Pham v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter commenced as an appeal by Charles Pham from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal's decision dated 19 January 2009 dismissed the Applicant's application to review the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ('SSAT') pursuant to s 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('AAT Act') on the grounds that the application was frivolous or vexatious. The Tribunal further directed that the Applicant must not without leave of the Tribunal make any subsequent application of a kind arising under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) or the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). 2 The issue before the Tribunal was whether a decision made by the Authorised Review Office ('ARO') of Centrelink of the 25 August 2006 to raise and recover a debt affirmed by the SSAT was correct. The debt was for the amount of $1,999.42. 3 The overpayment was raised by Centrelink on the grounds the Applicant had received in the financial year ended 30 June 2004 a payment, which had not been disclosed to Centrelink,of $5,055. 4 It is important to set out the way in which the Applicant seeks to put his case. The original notice of appeal of the Applicant purportedly stated a number of questions of law raised in the appeal as follows: 2. THE QUESTIONS OF LAW raised on appeal are … a) Whether Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal … can conspire to pervert justice under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, by fabricating facts and evidence, contrary to the Criminal Code; b) Whether [the Senior Member] can dispense with the rule of evidence, under the Laws of Natural Justice; c) Whether [the Senior Member] can discriminate based on race under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975; d) Whether [the Senior Member] can modify the Applicant's Appeals without his authorization, under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; e) Whether [the Senior Member] can refuse to address the Appeals at hand, or frivolously and vexatiously slander and libel the Applicant and his race, under the AAT Act 1975 or RDA 1975; f) Judicial Bias: [the Senior Member] failed to disqualify himself from proceedings due to prior COMCARE matter that's ongoing to the High Court where [the Senior Member] has been named, and failed to need the High Court advice regarding bias; [the Senior Member] has no one to blame but himself for the farce he instigated at the AAT in perverting justice; 5 In the same notice of appeal the grounds were stated as follows: a) [the Senior Member] failed to seal and or serve summons on witnesses, namely Wayne Jarman and the Secretary DEWR; b) [the Senior Member] perverting justice by disregarding rules of evidence, instructing and fabricating hearsay evidence, dispensing with Applicant's sworn testimonies; c) [the Senior Member] "fishing" for evidence: contradicting Ergon Fice decision; d) [the Senior Member]failed to summons required witnesses as noted by the Respondents, despite [the Senior Member] wasting tribunal time on matters already supposedly dealt with by Ergon Fice; e) No Commonwealth of Australia official or employees or otherwise would officially confirm the Commonwealth's claim of overpayment when asked to be cross-examined; claim is bogus and a fraud; f) Applicant presented his evidence under oath and challenged [the Senior Member] to charge him with perjury; in the event that [the Senior Member] does not charge perjury, it is not reasonable that his name is tainted by allegation of corruption against [the Senior Member]; g) Signature on Trust account of tax return is not the Applicant's; [the Senior Member]admits it; [the Senior Member] fabricated it; h) Respondents failed to challenge any of Applicant's contentions, evidence and facts; i) [A named person] fabricated the tax return relabelling a tax return for the year 2003-2004 as that of 2004-2005; j) [A named person] in affidavits stated that there were evidence of payment and ATO records; k) PHAM FAMILY TRUST owes the Applicant money; l) No evidence of money changing hands; m) The Australian parliament and the Australian Federal Police have been notified of perverting justice through falsification of documents and evidence; to be attached. 6 By an amended notice of appeal questions of law and grounds were purportedly set out as follows: 2. THE QUESTIONS OF LAW raised on appeal are … a) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 SECT 2A Tribunal's objective In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Whether Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [the Senior Member] can conspire to pervert justice under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, by fabricating facts and evidence, contrary to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) S 43: (1), inter alia; b) Whether [the Senior Member] can dispense with the rules of evidence, under the Laws of Natural Justice, and Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); c) Whether [the Senior Member] did apply S3 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, requiring a direct review of a decision, under an Enactment; d) Whether [the Senior Member] can discriminate based on race under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth); e) Whether [the Senior Member] can modify the Applicant's