Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Last updated

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal logo.svg
Agency overview
Formed1 July 1976 (1 July 1976)
Dissolved14 October 2024 [1]
Superseding agency
JurisdictionAustralia
Employees573 (2017) [2]
Minister responsible
Agency executive
Parent department Attorney-General's Department
Key document
Website aat.gov.au

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was an Australian tribunal that conducted independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT reviewed decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also reviewed decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It was not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions were subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. [3] The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 [4] and started operation in 1976.

Contents

On 1 July 2015, the Migration Review Tribunal, Refugee Review Tribunal and Social Security Appeals Tribunal became divisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. [5] [6]

In December 2022, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced that the AAT would be abolished and replaced with a new body. [7] The new body was named the Administrative Review Tribunal. [8]

On 14 October 2024 the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Origins

The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and commenced operations on 1 July 1976.

On 1 July 2015, the Migration Review Tribunal, [9] [10] Refugee Review Tribunal [11] [12] and Social Security Appeals Tribunal were amalgamated with the AAT. [13] [14]

Organisation

The AAT managed their workload in the following divisions:

Jurisdiction

The AAT did not have a general jurisdiction to review administrative decisions. Rather the individual statutes that empowered agencies or ministers to make decisions also granted jurisdiction to the AAT to review those decisions. For example, certain decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under the Migration Act 1958 may have been subject to merits review in the AAT. The right of review was provided for in the Migration Act itself.

The Tribunal was not a court. The High Court long held that the Australian Constitution, [15] mandates a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. [16] [17] Judicial review of administrative decisions takes place in courts, such as the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court. The AAT was part of the executive branch of government.

The AAT had jurisdiction to review a number of decisions made under Commonwealth legislation, including in the areas of taxation, immigration, social security, industrial law, corporations and bankruptcy. These decisions may have been made by officials including government ministers, departments, public servants with delegated authority and statutory government bodies. The authority to review administrative decisions was limited to specific areas of government administration where an Act, regulation or other legislative instrument provided for a review by the AAT. The Tribunal had no power to enquire into government decisions generally. More than 400 federal Acts provided for review by the AAT. The Tribunal also had powers to review the decisions of some other Australian tribunals, such as the Veterans' Review Board. The Tribunal had no power to consider the constitutional validity of particular laws or the legality of government decision-making, but only whether decisions made by government officials were made in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements.

The AAT's review of government decisions was merit based: it considered whether, on the facts presented to the Tribunal, the correct or preferable decision was made in respect of the applicable law(s) and government procedures. [18] Hearings were conducted de novo and the AAT was not restricted to the material before the original decision maker in making its decision if new information had arisen after the original decision was made. [19] [20] Section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act stated that the AAT could exercise all the powers and discretions of the original decision maker. [21] It could 'stand in the shoes of the original decision maker' and reconsider the decision using whatever information is brought before it or available to it. [20]

Structure

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) consisted of the President and the other members who could be appointed as:

The President was responsible for the overall management of the Tribunal with the assistance of Division Heads and the Registrar. Staff were employed under the Public Service Act 1999 to assist the AAT to carry out its functions.

The President of the AAT was required to register as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The AAT's other members could be:

Prior to the position of President being vacant, Justice Berna Collier was acting in that role following the resignation of Justice Fiona Meagher (who previously served as Deputy President and head of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Division). [22] Although the President of the AAT was required to be a judge of the Federal Court, [23] they served on the AAT in a personal, not judicial, capacity.

Members of the Tribunal came from a range of backgrounds and included persons with expertise in accountancy, aviation, engineering, environmental science, law, medicine, pharmacology, military affairs, public administration, and taxation. Members of the AAT were appointed by the Governor-General on a full-time or part-time basis. Appointments could be made for a term of up to seven years. Members could be reappointed.

