Smith and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[2008] AATA 921
•9 October 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
[2008] AATA 921
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)No: 2008/3782
General Administrative Division )
Re: Ms Pamela Smith
Applicant
And: Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Deputy President P E Hack SC
DATE: 9 October 2008
PLACE: Brisbane
Being satisfied that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision the subject of this application, THE TRIBUNAL HEREBY DIRECTS that the application be dismissed under s42A(4) of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal Act 1975.
..........Signed.............
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 14 August 2008 the applicant, Ms Pamela Smith, lodged an application seeking a review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 24 July 2008. The respondent, the Secretary, Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, has taken the view that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine Ms Smith’s application. In order to understand that submission it is necessary to set out a little of the procedural history to the matter.
At some stage Ms Smith was in a relationship with a Mr Hurley. That relationship came to an end sometime prior to February 2006. Ms Smith made a claim for parenting payment on a single basis; however that claim was rejected by Centrelink because Centrelink took the view that she was not separated from Mr Hurley.
Ms Smith applied for a review but the decision was affirmed on 23 March 2006 by an authorised review officer. Ms Smith sought a further review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which on 15 May 2007 set the decision aside and sent the matter back to Centrelink for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that Ms Smith’s claim for parenting payment be assessed on the basis that she was a member of a couple.
Implicit within that decision was a decision that that Tribunal took the view that Ms Smith was at the relevant time a member of a couple. It appears from the material and from what Ms Smith has told me that she continues to dispute the assertion that she was at the relevant time a member of a couple. In any event on 24 July 2007 she applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review the earlier decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
On 4 March 2008 this Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, again I am told on the footing that the correct factual conclusion was that at the relevant time Ms Smith was a member of a couple. Ms Smith did not appeal that decision to the Federal Court of Australia.
Subsequently, Ms Smith provided more factual material to Centrelink which sought to sustain the conclusion contrary to those earlier reached that she was not a member of a couple.
A further decision was made within Centrelink and affirmed by an authorised review officer. Subsequently a review was sought of the decision of the authorised review officer in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. That Tribunal determined on 24 July 2008 that it had no jurisdiction to determine the appeal. The matter is now before us and the same question arises.
It is well settled that this Tribunal does not sit in appeal from its own decisions. The time for Ms Smith to agitate the correctness of the factual findings has long passed. It is oppressive and vexatious in the legal sense to seek to agitate again questions that have already been decided by this Tribunal[1].
[1]See Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) 46 AAR 447; [2007] FCAFC 174.
In the circumstances there is no jurisdiction to hear the application and the application will be refused.
0
1
0