Appeal without his authorization, under S2a and 3 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, inter alia; f) Whether [the Senior Member] can refuse to address the Appeals at hand, or frivolously and vexatiously slander and libel the Applicant and his race, under the AAT Act 1975 or RDA 1975; g) Judicial Bias: [the Senior Member] failed to disqualify himself from proceedings due to prior COMCARE matter that's ongoing to the High Court where [the Senior Member] has been named, and failed to heed the High Court advice regarding apprehended bias; then failed to disqualify himself for refusing to disqualify himself for perverting justice; h) Whether [the Senior Member] applied Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act S3 (4) Without prejudice to any other method available by law for the proof of decisions or orders of the Tribunal, a document purporting to be a copy of such a decision or order, and to be certified by the Registrar, a District Registrar or a Deputy Registrar to be a true copy of the decision or order, is, in any proceeding, prima facie evidence of the decision or order; no documents have been certified; i) Whether S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) comes into effect that any person may commence a prosecution, against individuals for deliberate and with malice breaches of Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) S 43: (1); j) Whether [the Senior Member] applied Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act S3 by refusing to allow the Applicant the opportunity to reply to the Respondents final submissions; k) Whether [the Senior Member] applied Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act S3 by refusing to list in his judgment: l) Deprivation of rights under color of law. What was the due process of law m) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) n) Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) o) Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) p) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) q) Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) r) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s) Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK) t) what presumption, assumption, interpretation of the word, statute, society person (natural person gods creation, persona, artificial person(s) {family name and or Mr} which has duties and responsibility) u) This natural man does not consent to be governed or ruled by lies, deceit and the fictional government and courts using the colour of law v) Clause 5 of the Constitution: "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State;……" w) Clause 5 preamble demands obedience, and s.24 AA (1) (a) 1914 Crimes Act says it is an act of treason not to obey the Constitution. x) Australian Citizenship Act 1948; y) in contempt of the High Court's Coco v The Queen (1994) judgment which ordered a judicial officer to support orders with legislation, which is law pursuant to s.25 Judiciary Act 1903, with regard to High Court decisions, z) The University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984) H.C. decision ruled that the Constitution has self-executing status, that does not require judicial order. aa) To swear false oaths affirmations with regard to the Constitution is an act of treason (S.24 AA (i) (c) 1914 Crimes Act. bb) a s.41 and s.30 Crimes Act 1900 indictment of attempted murder. cc) Proof of the corpus delecti dd) FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM ee) 78b notices have been sent to all the attorneys general of the states and commonwealth and Territory of Australia. … 4. GROUNDS: … a) [the Senior Member] failed to seal and or serve the Applicant's summons on witnesses, … ; b) [the Senior Member] perverting justice by disregarding rules of evidence, instructing fabricating hearsay evidence, dispensing with Applicant's sworn testimonies; c) [the Senior Member] "fishing" for evidence; contradicting a previous Egon Fice decision on whether there was payment; d) [the Senior Member] failed to summons required witnesses as notes by the Respondents, despite [the Senior Member] wasting tribunal time on matters already supposedly dealt with by Egon Fice; e) No Commonwealth of Australia official or employees or otherwise would officially confirm the Commonwealth's claim of overpayment when asked to be cross-examined; claim is bogus and a fraud; f) Applicant presented his evidence under oath and challenged [the Senior Member] to charge him with perjury; in the event that [the Senior Member] does not charge the Applicant with perjury, it is not reasonable that [the Senior Member's] name is tained in any way by allegation of corruption against [the Senior Member]; g) Signature on Trust account of tax return is not the Applicant's; [the Senior Member] admits it; [the Senior Member] fabricated it; h) Respondents failed to challenge ANY of Applicant's contentions, evidence and facts; i) [A named person] fabricated the tax return relabelling a tax return for the year 2003-2004 as that of 2004-2005; j) [A named person] in affidavits to the Federal Court stated that there were evidence of payment and ATO records; None can be verified; k) PHAM FAMILY TRUST owes the Applicant money; l) No evidence of money changing hands, or being paid or otherwise; m) The Australian parliament and the Australian Federal Police have been notified of [the Senior Member] conspiring with [named persons] in perverting justice through falsification of documents and evidence; to be attached. n) Proof of the corpus delecti o) FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM P) 7 A purported notice of a constitutional matter was filed on 26 February 2009 whereby the Applicant gave notice that the proceeding involved a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Section 78B notices were sent to all the relevant Attorneys-General and responses were made that they did not seek to appear at least at this stage in the proceeding. 