Veterans' Review Board

Last updated

The Veterans' Review Board (VRB) is a statutory body within the Australian Government's Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The role of the VRB is to conduct merits review of certain decisions under the Veteran's Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) (the VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth) (the MRCA). The objective of the Board is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick.<s133A VEA>

Department of Veterans Affairs (Australia) department of the Government of Australia

The Department of Veterans' Affairs is a department of the Government of Australia, established in 1976, and charged with the responsibility of delivering government programs for war veterans, members of the Australian Defence Force, members of the Australian Federal Police, and their dependants. The Repatriation Commission's Day-to-Day manager is the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Contents

The VRB is not a court, but a specialist, high volume, merits review tribunal. Merits review means the VRB makes a fresh decision that it considers is the correct or preferable decision in all of the circumstances. In doing so, the VRB exercises the same statutory powers, and is subject to the same limitations as the original decision-maker whose decision it is reviewing.

New material

As the VRB makes a fresh decision, it is not limited to the material that was before the original decision maker. The VRB may consider any additional material or information that becomes available subsequent to the original decision and any material that may become available during a hearing, including any evidence given by the veteran or others called to give evidence. The Board is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence. It must act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case. [1]

Decision correcting

In making its decision, the VRB may affirm the original decision, vary the decision in some of its detail, set the original decision aside and substitute the decision of the Board in its place, or adjourn the hearing and seek further information to assist the Board to come to the correct or preferable decision. [2] The Board also has the power to remit a matter back to the Repatriation Commission or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission for further consideration <s138A VEA>

Review details

Reviews are conducted in the form of a private hearing before a three-member panel, consisting of a senior member who is generally legally qualified, a services member and a member. Services members are appointed from those nominated by ex-service organisations and generally have extensive military service experience, including operational service. Applicants appearing before the Board are generally represented by lay advocates who are experienced in the jurisdiction. Representation by legal practitioners or legally qualified persons is prohibited by the VEA. [3] While there is a right of appearance for the Repatriation Commission or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the practice is they do not appear. The Board is provided with all relevant material relied upon by the original decision maker. Additional evidence may be produced or called at the hearing. It is not usual for expert witnesses to be called to give oral evidence. Instead the Board relies upon written reports.

Additional case management and Alternate Dispute Resolution powers were provided to the Board in the Veterans'Affairs Legislation Amendment (Mental Health and Other Measures ) Act 2014. The Board commenced a trial of alternate dispute resolution 'ADR' in Sydney for new matters received from 1 Jan 15. The trial of ADR was found in an independent review conducted by Stephen Skeehill to be an 'outstanding success' with close to 60% of matters that went through ADR being finalized within 2 months as compared to the more traditional VRB processes where the average was about 1 year. As a result, ADR will be progressively rolled out to all new applications received, commencing with Victoria and Tasmania with effect 1 October 2016. Other states will follow as resources allow.

The Board does not generally give oral decisions at the end of the hearing, rather it reduces its decision and reasons to writing which are then sent to the applicant. Oral reasons may be provided where the decision is favouravble to the applicant <s140(2)of the VEA>

Applicant's may request, prior to a formal Board hearing that the matter be referred for a case appraisal or a neutral evaluation. If this occurs, and a view favourable to the applicant is made, a decision will issue without the need for a hearing. As from September 2014, the Board has commenced to hold directions hearings. These are held where there is a need to clarify issues, seek preliminary orders by the Board or to consider dismissing a matter where the applicant has failed to either comply with a previous Board direction <s155(8)(b) of the VEA> or the application has failed to proceed within a reasonable time <s155(8)(a)>

Appeals from the Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

There is a further right of appeal from decisions of the Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with a further right of appeal on a point of law to the Federal Court of Australia.

Federal Court of Australia Australian superior court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance by single Judges. The Court includes an appeal division referred to as the Full Court comprising three Judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the Supreme Courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other Courts in the federal stream, it is equal to the Family Court of Australia, and superior to the Federal Circuit Court. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

