CATCHWORDS – VETERANS’ AFFAIRS– whether Tribunal has under power to delay consideration of the claim under s 19A(1) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – whether a power encompassed within the powers and discretions conferred on the Tribunal by s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 for the purpose of the review of the decision – not such a power.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether applicant can obtain his own Medicare and PBS histories – whether prevented by secrecy provisions in the relevant legislation – not prevented.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether those secrecy provisions prevent the Tribunal from obtaining the applicant’s Medicare and PBS histories on summons – prevented from obtaining Medicare histories but not PBS histories.
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Rayson and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rayson and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 1063
Case
[2008] AATA 1063
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned a claim by Stanley Rayson for a disability pension on the basis of his service in the Royal Australian Navy. The Tribunal had to decide whether it could exercise certain powers under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VE Act) to review the decision of the Repatriation Commission (Commission) and to determine whether the Commission could obtain the applicant's Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) histories. The Tribunal decided that section 19A of the VE Act did not confer powers or discretions that could be exercised by the Tribunal for the purpose of reviewing a decision within the meaning of section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Commission could not use its powers under section 128 of the VE Act to obtain the applicant's Medicare and PBS histories due to secrecy provisions in the National Health Act 1953 (NH Act) and the Health Insurance Act 1973 (HIA). However, the Tribunal could summons the PBS histories under section 40(1A) of the AAT Act but not the Medicare histories. The applicant could obtain the Medicare and PBS histories, and there appeared to be no limits on the use that he could make of them.