8 In various ways, the purported notice of constitutional matter sought to raise a number of allegations concerning the validity of various Acts of Parliament and the authority of certain judges and administrative decision-makers. 9 I set out some parts of the purported notice of constitutional matter to indicate the scope of the Applicant's allegations: Australian law since 1919 are not legal or lawful in the Commonwealth of Australia subsequent laws (foreign laws) are not legal or lawful. 2. The plaintiffs submits that Royal Ascent given by the Governors-General (sworn a oath to foreign law and power) to (foreign laws) in M142 of 2007 PHAM vs Hayne anors, and such matters giving rise to or resulting from M142 of 2007, are defective and cannot be rectified as any Royal Ascent so given would have been given either by a representative of a non-existing Sovereignty or by a representative of a Sovereignty that was not recognized by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (Cth). (foreign law) 3. Australia was a Plenipotentiaries a belligerent nation of the Peace Conference of Versailles. … b. Whether Section 1 of the constitution is null and void, S51: Legislative powers The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth. … c. Whether Section 52 of the constitution is null and void, S52: Exclusive Powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (i) the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes; (ii) matters relating to any department of the public service the control of which is by this Constitution transferred to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth; (iii) other matters declared by this Constitution to be within the exclusive power of the Parliament. e. Whether Section 73 of the constitution is null and void. S73: Appellate jurisdiction of High Court The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences: (i) of any Justice or Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the High Court; (ii) of any other federal court, or court exercising federal jurisdiction; or of the Supreme Court of any State, or of any other court of any State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies to the Queen in Council; (iii) of the Inter State Commission, but as to questions of law only; and the judgment of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive. But no exception or regulation prescribed by the Parliament shall prevent the High Court from hearing and determining any appeal from the Supreme Court of a State in any matter in which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies from such Supreme Court to the Queen in Council. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the conditions of and restrictions on appeals to the Queen in Council from the Supreme Courts of the several States shall be applicable to appeals from them to the High Court. … k. Whether the Affidavits and the sworn Statements of certain Australian Citizens are less valid and of less legal standing than the lies and fabrication of other Australians and the Commonwealth of Australia. … n. Whether Order 53 r 2, O 53B r2and O 59 r 1 and Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 permit the Plaintiff the option seek the Court making findings of facts; o. Evidence Act 1995: whether hearsay is admissible; Respondents' documents satisfy all the elements that make them prima facie inadmissible by the rule against hearsay; p. Whether perjury is endorsed and encouraged by the Judiciary in the interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts; q. Whether fabrication of evidence and facts are endorsed and encouraged by the Judiciary in the interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts; r. Whether rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules 2004, dispenses with the Constitution, and all other Acts of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, and International Treaties to which Australia is signatory; s. Whether rule 6.06.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 provides for 'having given that person an opportunity to be heard'"; t. Whether Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) and Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) or whether the Human Rights Act, 1998 (UK) apply in the Commonwealth of Australia. 10 Without rehearsing each of the facts included in the purported notice showing the matters upon which the s 78B notice applied, the Applicant asserted allegations against members of the judiciary and administrative officers of improper conduct, conspiring to pervert justice by fabricating documents and evidence, and conspiring to cause injury. 