Board details

In 2011–12 the Board received 3338 new applications, decided 3328 matters and had 2888 applications on hand as of 30 June 2012. 43.3% of matters were set aside and 47.4% of matters affirmed. The average time taken to complete a matter from lodgement to decision was 51 weeks The Board had 36 members, 25 staff and a budget of $5.752M in 2011-12. [4] In 2012-13 the Board received 3305 new applications, decided 3430 matters and had 2851 matters on hand as at 30 June 2013. 47.5% of matters were set aside and 52.5% of matters affirmed. The average time taken to complete a matter from lodgement to completion was 52 weeks. In 2013-14 the Board received 3264 new applications and finalised 3388 applications. The average time taken to finalise was 50 weeks. As at 30 June 2014, the Board had 36 members, 22.2 staff and a budget of $5.65m in 2013-14. [5] In 2014-15, the Board received 2707 new applications, finalized 3066 matters and had 2507 matters on hand as at 30 June 2015. 41.1% of matters finalized were set aside. In 2015-16, the Board received 2804 applications, finalized 2929 applications and had 2378 matters on hand. 48.7% of matters were set aside and 51.3% affirmed The average time taken to finalize a matter was 51 weeks. As a result of ADR, only 1706 hearings were held. The Board had 43 members and 25 staff as at 30 June 2016 and a budget of $5.64m for the 2015-16 financial year.

The Board has registries in Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne. The Board sits in all state capital cities and some regional centres on a regular basis.

Related Research Articles

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates the claims or disputes involving administrative law.

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Family Court of Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.

The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) was established in Western Australia in 2005 as an independent body that makes and reviews a range of administrative decisions. Individuals, businesses, public officials and vocational boards can bring before the SAT many different types of applications related to civil, commercial and personal matters. These range from reviews of multimillion-dollar tax judgments and dog destruction orders to disciplinary proceedings, guardianship questions and town planning and compensation issues.

Social Security Disability Insurance is a payroll tax-funded federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and designed to provide income supplements to people who are physically restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability. SSD can be supplied on either a temporary or permanent basis, usually directly correlated to whether the person's disability is temporary or permanent.

United States Merit Systems Protection Board

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency established in 1979 to protect federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for federal employees against abuses by agency management.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Australian court

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, is an Australian court with jurisdiction over matters broadly relating to family law and child support, administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, migration, privacy and trade practices.

Social security, in Australia, refers to a system of social welfare payments provided by Commonwealth Government of Australia. These payments are administered by Centrelink, a branch of the Department of Human Services. In Australia, most benefits are means tested.

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) was an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the Government of Alberta. It regulated the safe, responsible, and efficient development of Alberta's energy resources: oil, natural gas, oil sands, coal, and pipelines. Led by eight Board members, the ERCB's team of engineers, geologists, technicians, economists, and other professionals served Albertans from thirteen locations across the province.

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI) is Australian Commonwealth Freedom of Information legislation which gives members of the public rights of access to official documents of the Government of the Commonwealth and of its agencies.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 4 February 2003. The case was an influential decision not only in relation to immigration law but to administrative law generally and is an authority for the proposition that Parliament cannot restrict the availability of constitutional writs.

<i>Re Fong Thin Choo</i>

Re Fong Thin Choo is an administrative law case decided in 1991 by the High Court of Singapore concerning the legality of a demand by the Director-General of Customs and Excise ("DG") that the applicant's company pay S$130,241.30 in customs duty as it had not exported certain goods. The case was presided over by Justice Chan Sek Keong. The Court decided that the DG had failed to take into account relevant evidence adduced by the applicant's company which could have been capable of rebutting the prima facie evidence of non-export, and had thus made an insufficient inquiry before arriving at his decision. Since the DG's demand had been based on an incorrect basis of fact and thus had been made contrary to law, the Court granted the applicant an order of prohibition that barred the DG from deducting the sum from certain bankers' guarantees that the applicant's company had lodged with Customs as security.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law in that country which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

Board of Veterans Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals is an administrative tribunal within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), located in Washington, D.C. It determines whether U.S. military veterans are entitled to claimed veterans' benefits and services. The Board's mission is to conduct hearings and decide appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner. 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 7101 (a). The Board's jurisdiction extends to all questions in matters involving a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to Veterans, their dependents, or their Survivors. 38 U.S.C. §§ 551(a); 7104(a). Final decision on such appeals are made by the Board based on the entire record in the proceedings and upon consideration of all evidence and applicable provisions of law and regulation. The Board's review is de novo.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> High Court of Australia case

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Bureau of Pensions Advocates

The Bureau of Pensions Advocates (BPA) is a semi-independent branch of Canada's Department of Veterans Affairs. In place in one form or another since October 1, 1930, it provides counsel and legal representation to Canadian Veterans and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in appeals before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board regarding Veterans Affairs Canada decisions on their disability pension and award applications.

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

References

  1. s138 Veteran's Entitlement Act (Cwth) 1986
  2. s139 Veteran's Entitlement Act (Cwth) 1986
  3. s147(2) Veterans Entitlement Act (Cwth) 1986
  4. VRB Annual Report 2011-12
  5. VRB Annual Report 2013-14