Enny Christanty v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

[2013] HCASL 90

ENNY CHRISTANTY
v
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

[2013] HCASL 90
S22/2013

1. The applicant commenced residing in Australia on a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Subclass 143) visa on 27 April 2008.  To meet a mandatory criterion for the grant of the visa, the applicant's brother, Mr Kwik, entered into an Assurance of Support ("AOS").  Under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ("the Act"), the AOS made Mr Kwik liable to repay any social security payments made to the applicant. Under the Social Security (Assurances of Support) (DEEWR) Determination 2008 ("the Determination"), the AOS endures for 10 years unless certain circumstances come into existence to allow the AOS to cease early.

2. The applicant was granted a Newstart Allowance from 4 April 2011 and Centrelink advised her brother that he had accrued a debt under the AOS.  At the applicant's request, Centrelink reviewed that decision but affirmed that the AOS had been properly entered into and remained in effect until 26 April 2018.  The applicant unsuccessfully sought a review of Centrelink's decision by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT"), which affirmed the decision.

3. On 31 July 2012, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") affirmed the SSAT's decision.  The AAT was satisfied that the AOS was correctly entered into and that Mr Kwik was aware of his obligations to financially support the applicant for the duration of the AOS.  None of the circumstances allowing early cessation of the AOS had arisen.

4. On 30 November 2012, the Federal Court of Australia (Katzmann J) summarily dismissed the applicant's appeal from the AAT's decision under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The applicant's amended notice of appeal did not raise any question of law and Katzmann J concluded that, even if such a question could be discerned from the materials, the appeal was bound to fail.

5. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to file her application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  That extension should be refused.  The application does not raise any question of law and, in any event, is incompetent; an appeal ought to have been brought to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the first instance.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane