Eddy and Commonwealth Ombudsman [2009] AATA 98 (12 February 2009)

Last Updated: 16 February 2009

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 98

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No: 2009/0153

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
	Re		Peter Eddy

Applicant

And

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Deputy President G. L. McDonald

Date 12 February 2009

Place Melbourne

Decision

For the reasons given both orally and in writing, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the respondent. The application is therefore dismissed under the provisions of s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975.

..............................................
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS – JURISDICTION – whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Commonwealth Ombudsman – application dismissed

Administrative Appeals Act 1975 s 42A(4)

Ombudsman Act 1976

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 February 2009

Deputy President G. L. McDonald

1. Mr Eddy has been engaged in what he calls an ongoing dispute with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is beyond these reasons for the Tribunal to go into the intricacies of that ‘dispute.’ It is relevant that in 2007 Mr Eddy subsequently sought the help of Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, who was then the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in relation to this ‘dispute.’ Mr Eddy’s correspondence remained unanswered by the Senator’s office, whereupon Mr Eddy complained to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commonwealth Ombudsman subsequently commenced an investigation in relation to the complaints made by Mr Eddy about the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
2. An Investigation Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office wrote to Mr Eddy on 10 December 2008 informing him the Ombudsman’s office was not authorised to investigate actions or decisions taken by a Minister. A few days later Mr Eddy telephoned the Investigation Officer because he believed some parts of her letter were inaccurate. During this conversation the Investigation Officer allegedly told Mr Eddy that the Commonwealth Ombudsman was not accountable to any one.
3. Mr Eddy now wants the Tribunal to, in his own words, ratify that statement. Mr Eddy additionally seeks the Tribunal to review the Ombudsman’s failure to obtain the information and explanations he has sought (by letter dated 8 October 2008) and the Ombudsman’s refusal to answer questions and to provide any reasons for decisions during the above conversation Mr Eddy had with the Investigation Officer.
4. On 14 January 2009 the Tribunal sent a letter to Mr Eddy informing him that there did not seem to be any Act that gave the Tribunal power to review the decision referred to in his application. Mr Eddy was then invited to show, within 14 days, why he thought the Tribunal had jurisdiction. On 19 January 2009 Mr Eddy filed with the Tribunal a bundle of documents. The staff in the Tribunal registry thought this bundle were his submissions regarding jurisdiction (in fact, Mr Eddy has since informed the Tribunal staff that it was in fact another application). Based on the material Mr Eddy filed with the Tribunal and his initial application, and in accordance with the Tribunal’s usual procedures, a jurisdiction hearing was listed so that Mr Eddy could have the opportunity to tell the Tribunal why he thought it had jurisdiction to review a decision or actions by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
5. The Tribunal has the power to review a range of decisions made by Ministers, officers, authorities, and other tribunals. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decisions made under more than 400 separate Acts and legislative instruments. However, the Tribunal cannot review every decision made by the Commonwealth. The Tribunal can only review a decision if an Act, regulation or other enactment states that the Tribunal can review the decision.
6. The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is created by the Ombudsman Act 1976. There is nothing in that Act that gives the Tribunal the power to review the Ombudsman’s decisions. Decisions of the Commonwealth Ombudsman may be internally reviewed once. After that internal review, the decision cannot be further reviewed. There is no right of appeal to this Tribunal.
7. Whilst the Tribunal understands Mr Eddy’s frustration, this Tribunal does not have the power to force the Commonwealth Ombudsman to answer questions and cannot compel the Ombudsman to follow its stated charter. The Ombudsman’s office is located in the portfolio of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If Mr Eddy wants to pursue his matter he may want to think about writing to the Prime Minister’s office.
8. For completeness, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was informed of the jurisdiction hearing listed on 12 February 2009. The Tribunal did not require a representative from the Ombudsman’s office to take part in the hearing as the jurisdiction issues were clear. Therefore, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has not been heard in this matter except for written submissions filed on 10 February 2009.
9. For the reasons given both orally and in writing, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the respondent. The application is therefore dismissed under the provisions of s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975.
   

I certify that the nine preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

Deputy President G. L. McDonald

Signed: .....................................................................................

Associate Grace Horzitski

Date of Hearing 12 February 2009

Date of Decision 12 February 2009

Counsel for the Applicant Self-represented