FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Vranic v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2004] FCA 992 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – no question of law identified Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44 Federal Court Rules O 53 r 3(2) LJUBICA VRANIC v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK No Q 34 of 2004 SPENDER J BRISBANE 29 JULY 2004 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 34 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A SENIOR MEMBER BETWEEN: LJUBICA VRANIC APPLICANT AND: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK RESPONDENT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE OF ORDER: 29 JULY 2004 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. 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 34 OF 2004 ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A SENIOR MEMBER BETWEEN: LJUBICA VRANIC APPLICANT AND: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK RESPONDENT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE: 29 JULY 2004 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal by Ljubica Vranic from a decision of Senior Member McCabe of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 13 February 2004. 2 In that decision, the Tribunal was concerned first with a complaint of Ms Vranic that Centrelink would not release documents that Centrelink said contained confidential information about Ms Vranic's daughter. Shortly before the hearing in the Tribunal, the daughter gave consent for the information to be released, and the Tribunal made an order setting aside the original decision of Centrelink to make the documents available to Ms Vranic, but in accordance with the request by the daughter, the Tribunal also made an order prohibiting disclosure of the daughter's address and telephone number. There appears to be no controversy in the Federal Court arising from this aspect of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 3 The current complaint of Ms Vranic appears to be her contention that confidential information relating to her has been routinely released to persons outside Centrelink. The Tribunal, in its reasons, referred to evidence before it that Centrelink had organised for Ms Vranic to see a Centrelink-employed psychologist in order to assess her for eligibility for disability support pension. 4 The Tribunal accepted the evidence that no confidential information was given to third parties. It noted that referral to psychologists within Centrelink was quite a usual procedure. The Tribunal found that no one was releasing her personal information. 5 The Tribunal was further satisfied that destruction of files was done in accordance with the usual practice of the agency, and that there was no reason to believe that anything damaging or salacious or sensitive was in the files that had been shredded. 6 The conclusions of the Tribunal were open to it on the evidence before it. 7 In the Federal Court, Ms Vranic has pointed to a multitude of internet searches which reveal that the report of the decision of the Tribunal of 13 February 2004, including Ms Vranic's name and the details in those reasons for judgment, appear in many locations on the internet. From the multiplicity of hits that have been made by Ms Vranic, she appears to say that Centrelink is persecuting her and that her personal information is being broadcast. The searches, however, do nothing more than find the Tribunal decision in her matter and, rather than being a multitude of references to her, is the same reference to the same case but many times over. 8 While this appears to have fuelled her suspicion that Centrelink is spreading information about her personal data, that, as a matter of fact, is simply not so and is the consequence of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal is available at many locations on the internet. 9 It is almost certain that Centrelink found Ms Vranic difficult to deal with due to her language problems with English and her very aggressive attitude to her personal matters. However, in the Tribunal, she obtained the information which she sought. The Tribunal found as a fact that there was no evidence of publication of her confidential information, a finding which was open to it and is a finding, in any event, of fact. 10 An appeal to the Federal Court is not a wide-ranging opportunity to discuss any matters of concern or complaint. Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act") and O 53 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules require that questions of law on which an appeal to the Federal Court lies have to be stated in a notice of appeal. Those questions have to be questions of law. 11 The grounds identified in the notice of appeal filed on 17 February 2004, to which reference was made in the course of submissions today, contain no question of law, nor can one be derived from those matters. The grounds do not identify any legal error, nor do they support any of the complaints which Ms Vranic wishes to have resolved. The fact of the matter is that there is no ground of appeal articulated by Ms Vranic and no possibility of the Federal Court being able to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by s 44 of the AAT Act. 12 On the whole of the material before me, including the written submissions of Ms Vranic, I make orders that the appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender . Associate: Dated: 30 July 2004 The applicant appeared on her own behalf Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Maurice Swan Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 29 July 2004 Date of Judgment: 29 July 2004