11 By various notices of motion, the Applicant sought to have a number of preliminary points raised, including the constitutional matters raised in the purported notice of constitutional matter and the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court. Again, I do not rehearse the exact terms of each of the notices of motion, but they contained allegations of bias and unlawful racial discrimination, and sought the immediate arrest of various persons, mandamus against certain judicial officers and government officials, and damages for pain and suffering and loss of income totalling $100 million. 12 By an affidavit of 21 July 2009 the Applicant deposed to the matters raised in the grounds of appeal, the various notices of motion and in the 78B notices by making assertions purportedly verifying his claims. 13 The proceeding was set down for a hearing to deal with all issues. At the commencement of the hearing the Applicant contended that I should deal separately with the issue of whether I had jurisdiction to hear the matter and was validly appointed. I refused the application to treat that issue as a separate preliminary matter, and indicated to him that I had set the matter down for the hearing on 26 October 2009 to hear all matters finally and to dispose of the matter. 14 The Applicant did not seek an adjournment on the basis that he was not able to deal with all the matters on 26 October 2009. 15 The Applicant had been given ample opportunity to prepare his case based upon the matter properly before the Court, namely the appeal under the AAT Act. The Applicant is aware of the procedures in this Court and the processes undertaken in both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia - see for example Pham v Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 2049. 16 The Applicant previously had raised the issue of my disqualification. At the beginning of the hearing, I asked the Applicant if he was content for me to hear the matter. He indicated he was content for me to proceed. Subsequently during the hearing, he made application for me to disqualify myself for bias, basically on the basis of racial discrimination. I refused that application and indicated to him that the hearing would continue. I indicated to him that any rights he had in relation to that application would be reserved even though he was being asked to continue with the case in all the substantive matters. 17 At the hearing the Applicant relied upon a document entitled 'Applicants Response to the Respondent's Outline of Submissions' dated 23 October 2009 and various other documents handed to the Court and placed on its file. In addition there was an Appeal Book the parties put before the Court. The respondent had filed an Outline of Submissions dated 22 October 2009. 18 At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that his response to the respondent's outline of submissions raised all the matters that he wanted to agitate in this appeal, many of which had been included in his earlier notices of appeal and documentation filed in the Court. 19 During the course of the hearing, and as the Applicant's response to the respondent's outline of submissions shows, the Applicant sought to interrogate the Court on issues of law. The Applicant's response to the respondent's outline of submissions gives an indication of some of those issues. I set out some by way of example: 1.(a) The Respondent failed to address the Appeals at hand by not listing all the Appellants: CHARLES PHAM ©® (artificial person) charles pham (natural man god creation) deny consent to be enslaved; The Court is asked to demonstrate where consent was given for the Commonwealth of Australia to continue to abuse the strawman of a natural man god creation, who denies consent to be enslaved, when authorisation is given by the strawman for the natural man to represent him; … (f) The Court will be asked if it was unlawful institutional Racial Discrimination by the Commonwealth and judicial officers of SSAT and AAT, to affirm decisions in the lower levels and yet [the Senior Member] was still fishing around for evidence, at least 6 appeals through various jurisdictions 3 years later: … (h) The Court will be asked if it was unlawful institutional Racial Discrimination and abuse of process by the Commonwealth and judicial officers of SSAT and AAT, to waste so much Taxpayers money to pay welfare for government solicitor and barristers for an alleged overpayment of less than $2,000. … (i) The Court will be provided with unsealed Summons of relevant individuals, that (certain individuals) refused to activate and seal; (Exhibit 2: Numerous Summons filed and not sealed) … (l) The Court will be asked whether an Australian citizen of any nationality, creed or religion whose testimony is sworn in court under oath, should have more credibility than hearsay evidence and fabricated documents of officials bent on corrupting the process and legal system; … (n) The Court will be asked why the Respondent(s) shouldn't be charged with using a postal service or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence; … (x) The Court will be asked to show cause why the Commonwealth should not be brought before the International Criminal Court for violations of International Covenant on Civil land Political Rights article 14.1, inter alia International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 4, inter alia For inciting racial hatred by subjecting Asian natural man to two (2) fraudulent Authorised internal reviews, two (2) fraudulent SSAT Appeals, two (2) AAT Appeals, two Fraudulent Federal Court Appeals, one Full Bench Federal Court Appeals and a fraudulent High Court Appeal; and yet there is NOT one shred of evidence of overpayment, that the Court will be asked to produce such evidence; 20 I now turn to the appeal and the issues I need to determine. 