NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. A.C.T. G77 OF 1986 GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION BETWEEN: AUGUSTUS TARCISIUS FRANTZ Appellant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent CORAM: - Davies J. DATE: 23 July 1987 PLACE: Canberra , EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DAVIES J. This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 12 May 1986. The application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal arose out of a refusal to give to the applicant, Augustus T. Frantz, a pensioner card, a card given vy aos (Cth) ¢ RizC 7 VTy 12 AUG 1987 ~\ FEDERAL Court of cA, AUSTRALIA van PRINCIPAL ' REGISTRY a i Peed tl me tery -2- The circumstances pursuant to which the card was not granted were that in 1960 the applicant, who was then a permanent officer, was retired from the Public Service under a s.67 of the Public Service Act 1922 (Cth) which permitted the retirement of officers considered to be inefficient or incompetent or unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging the duties of office efficiently. As a result of that retirement, the applicant became entitled to a superannuation pension, and that pension has since been paid to him. The amount of the pension would have been paid pursuant to a decision of the Commissioner for Superannuation or his delegate. As a result of the receipt of that pension over many years, the applicant's entitlement to an age pension has been affected, for the superannuation has been taken into account as part of his income. Affected also has been his entitlement to a pensioner card, for the definition of pensioner in the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) picks up the definition of "prescribed person" in s.83 CA of the Social Security Act 1947 (Cth). By reason of the superannation pension, the applicant is a prescribed person. , The applicant contends in substance that he was wrongfully retired, for at the time of his retirement he was fit and well and competent and he submits that, as a result, the payment of the superannuation pension has been unlawful and the pension ought not to have been taken into account either in calculating his age pension, or in calculating his income for the purposes of s.83 CA. However, the applicant was in-fact retired under s.67 of vate nese weep ae ~3- the Public Service Act 1922 (Cth), and, because of that retirement, decisions were made by the Office of the Commissioner for Superannuation which resulted in his entitlement to a pension, and that entitlement is legal and valid. As a result of that, his age pension entitlement is affected and the superannuation pension is taken into account in assessing whether or not he is a prescribed person under s.83 CA. The Tribunal considered these matters and rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to consider whether or not the applicant had been correctly retired from the Public Service. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is not a review tribunal of general jurisdiction. It has a review function under specified acts and it has no jurisdiction to review the circumstances of the applicant's retirement from the Public Service. The Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to review the legality of the superannuation payments, but it did that in the context of saying that it would not review the basis of the applicant's retirement from the Public Service. The legality or otherwise of the superannuation payments, if it is to be considered at all, must be considered in the context of the retirement, for once the retirement has taken place in accordance with s.67, the decisions of the Office of the Commissioner for Superannuation necessarily flow from that and those decisions presently stand and the entitlement to a superannuation pension is legal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal also properly held that it had no jurisdiction to review the refusal to grant to the applicant a pensioner card. That card is granted pursuant to an wee rae eros eige wren sere -4- administrative practice under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) and it is not a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider matters arising under the Social Security Act 1947 {Cth) and, in considering the matters under that Act, it correctly held that the superannuation pension was income for the purposes of the Act and income for the purposes of s.83 CA of the Act and that the applicant was a prescribed person within the meaning of s.83 CA. For those reasons the appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must be dismissed. I would make one further comment. The applicant has contended that the Court refused press coverage of his appeal. I should make it clear that it is not for the Court to direct reporters to attend and be present during the hearing of any proceeding before it and the Court does not undertake that function. An adjournment was granted so as to enable" the applicant to contact the press if he wished to do so. The appeal resumed after that adjournment. For the reasons that I have mentioned, the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was correct and the appeal must be dismissed. | certify that this andthe 3 preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honour- able Mr, Justice Davies J G2ddo, . Associate Deted 2B Jet, 1407 - or ons aytan le aes wee ere ran