Savage and Minister for Veterans' Affairs

[2004] AATA 67

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 67

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2003/948

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		RONALD SAVAGE

Applicant

And MINISTER FOR VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Michael Sassella, Senior Member

Date27 January 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter and cannot accept this application for review.

[sgd] M J Sassella

Senior Member

Administrative

Appeals
Tribunal

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2003/948

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		RONALD SAVAGE

Applicant

And MINISTER FOR VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Respondent

ORDER TO AMEND WRITTEN DECISION

Tribunal  Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member

Date 22 March 2004

Place Sydney

WHEREAS:

1.   The Tribunal released a written decision in this matter, which was dated 27 January 2003.

2.   It has come to the Tribunal’s attention that there was an error in the decision.

3. The Tribunal wishes to amend the written decision so as to rectify this error and wishing to do so with the least cost and inconvenience to the parties, applies the provision of section 43AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975.

NOW THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE ORDERS that the decision should be dated as follows:

27 January 2004

[sgd] M J Sassella
   Senior Member

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1.      Mr Savage seeks recognition of his national service for the purposes of qualifying for an “Anniversary of National Service 1951-1972 Medal” (“the medal”).  He has been informed by the office of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence that he does not qualify for conferral of the medal.

2.      Mr Savage sought to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) against that determination.

3. Under s 25(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the AAT Act”) the AAT can accept an application for review only where there is an enactment conferring jurisdiction on the AAT to hear appeals under that enactment.

4.      The AAT was unable to identify an enactment according it jurisdiction in relation to decisions regarding the medal or a person’s status as having engaged in national service. 

5.      The AAT asked Mr Savage if he could identify such an enactment.  He referred the AAT to jurisdiction it clearly has in s 175 of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 to hear appeals from veterans aggrieved as a result of certain decisions made under that Act.  That jurisdiction does not extend, however, to decisions regarding the medal or a person's status under the National Service Act 1951. 

6. He referred also to the National Service Act (repealed in 1992) which, he said, provided certain avenues of appeal to certain courts. Neither the AAT nor Mr Savage nor Mr Paul Pirani, an officer in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“DVA”) who agreed to assist the AAT when Mr Savage’s application for review was referred erroneously to DVA and who appeared in effect at the hearing on jurisdiction as an amicus curiae, could identify anything in the documents establishing the qualification criteria for the medal that would confer jurisdiction on the AAT.

7.      Mr Savage described the difficulties he has experienced in having his argument that he does, or should, qualify for the medal dealt with.  In particular he alleged that he had approached officers in the Honours and Awards Section of the Department of Defence and his calls were not answered.  This appears unfortunate, if correct, and suggests a degree of discourtesy and questionable administration.  It would seem desirable that the problem be remedied, but this is not strictly a matter for the AAT.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Michael Sassella, Senior Member

Signed:         .......................................................................................
  Associate

Date of hearing  23 January 2004
Date of decision  27 January 2003
Advocate for the applicant        Self-represented
Tribunal amicus curiae             Mr Paul Pirani