Chapter 03
Our Performance
OUR PERFORMANCE
The Tribunal seeks to manage its workload in an effective and efficient manner, responding flexibly to changes in the number and nature of applications. Performance targets define standards for dealing with applications, and assist the Tribunal to meet the outcome and program requirements defined in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
WORKLOAD OVERVIEW
The Tribunal received 6,176 applications and finalised 6,042 applications in 2012–13. There were 4,594 applications current at 30 June 2013.
The number of applications lodged during the reporting year was nine per cent higher than the number lodged in 2011–12. This was mainly due to an increase in the number of applications for review of social security decisions in the year. 
The number of applications finalised increased by 19 per cent in 2012–13. The higher number of finalisations in the tax, social security and workers’ compensation jurisdictions reflect increases in lodgements in these areas.
The number of applications on hand at 30 June 2013 was four per cent higher than a year earlier. The majority of outstanding applications are less than 12 months old and the proportion of cases older than 12 months has not increased in 2012–13.
Chart 3.1 shows applications lodged and finalised in the three most recent reporting years, and applications current at 30 June in each year.
Chart 3.1	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Total

Workload by jurisdiction
Applications for review of social security decisions were the most common type of application lodged with the Tribunal in 2012–13, constituting 30 per cent of all lodgements. Applications in the taxation and workers’ compensation jurisdictions comprised 27 per cent and 21 per cent of all lodgements respectively, while applications for review of decisions relating to veterans’ entitlements constituted seven per cent of total lodgements.
Clearance rates varied between jurisdictions with lodgements exceeding finalisations in the social security, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Similar numbers of applications were lodged and finalised in the Taxation Appeals Division and finalisations significantly exceeded lodgements in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal. 
The number of applications lodged and finalised in each of the Tribunal’s major jurisdictions in 2012–13 and the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2013, is shown in Chart 3.2.
More detailed information on the types of applications lodged and finalised, and the outcomes of cases finalised during the reporting year, is in Appendix 4. 
Chart 3.2	Applications lodged, finalised and current in 2012–13 – By jurisdiction

Social security
The number of applications made to the Tribunal for review of family assistance and social security decisions in 2012–13 was 29 per cent higher than in 2011–12, as shown in Chart 3.3. This reverses   the trend of declining lodgements experienced from 2008–09 to 2011–12. Growth in the number of lodgements in 2012–13 relates to a significant increase in lodgements about disability support pension and an increase in applications about overpayments and debt recovery. 
Applications lodged by the departments that administer family assistance and social security entitlements increased to 47 in 2012–13, up from 38 in the previous year. 
The number of applications finalised in 2012–13 was 17 per cent higher than in 2011–12 and the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2013 was 25 per cent higher than a year earlier. Both trends reflect the increase in the number of applications lodged. 
Chart 3.3	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Social security

Veterans’ affairs
The number of applications lodged in the veterans’ affairs jurisdiction increased by four per cent in 2012–13. Applications for review of decisions under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 relating to disability pension and war widows pension remained steady. The small increase in this jurisdiction relates to a rise in the number of applications for review of decisions under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. 
The number of applications finalised in the veterans’ affairs jurisdiction in 2012–13 decreased by 19 per cent which is broadly consistent with the pattern of fewer lodgements in the last two reporting periods, as shown in Chart 3.4. The number of applications current at 30 June 2013 increased by 12 per cent.
Chart 3.4	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Veterans’ affairs

Workers’ compensation
Lodgements in the workers’ compensation jurisdiction increased by six per cent in 2012–13. This can be attributed to an increase in applications for review of decisions made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 by the Australian Postal Corporation and a number of the corporations that hold self-insurance licences under the Act. There was also a small increase in applications for review under the seafarers’ compensation scheme. 
The number of compensation applications finalised in 2012–13 rose by nearly ten per cent, which reflects the increase in lodgements in the previous reporting year. The seven per cent increase in the number of compensation applications on hand at 30 June 2013 is consistent with the increase in lodgements for 2012–13, as shown in Chart 3.5
Chart 3.5	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Workers’ compensation

Taxation Appeals Division
The number of applications lodged in the Taxation Appeals Division increased marginally in 2012–13 by two per cent, as shown in Chart 3.6. The majority of lodgements in this jurisdiction continue to be applications for review of decisions about income tax. 
There was a 39 per cent increase in the number of applications finalised in 2012–13 which correlates with the large increase in lodgements in the previous reporting year. The number of applications on hand in the Taxation Appeal Division at 30 June 2013 remained relatively steady. 
Chart 3.6	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Taxation Appeals Division

