Rana and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority

[2005] AATA 291

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 291

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2005/47

DIVISION		)
Re		RANJIT RANA

Applicant

And DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Justice Garry Downes, President  

Date1 April 2005

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The matter is adjourned until Friday 15 April, 10:00am. I direct the Authority to furnish the Chief of Army personally, as well as his delegate, with a copy of these reasons.  I indicate that I expect that a decision will be made and communicated to the applicant at least two clear days prior to the adjourned date.  If no decision is given within this time I expect that the Authority will procure an affidavit from the Chief of Army or his delegate explaining the delay and that the witness will be available to be questions by the Tribunal on the adjourned day.

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

President

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 April 2005

1. On 14 September 2005 the applicant Ranjit Rana wrote to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority. The letter was treated by the Authority as a request for retrospective invalidity classification under s 37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (“the Act”) and referred to the Chief of Army. Section 37 is as follows:

“Where a contributing member has been retired otherwise than on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties but, after his retirement, the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army or the Chief of Air Force or a person authorized in writing by the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army or the Chief of Air Force, as the case requires, informs the Authority that, at the time the member was retired, grounds existed on which he could have been retired on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties, he may, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as if he had been retired on that ground.”

2.      More than one year and a half has passed since the applicant wrote his letter.  No decision has been made as yet.  On 7 January 2005 the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs wrote to Mr Rana saying that the Department of Defence anticipated that the Chief of Army’s delegate “will have made his decision or your case in early 2005.”  We are now in the fourth month of 2005.

3. Justice delayed is justice denied. This is particularly true of administrative decision making. This view has the support of the Parliament when it enacted s 33 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to provide for proceedings in the Tribunal to “be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition” as possible. This was affirmed as recently as the week before last when the Parliament posted amendments to the Act, not yet proclaimed, which require the Tribunal to “pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick” (s 2A).

4.      If it is important for the Tribunal to conduct its reviews quickly and expeditiously it is even more important for decisions which can be reviewed by the Tribunal to be conducted in the same way.

5.      I do not know what has held up the decision in the current matter.  However, it seems to me that a delay of one and a half years is far too long.

6.      Neither the Chief of Army nor his delegate is a party to these proceedings.  However, the Authority is.

7.      I propose to adjourn this application for two weeks.  I direct the Authority to furnish the Chief of Army personally, as well as his delegate, with a copy of these reasons.  I indicate that I expect that a decision will be made and communicated to the applicant at least two clear days prior to the adjourned date.  If no decision is given within this time I expect that the Authority will procure an affidavit from the Chief of Army or his delegate explaining the delay and that the witness will be available to be questions by the Tribunal on the adjourned day.

8.      I accordingly adjourn the matter to Friday 15 April at 10.00 am and make the directions I have indicated.

I certify that the 8 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Justice Downes, President

Signed:     ............................................................................
                  Peter Pikis, Associate

Date of Hearing  1 April 2005
Date of Decision  1 April 2005

Counsel for the Applicant                  
Solicitor for the Applicant                   Mr Rana was self represented

Counsel for the Respondent             

Solicitor for the Respondent              Mr B Renfrey (Australian Government Solicitor)