Tait v Harvey
[2001] FCA 1476
•4 OCTOBER 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tait v Harvey [2001] FCA 1476
WILLIAM BILLY PETER TAIT v REGISTRAR OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL ROB HARVEY, THE OFFICE OF CENTRELINK, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY HON SENIOR MEMBER K L BEDDOE, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DEBRA HARRIS AND THE HON SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL K L BEDDOE
Q 196 OF 2001
DOWSETT J
4 OCTOBER 2001
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 196 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM BILLY PETER TAIT
APPLICANTAND:
REGISTRAR OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL ROB HARVEY
FIRST RESPONDENTTHE OFFICE OF CENTRELINK
SECOND RESPONDENTTHE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY HON SENIOR MEMBER K L BEDDOE
THIRD RESPONDENTTHE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DEBRA HARRIS
FOURTH RESPONDENTTHE HON SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL K L BEDDOE
FIFTH RESPONDENTJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.
2. Costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondent be costs in the cause.
3. The Commonwealth of Australia be joined as the sixth respondent.
4. The applicant pay the sixth respondent’s costs of today.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 196 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM BILLY PETER TAIT
APPLICANTAND:
REGISTRAR OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL ROB HARVEY
FIRST RESPONDENTTHE OFFICE OF CENTRELINK
SECOND RESPONDENTTHE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY HON SENIOR MEMBER K L BEDDOE
THIRD RESPONDENTTHE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DEBRA HARRIS
FOURTH RESPONDENTTHE HON SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL K L BEDDOE
FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
4 OCTOBER 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for interlocutory relief brought by the applicant, who has been for some time, it seems, in receipt of a New Start Allowance pursuant to Part 2.12 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). He received a letter dated 5 June 2001, which he says he received on 13 June. The letter indicated that he had been selected to undertake a “Work for the Dole” program with an organisation called WorkTracks. He was invited to attend an interview with an officer of that organisation, the time and place of which were specified.
It seems that the time of the interview was shortly after his receipt of the letter - or at least so he says. The letter also indicated that at the interview he and the nominated person would negotiate a “Preparing for Work” agreement.
The relevant legislation is quite complex, but it seems that the Secretary of the relevant Department, should he form the view that a recipient of New Start Allowance should participate in an approved program of work for unemployment payment (which is relevantly described as “The Work for the Dole Program”) may direct that such a person enter into a New Start Activity agreement, a term which is defined in s 606. It seems likely that a “Preparing for Work” agreement would fall within that definition.
A person’s entitlement to receive the New Start Allowance depends upon his doing certain things, including entering into such an agreement (s 593(1)(e)). The Secretary has, pursuant to s 607, power to determine that a person has failed to enter into such an agreement.
This process has occurred. The applicant did not attend the interview and has subsequently, it seems, not entered into an appropriate agreement. As a result of this, his relevant allowance was reduced although not completely terminated. He attacks the process which has led to this upon three bases:
(1)a denial of natural justice which seems to be a generalised allegation that he does not know why the department has made a variety of different decisions;
(2)that there was no legal authority to send the letter of 5 June 2001;
(3)that it was not within the power of the Secretary to require that he negotiate with an agent for the purpose of entering into an agreement of the kind contemplated by s 605.
In the course of argument it appeared that although the applicant seeks to set aside these various decisions, his present concern and necessarily, the subject matter of the claim for interlocutory relief, is that a decision will be taken in the future which will affect his entitlements. In other words, he seeks interlocutory relief which does not relate to any prior decision but rather to an anticipated decision which may be similar to prior decisions. It seems to me that any application for interlocutory relief with respect to a decision not yet taken must fail. Such an application may be renewed when the decision is made.
It is certainly not appropriate to ask the Court, as the applicant does, to make a general declaration at this stage as to the validity of past conduct and to restrain any future decision as to his entitlement to relief. It seems to me that prima facie the department had authority to do what it has done, although it may be that some of the language is a little vague and perhaps, further removed from the language of the statute than one would like to see. Nonetheless it seems to me that the process has been designed to meet the needs of most of those seeking government support. One suspects that very few of them would have the interest in the precise nature of the authority underlying the department’s activity which has been demonstrated by the present applicant. It may be that the letter does not refer him to the precise sections, but I do not think that most people would be concerned about that. I do not think it affects the legality of what the department has done.
The natural justice arguments are too vague and ill defined to be determined for present purposes relating, as they do, to a variety of different decisions. As to the question of agency, I can see no reason why the Secretary or any of his subordinates ought not act through agents. There is nothing in this point.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate any serious question to be tried at this time. There is certainly no basis for ordering that he continue to receive benefits whilst this matter is being finally determined. In those circumstances, the application for interlocutory relief is dismissed. The costs of the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondent will be costs in the cause.
It seems to me probable that the office of Centrelink has been wrongly joined as a party and that the party ought be the Commonwealth or a department of state. Given that the application today is for interlocutory relief, it is, I think, appropriate that the Commonwealth of Australia be joined as the sixth respondent. I so order. The sixth respondent has, in effect, appeared to oppose the application which was really for an order against Centrelink. In those circumstances, the Commonwealth should have the benefit of an order for costs of today, but upon the basis that no order will, in the future, be made in favour of any other entity
representing Centrelink. I will order that the applicant pay the sixth respondent’s costs of today.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 19 October 2001
The Applicant appeared In Person: Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr M Fellows Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Solicitor for the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 October 2001 Date of Judgment: 4 October 2001
0
0
0