Members of the Tribunal who were legally qualified and had 5 years' standing, where authorised to do so, could exercise powers under a number of other Acts. This included the power to issue telecommunications interception warrants and stored communications warrants under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, issue warrants and exercise related powers under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and review certificates that authorised controlled operations under the Crimes Act 1914. Presidential Members and Senior Members who are legally qualified and had 5 years' standing, could be appointed as approved examiners under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 The President and Deputy Presidents could be appointed as issuing authorities in relation to the making of continued preventative detention orders under the Criminal Code.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the Australian and UK parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an act of the Parliament of Australia, the other an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duncan Kerr</span> Australian politician

Duncan James Colquhoun Kerr, SC is a barrister. He is a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia. He also served as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from 2012 to 2017.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

<i>Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i>

Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, was a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Australia dealing with drugs, deportation and judicial roles.

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

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Susan Coralie Kenny AM is a reserve judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, a former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, and before that was a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, where she was the first woman to serve on the Court of Appeal.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal</span> Tribunal in New South Wales, Australia

The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) is a civil law and administrative law tribunal in New South Wales established by statute on 1 January 2014.

<i>Migration Act 1958</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Migration Act 1958(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that governs immigration to Australia. It set up Australia’s universal visa system (or entry permits). Its long title is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other persons."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</span>

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which created the ability to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Australia for a person or other parties affected by most administrative decisions by an Australian federal department or agency. Review of administrative decisions under the Act is limited to matters of law.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Industrial Court</span> Former Court of Australia, replaced by the Federal Court of Australia

The Commonwealth Industrial Court, known as the Australian Industrial Court from 1973, was a specialist court to deal with industrial matters, principally the enforcement of awards and orders of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Over time it took on more matters and its judges were allocated a wide range of judicial tasks until it was replaced in 1977 by the Federal Court of Australia which had a more general jurisdiction covering matters arising under Australian federal law.

<i>Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa</i> 2003 Australian court decision

Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa was a 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Australia, sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court. The court upheld two earlier rulings that Frank La Rosa, a convicted heroin dealer, was entitled to a tax deduction of $220,000 for money stolen from him during a drug deal. As a result of the decision, the federal government amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to prevent similar deductions being made.

The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The ART reviews 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 ART was established by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and started operation on 14 October 2024. The ART replaces the now abolished Administrative Appeal Tribunal.

References

  1. ↑ "Former Administrative Appeals Tribunal" . Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  2. ↑ AAT Annual Report 2016–17 (Report). Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  3. ↑ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
  4. ↑ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
  5. ↑ "The Amalgamated AAT – Administrative Appeals Tribunal". aat.gov.au. Archived from the original on 12 July 2015. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
  6. ↑ Le Grand, Chip (14 July 2014). "Liberals order purge of refugee review body". The Australian . Retrieved 27 May 2016.
  7. ↑ Osborne, Paul (16 December 2022). "Government to axe administrative tribunal". The West Australian. Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 16 December 2022.
  8. ↑ "Recruitment of Members for the new Administrative Review Tribunal". Attorney General's Department. Archived from the original on 13 March 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  9. ↑ Peake, Ross (6 April 1989). "Immigration bill cuts minister's power". The Age . Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 11 May 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2016.
  10. ↑ "Amalgamation of tribunals". Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Government of Australia. Archived from the original on 11 July 2016. Retrieved 27 May 2016.
  11. ↑ French CJ (25 March 2011). "The Role of the Courts in Migration Law" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 September 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
  12. ↑ "Amalgamation of tribunals". Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Government of Australia. Archived from the original on 11 July 2016. Retrieved 27 May 2016.
  13. ↑ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 2
  14. ↑ Pearce, Dennis (2007). Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2nd ed.). Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 1. ISBN   978-0-409-32405-1.
  15. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth)
  16. ↑ New South Wales v Commonwealth (Inter-state Commission case) [1915] HCA 17 , (1915) 20 CLR 54 (23 March 1915), High Court.
  17. ↑ R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10 , (1956) 94 CLR 254(2 March 1956), High Court.
  18. ↑ Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179 , (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 644-5(21 November 1979), Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
  19. ↑ Re Greenham and Minister for the Capital Territory [1979] AATA 31 , (1979) 2 ALD 137(28 March 1979).
  20. 1 2 Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 (30 July 2008), High Court.
  21. ↑ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43
  22. ↑ Cash, Michaelia. "Appointment of the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and a Federal Court of Australia Judge". Attorney-General's Department. Commonwealth of Australia. Archived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  23. ↑ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 7
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.