21 The Applicant put in issue the jurisdiction of this Court. At the outset I should indicate that I am satisfied that an appeal has been instituted by the Applicant under the AAT Act. Section 79 of the Constitution provides that that federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes. A single judge of the Federal Court of Australia has authority to hear that appeal (see s 44(1) of the AAT Act and s 14(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ('the Federal Court Act')). 22 On 22 June 2006 the Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council and under s 72 of the Constitution and subs 6(1) of the Federal Court Actappointed myself to be a judge of the Federal Court of Australia beginning on 31 July 2006 until attaining the age of 70 years. I have not yet attained the age of 70 years. 23 It was suggested that the Governor General was not validity appointed, and thus my appointment was not valid. The Applicant contended that there is no record from the Privy Council to indicate that the Queen made a valid appointment of the Governor-General. Putting aside the question of whether the Constitution requires such appointments of the Queen to made 'in Council' or with the advice of the Privy Council, I must presume that the appointment of the Governor-General is valid without at least some evidence or basis to the contrary. 24 I observe that a similar argument was put before Justice Goldberg in the ACCC v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1062. At [27] his Honour stated: I reject the respondents' submission that the Governors General have not been properly appointed and that legislation assented to by the Governors General has not been validly assented to. On 29 October 1900, Queen Victoria issued Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Those Letters Patent were passed under the seal of the United Kingdom and issued by Warrant under the Queen's Sign Manual: Commonwealth Gazette (No 1), 1 January 1901. The first Governor General, Lord Hopetoun, was appointed to his office in accordance with those Letters Patent. The current Letters Patent were issued by Queen Elizabeth II on 21 August 1984 and gazetted in the Commonwealth Special Gazette (No S334), 24 August 1984. The Governor General at the time the application was filed, Sir William Deane, was appointed to his office in accordance with the current Letters Patent by Commission dated 29 December 1995 passed under the Royal Sign Manual and the Great Seal of Australia and took the oath of allegiance and prescribed oath of office on 16 February 1996: Commonwealth Special Gazette (No S66), 19 February 1996. As each of the Governors General have been validly appointed, there is no merit in the respondents' contentions that all members of parliament, ministers of State and justices were invalidly appointed or that the Act is invalid. 25 In relation to my own appointment, the Governor-General was appointed to his office in accordance with the current Letters Patent (as amended on 11 May 2003) by Commission dated 29 July 2003 passed under the Royal Sign Manual and the Great Seal of Australia, and he took oath of allegiance and prescribed oath of office on 11 August 2003 (see Commonwealth Special Gazette (No S309), 11 August 2003). 26 To the extent that the Applicant attacks the validity of certain Acts of Parliament (including the AAT Act or the Federal CourtAct) I presume that they are valid, as I am bound to do unless the validity is properly a matter for determination before the Court. 27 In my view, the purported s 78B notices are either frivolous or vexatious or do not arise under the Constitutional or involve its interpretation. I do not consider a proper foundation has been made to support any determination that the various Acts of Parliament mentioned by the Applicant are invalid. Nor do I consider any proper foundation has been made to establish that the Senior Member who conducted the Tribunal hearing was not validly appointed. 28 I turn to the substantive matter. An appeal to this Court is governed by s 44(1) of the AAT Act which requires an appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court of Australia be on a question of law and in order to succeed on the appeal the Applicant must establish an error of law on the part of the Tribunal. 29 In my view the questions of law as originally stated or as expanded upon by the Applicant do not constitute questions of law nor do they provide any basis for finding the Tribunal erred in law in reaching the Tribunal's decision. 