Small Taxation Claims Tribunal
The number of lodgements in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal fell by 24 per cent in 2012–13. While there was an increase in the number of applications for review of decisions about release from taxation liabilities, this was offset by a reduction in the number of applications for review of refusals to extend time to lodge objections and of decisions relating to superannuation contributions surcharge. 
The number of finalisations increased three-fold in 2012–13. As a result, the number of Small Taxation Claims Tribunal applications on hand as at 30 June 2013 fell by 53 per cent.
Chart 3.7	Applications lodged, finalised and current – Small Taxation Claims Tribunal

PERFORMANCE
Outcome and program structure
The Tribunal has one outcome specified in the 2012–13 Portfolio Budget Statements:
Access to a fair, just, economical, informal and quick review mechanism for applicants through reviews of government administrative decisions, including dispute resolution processes and independent formal hearings.
The Tribunal is a single program agency. The primary deliverable is completed reviews of decisions, and there are two paths to achieving it:
•	applications finalised without a hearing, and
•	applications finalised with a hearing.
See Appendix 5 for the summary table showing total resources for the Tribunal compared with the total payments made during 2012–13. The appendix also includes a summary table showing the total resources for the Tribunal’s outcome.
Performance measures and results
The performance measures and actual performance for the Tribunal’s outcome are shown in Table 3.8.
The Tribunal uses alternative dispute resolution to help the parties to a review try to reach agreement about how their case should be resolved. The Tribunal works with the parties in conferences to discuss and define the issues in dispute, identify any further supporting material they may wish to obtain, and explore whether the matter can be settled. The Tribunal may use other forms of ADR to attempt to reach agreement. If an application cannot be resolved, the Tribunal conducts a hearing and makes a decision. As Table 3.8 shows, most applications lodged with the Tribunal are finalised other than by way of a decision following a hearing. 
Table 3.8	Performance standards and results, 2012–13
Program description	Performance	
Program 1.1 — Completed reviews of decisions	standarda	result	
Applications finalised without a hearing	Number of matters finalised without a hearing	5,218	4,767	
	Percentage of matters having their first conference within 13 weeks	85%	89%	
	Cost per completed application	$3,158	$3,538	
Applications finalised with a hearing	Number of matters finalised with a hearing	1,476	1,275	
	Percentage of matters progressed to hearing within 40 weeks	60%	60%	
	Cost per completed application	$14,628	$16,641	

a Projection for 2012–13
Eighty-nine per cent of first conferences in 2012–13 were held within 13 weeks of lodgement. The Tribunal exceeded the performance standard in the Portfolio Budget Statements by four percentage points, as shown in Table 3.8.
The proportion of applications that progressed to hearing within 40 weeks of lodgement was 60 per cent, one percentage point lower than in 2011–12 but meeting the standard in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
The number of applications finalised by the Tribunal with and without a hearing was lower than the budget projections for 2012–13, leading to a higher than expected price per completed application. For more information on the percentage of applications finalised without a hearing in the major jurisdictions, see Table A4.4 in Appendix 4.
Time standards
The Tribunal monitors its performance against time standards for steps in the review process and for the finalisation of applications generally. 
Time standards for steps in the review process
The Tribunal reports on the timeliness of completing four steps in the review process. Two of the steps are the Tribunal’s performance standards in the Portfolio Budget Statements set out above. 
The four steps are: 
•	the time taken by the decision-maker after receiving notice of an application to lodge the documents relating to the decision under review that are required under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 
•	the time between lodging an application and holding the first conference 
•	the time between lodging an application and holding a hearing
•	the time taken by the Tribunal to deliver a decision following the last day of hearing or the date of receipt of further material after a hearing.
The decision-maker controls step one; the Tribunal and the parties share the responsibility for the timeliness of steps two and three; and the Tribunal controls the timeliness of step four. 
Timeliness results for 2012–13 and the past two reporting periods are shown in Chart 3.9.
Chart 3.9	Performance against time standards

The proportion of applications in which the Section 37 Documents were lodged within five weeks was marginally higher in 2012–13 than in the previous year. The result for timeliness in delivering decisions following a hearing was slightly lower in 2012–13 but continues to be significantly higher than the results achieved in the years prior to 2009–10.
Time standards for finalising applications
The Tribunal aims to finalise the majority of applications within 12 months of lodgement and has set specific targets for each of the major jurisdictions. In relation to the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal’s goal is to finalise applications within 12 weeks of lodgement. The Tribunal’s performance for 2012–13 and the two previous reporting years is in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10	Percentage of applications finalised within time standards
Jurisdiction	Target 
%	2010–11 
%	2011–12 
%	2012–13 
%	
All	—	72	78	76	
Social security	90	91	93	93	
Veterans’ affairs	80	66	66	70	
Workers’ compensation	75	68	70	68	
Taxation Appeals Divisiona	75	47	65	67	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunala	–	40	41	27	

