IO v Department of Family and Community Services, Community Services [2012] NSWADT 158

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: IO v Department of Family and Community Services, Community Services [2012] NSWADT 158 Decision date: 01 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Community Services Division Before: S Higgins, Deputy President Decision: Application dismissed as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision the subject of the application. Catchwords: Jurisdiction - whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision of the respondent administrator concerning the payment of a supported care allowance to an authorised carer Legislation Cited: The Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Regulation 2000 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 Cases Cited: IO v Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 267 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: IO (Applicant) Department Family and Community Services, Community Services (Respondent) Representation: IO (Applicant in person) V Nuygn (Respondent) File Number(s): 124013 Publication restriction: s 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

REasons for decision

Introduction

1In these reasons for decision the applicant is referred to by the pseudonym 'IO' (see section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act)). 2IO is an authorised carer under the Children and Young Persona (Care and protection) Act 1998 (the Care Act) and he has the day-day-care of his daughter. Parental responsibility for IO's daughter rests with the Minister, pursuant to an order of the Children's Court. 3On 14 May 2012, IO lodged an application seeking review of a decision of the respondent to refuse his claim for back-payment of the supported care allowance for his day-to-day care of his daughter. The decision maker was Ms Freedland, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Operations. In her letter to IO, Ms Freedland said: I inform you that both the legislation governing care allowances and Community Services 'Financial Guidelines for Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care' set out that an allowance is to be paid where the child is in out-of-home care. I understand [name of applicant's daughter] is not in out-of-home care because (even though she is in the parental responsibility of the Minister) she is living with you as her father, in your own home. 4In his application for review IO said his application was made in respect of a decision made under section 245(1)(a) of the Care Act as he believed Ms Freedland's decision was contrary to the law of New South Wales. 5After having been served with IO's application for review, the respondent wrote to the applicant advising him that it was of the view that the decision for which he sought review was not a decision the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review. In the letter the respondent set out the basis on which it had formed this view and invited the applicant to withdraw his application. 6The matter came before the Tribunal, on 5 July 2012, at a directions hearing. The applicant continued to press his application and argued that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to review the decision of Ms Freedland. At the directions hearing I heard short oral submissions from both parties on the issue of jurisdiction and I reserved my decision on this issue. I have now considered the relevant legislation and the oral and written arguments made by the parties. For the reasons set out below, I find that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to review the decision of Ms Freedland in regard to IO's claim for the supported care allowance.