30 The Tribunal exercised power under s 42B of the AAT Act to dismiss the application on the grounds it was frivolous and vexatious. Various grounds were identified by the Tribunal, which included that: · the Applicant's grounds for review that the decision of the SSAT was wrong appeared to be absurd; · the Applicant, in the application for review did not make reference to the issue before the Tribunal, namely the raising of the debt of $1,999.42; · the conflicting evidence given by the Applicant before the SSAT as to the Applicant's knowledge of the Trust and distributions of monies from the Trust, and the participation of the Applicant in various appeals, led the Tribunal to doubt as to whether the Applicant had a real interest in prosecuting the review of the decision of the SSAT of 27 April 2007; · the Applicant made outrageous and absurd allegations directed towards high ranking judicial officers; · the Applicant participated in the application before the Tribunal in an objectionable manner; and · the Applicant made scandalous and disgraceful allegations on websites against a number of persons and stated threats to make citizen's arrests. 31 All of these matters the Tribunal properly considered in exercising its discretion under s 42B of the AAT Act. 32 There was one matter upon which I did have some concern during the hearing, and that arose out of the failure to accede to the Applicant's request to issue summons to various witnesses. The Tribunal did consider this matter as is evident from the transcript and the reasons for the Tribunal's decision. At para 31 of its Reasons for Decision the Tribunal said: On 8 November 2007 the Applicant lodged summons to witness to give evidence where he intended to have the Secretary of the respondent department, an officer of Centrelink and the two SSAT Members who heard the decision under review in these proceedings attend the Tribunal to give evidence. It was decided at the time of lodgement not to issue the summonses because an appeal lodged by the applicant against the findings made at the conclusion of the first day of evidence was pending before the Federal Court and a return date could not be inserted on the summonses. This was the matter of some discussion during the second day of hearing. I would have decided in any event to refuse the request to issue the summonses (which would have been issued by the District or Deputy Registrar) pursuant to s 40(1C) of the AAT Act. As the applicant was advised in the decision of His Honour, Mr Justice Gray, [2007] FCA 2049 at paragraph 11, the role of the Tribunal is to make its decision on the basis of the material before it. Its role is not to examine the basis for decision made by a previous decision-maker. I could not be satisfied that the Secretary of the respondent department nor the Members who constituted the SSAT could have provided any assistance to these proceedings, indeed it would have been improper for the Members of the SSAT to give evidence. Similarly the Centrelink officer who made a preliminary decision in this matter, could not have provided evidence of any relevance when his decision was not under review and the review being concerned only with the material before the Tribunal as opposed to the material before the Centrelink officer. To issue those summonses as requested by the applicant would have been an abuse, without any legitimate purpose or motive and would have been unnecessarily harassing or offensive to the persons intended to be called. 33 It is well established the Tribunal conducts its review as an administrative decision by way of a hearing de novo. The Tribunal is not a court of law exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Tribunal makes its own decision on whatever material is before it at the time when it makes the decision. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker. By s 33(1)(c) of the AAT Act the Tribunal is not bound by rules of evidence but may inform itself in any matter as it thinks appropriate. Undoubtedly such power of that nature is subject to the requirements of procedural fairness. Having regard to the consideration given to the matter by the Tribunal, I do not regard any aspect of the failure to allow the Applicant to call the witnesses he sought to have summoned involved any procedural unfairness or error of law. 34 In relation to questions of bias and discrimination both as against the Tribunal and other officers of the Commonwealth (including myself) there is simply no evidence to justify a conclusion of bias or discrimination. 35 On a number of occasions the Applicant sought to have a trial by jury, which he contended was his constitutional right, relying as he did on s 80 of the Constitution. As I have already indicated the jurisdiction of the Court to hear this matter is to be exercised by a single judge. Section 80 of the Constitution, even if otherwise relevant to the Applicant's own application under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, only gives a right to a trial by jury where a person is charged with an 'indictable offence'. This is not the position confronting the Applicant. 36 I make one final observation. After I reserved judgment on 26 October 2009, I granted the Applicant leave to file and serve any short submission on the cases of Lane v Morrison (2009) 258 ALR 404 and Clampett v Attorney-General (Cth) [2009] FCAFC 151. 37 This leave was granted upon the request of the Applicant to deal with these cases, which involved postponing the delivery of judgment. 38 There is nothing in these authorities which in my view impacts upon this proceeding or the conclusions I have reached above. 39 For these reasons, the application before the Court should be dismissed. There seems to be no reason why costs ought not follow the event. The order dismissing the application will be accompanied by an order that the Applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton.