Thiruchelvam and Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning an application by Ms. Thiruchelvam for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The dispute centred on an import permit issued to Ms. Thiruchelvam for a live dog, a pet poodle, which expired on 1 November 2020. The permit had numerous conditions, including that the dog must arrive in Australia before its expiry date. A subsequent determination by the Department, effective from 12 March 2020, suspended the importation of cats and dogs from Malaysia for six months due to concerns about the robustness of veterinary health certifications and the risk of exotic diseases.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the application for review served any useful purpose and had reasonable prospects of success. Specifically, the Tribunal considered the implications of the permit's expiry, the effect of the Biosecurity (Suspended Goods – Cats and Dogs Malaysia) Determination 2020 on the permit, and whether the Applicant's grounds for challenging the decision, primarily based on personal inconvenience and perceived unfairness, could overcome the Department's biosecurity concerns.

The Tribunal reasoned that even if the decision to revoke the permit were set aside, the application would have no legal effect. The permit had expired, meaning the Applicant would need to apply for a new one. Furthermore, the determination suspending imports from Malaysia meant that even a valid permit could not be used to import the dog from that country, as Malaysia was not an approved country for such importations. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's challenge did not address the detailed risk assessment and policy of the Australian regulator regarding biosecurity from Malaysia, and that to find for the Applicant would require ignoring these significant concerns. The Tribunal noted the Respondent's suggestion that the Applicant consider exporting the dog from a third, approved country and applying for a new permit on that basis, which appeared to be the most practical approach.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the application was frivolous, serving no useful purpose and having no reasonable prospects of success. Pursuant to section 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application.