – no complaint against decision of Social Security Appeals Tribunal – reinstatement not considered appropriate (s 42A(9)) – application to reinstate refused

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 25 and s 42A(2) and s 42A(8) and s 42A(9)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 179

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 April 2007   Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      On 27 March 2007, the applicant applied to reinstate this application.  At the conclusion of the hearing I delivered oral reasons refusing the application.  The applicant has subsequently requested written reasons.

2.      The circumstances of this application may be briefly summarised as follows.

3.      Mr Racz applied to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT) made on 24 May 2006.  The decision then made was to refuse him exemption from the newstart allowance activity test.

4. The application was listed for hearing on 8 January 2007 but was adjourned at the applicant’s request. The applicant made that application because the hearing date fell within the school holidays. The Tribunal acceded to the request with the consent of the respondent and the matter was re‑listed for hearing on 12 February 2007. The applicant did not then appear and the Member presiding decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s 42A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the Act).  On 13 February 2007, he telephoned the Tribunal and advised that he did not appear because of a family emergency.  On 15 February 2007, he forwarded a letter by facsimile to the Tribunal requesting that his application be reinstated.  Attached to that letter was a medical certificate dated 14 February 2007 advising that the applicant is providing care for Ms Amanda Christens the period [sic] Monday 12 February 2007 to inclusive.

5.      The reinstatement application was listed for 27 March 2007.  On the day previous, the applicant rang the Tribunal and requested that the matter be adjourned because he was suffering from a gastric illness.  It was decided to retain the listing but to have the reinstatement application heard by telephone.  The matter therefore proceeded on that day.  The applicant participated by telephone without objection.  Mr Carson attended the Tribunal and appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6.      By a letter dated 8 March 2007 forwarded to the applicant and to the Tribunal, an officer of the respondent confirmed that the decision under review was confined to the period 24 October 2005 to 24 January 2006 only.  Within that period of time the applicant was paid newstart allowance.  He was not paid pharmacy allowance during that period of $2.07 per fortnight.  The applicant agreed during the reinstatement hearing that the application was limited to the period above, that newstart allowance had been paid, but he was not aware that pharmacy allowance had not been paid.  He was therefore not aware that his claim – if reinstated and if successful – would entitle him to a payment of $12.42 only (6 fortnightly payments at $2.07).  He agreed that a suspension of benefits after January 2006 was not the subject of or relevant to this review.

7.      When questioned why he sought to reinstate the application, the applicant said that Centrelink had refused to accept his medical certificates.  He said that that decision had caused him hardship and was unfair.  He said that he also wanted to proceed with the appeal because he wanted to bring to the attention of the public the practices of Centrelink in rejecting medical evidence, that their decision‑making practices were poor and he wanted those practices exposed.  He also said that he had been badly treated by Centrelink, he was ill, he needed support to look after his family and he needed to continue with this application because of his health and mental well being.

8.      After I heard the submissions of the applicant and the submissions of Mr Carson and by reference also to a letter of the respondent addressed to the applicant dated 8 March 2007, I decided for reasons delivered orally that the application should be refused.  These reasons have been prepared from typed notes made immediately after the application was heard on 27 March 2007.

conclusion

9. Section 42A(2) of the Act gives the Tribunal a discretion to dismiss an application if an applicant fails to appear on the day when the matter is listed for hearing. The Tribunal Member constituted to hear the application on 12 February 2007 made that decision. On the day following 12 February 2007, the applicant contacted the Tribunal by telephone and then two days later contacted the Tribunal by facsimile letter producing a medical certificate concerning an illness of his partner. In that letter he requested reinstatement. Reinstatement of an application is permitted by s42A(8) of the Act if the request is made within 28 days of receiving notification of dismissal. That request was made within that timeframe. An application may be reinstated if the Tribunal considers it appropriate to do so (refer s 42A(9) of the Act).

10.     The authority of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to hear appeals is found at s 25 of the Act and s 179 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).  Section 25 of the Act permits a review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by (an) enactment.  Section 179 of the Administration Act permits a review of a decision of the SSAT.  Accordingly, on the initiation of citizens, this Tribunal reviews the decisions of government, or its agencies when power to do so is conferred.  In matters initiated by a decision of Centrelink, this Tribunal reviews decisions of the SSAT.

11.     On 27 March 2007, I was of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to reinstate the application.

12.     I indicated to the applicant that if the application was reinstated and if he succeeded the maximum monetary entitlement to him would be $12.42.  He acknowledged that he had received newstart allowance during the period in issue.  He was not aware that pharmacy allowance had not been paid.  He acknowledged that if he did succeed in the application his maximum monetary entitlement would be $12.42.  He did not submit that he was impecunious.  He did not make any complaint against the decision to refuse his exemption from the activity test, it being the decision which was made by Centrelink and affirmed by the SSAT.

13.     The applicant’s stated basis for reinstatement is to proceed with the application to bring the decision-making practices of Centrelink with respect to rejection of medical evidence to the attention of the public.  Those practices were described by him as poor and he wanted them exposed.

14.     Review by this Tribunal is of decisions, not decision‑making processes.  As referred to earlier, the decision made is not challenged.  The applicant did not therefore apply for reinstatement to agitate for the correct or preferable decision to be made.  The decision‑making process from which the applicant complains resulted in pharmacy allowance, in total $12.42, not being paid.  But the process from which he complains was the rejection of his medical evidence.  It was not rejected.  The Authorised Review Officer (T24) and the SSAT discussed in their respective findings and reasons the medical evidence that was lodged, no less the extensive certificates of the applicant’s doctors.  Whilst not wishing to labour the point made earlier, the applicant’s complaint is against Centrelink but review here can only be against a decision of the SSAT.  He made no complaint against its decision.

15.     Should the applicant remain unhappy with respect to the practices within Centrelink – as he asserted during the hearing of the reinstatement application – he may consider bringing his concerns to the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.  Additionally whilst I acknowledge the applicant does suffer from a number of illnesses and injuries, pursuing the application before this Tribunal – irrespective of the outcome – would have been of no assistance to his health and mental well being (refer paragraph 7 earlier).  Matters of that nature are within the expertise of the medical profession.  For reasons given above, and in the exercise of the discretion available by the above sections of the Act, I am not prepared to exercise the discretion available to reinstate the application because it would not in the circumstances be appropriate to do so.

I certify that the 15 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Personal Assistant

Date of Hearing  27 March 2007
Date of Decision  18 April 2007
Solicitor for the Applicant          Self Represented
Departmental Advocate            Mr A Carson