Wilson and Secretary, Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Social services second review)

This matter concerned three applications before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) brought by the Applicant against decisions made by the Secretary, Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. The applications related to the Applicant's eligibility for Newstart Allowance and Austudy payments, specifically concerning activity test breach rate reductions and the higher rate of Austudy. The Applicant's primary objective in seeking review was to address his dissatisfaction with the conduct of officers of the Respondent over an extended period.

The AAT was required to determine whether to dismiss any of the applications pursuant to section 42B of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), which allows for the dismissal of applications that are frivolous or vexatious, or where a decision cannot have a practical effect. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether any of the applications raised a genuine legal issue warranting further substantive hearing, particularly in light of the Applicant's stated collateral purpose for seeking review.

The Tribunal reasoned that Applications 1 and 3, which concerned decisions favourable to the Applicant, should be dismissed under section 42B. It found that these applications were made for collateral purposes, namely to address the Applicant's grievances regarding officer conduct, rather than to challenge the substantive correctness of the favourable decisions. As these decisions were already in the Applicant's favour and had no practical financial impact, further review would not serve the purpose of the AAT. However, Application 2, which concerned a decision not favourable to the Applicant regarding the higher rate of Austudy, raised a legal issue that warranted further consideration. Therefore, Applications 1 and 3 were dismissed, while Application 2 was to proceed to a substantive hearing.