a The method of calculating the timeliness results for the Taxation Appeals Division and the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal has changed in this year’s annual report. It is common in this jurisdiction for applications relating to more than one tax period to be lodged at the same time and dealt with together during the review process. The timeliness results are based on the time taken to finalise the leading case in a set of related applications. The overall timeliness figure and the results for the other major jurisdictions are calculated on the basis of all applications finalised in the period. 
In 2012–13, 76 per cent of all applications were finalised within 12 months of lodgement and 88 per cent within 18 months. While marginally lower than the results for 2011–12, they continue to be higher than the results for earlier years. 
The proportion of applications finalised within 12 months in the social security jurisdiction in 2012–13 exceeded the 90 per cent target by three percentage points, consistent with the result for the previous reporting year. Sixty-seven per cent of all social security applications were finalised within six months of lodgement, and 98 per cent within 18 months.
The proportion of applications finalised in the veterans’ affairs jurisdiction within 12 months in 2012–13 improved by four percentage points compared to the previous year. Eighty-eight per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months.
The Tribunal has focused on improving case management in the workers’ compensation jurisdiction and has significantly improved its performance in relation to timeliness since 2009–10. While there was a two percentage point decline in the proportion of cases finalised within 12 months in 2012–13, the results remain higher than in the years before 2010–11. Ninety per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months, equalling the result for 2011–12. During the reporting year, the Tribunal proposed the introduction of a number of additional strategies that seek to ensure applications are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible. More information about these strategies can be found in Chapter 4 of this annual report. 
There was a marginal increase in the proportion of applications finalised within 12 months in the Taxation Appeals Division in 2012–13. Eighty-two per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months. The Tribunal’s performance in this division continues to improve over time. In the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, the proportion of applications finalised within 12 weeks decreased by 14 percentage points. The Tribunal’s experience is that applications dealt with in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal cannot necessarily be completed faster than other types of tax reviews. Although the amount of tax in dispute may not be large, the issues in dispute can be complex. This applied, for example, to a number of cases dealt with during 2012–13 relating to superannuation contributions surcharge. See Appendix 7 of this annual report for a summary of some of these cases. 
There are a number of reasons why an application may not be finalised within the Tribunal’s time standards. The pace that applications progress through the pre-hearing stage is heavily influenced by the time the parties need to obtain expert evidence, undertake other investigations and gather relevant material. Some applications are delayed pending a decision by a department or agency on a related matter or the decision of a court in a test case, or by criminal proceedings. There are matters where additional time is required to allow the parties further opportunities to resolve the dispute without a hearing. Delays also occur when parties cannot proceed because of illness or other adverse circumstances. The Tribunal’s ability to list hearings in a timely manner is affected generally by the availability of parties, representatives and witnesses for the hearing. Delays in the delivery of decisions following a hearing can also contribute to delays in finalising applications. 
The Tribunal continued to monitor the time that applications spend in each of the major stages of a review in 2012–13 and registries conducted regular file audits on older cases. The Tribunal will continue to seek to identify sources of avoidable delay, and work with stakeholders on minimising such delays. 
EXTERNAL SCRUTINY
Tribunal decisions may be appealed to the courts. The Tribunal’s operations are also subject to external scrutiny by way of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other bodies, requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, inquiries by Parliamentary Committees and audits by the Australian National Audit Office. 
Appeals from Tribunal decisions
A party may appeal to the Federal Court, on a question of law, from most final decisions of the Tribunal pursuant to section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The Federal Court may transfer the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia unless the Tribunal was constituted by, or included, a presidential member.
A party may also seek judicial review of decisions made in the course of the review process and certain final decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903, Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 or section 75(v) of the Constitution. Applications may be made to the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit Court or the High Court of Australia.
In 2012–13, 72 appeals made under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act were lodged with the Federal Court. There were 30 applications for judicial review made under other enactments, 21 relating to decisions concerning visas under the Migration Act. Table A4.9 in Appendix 4 provides information on the number of appeals lodged against decisions in each of the Tribunal’s major jurisdictions.
During the reporting year, 73 appeals lodged under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and 28 applications for judicial review under other enactments were finally determined in the courts. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside in 38 cases, 38 per cent of all appeals determined and less than one per cent of all applications that the Tribunal finalised in the reporting year. The proportion of Tribunal decisions set aside on appeal in 2012–13 was 12 percentage points higher than in 2011–12. 
Table A4.10 in Appendix 4 offers more information on appeals determined during the reporting year and their outcomes. 
During the reporting year, there were no judicial decisions or decisions of other tribunals that had, or may have had, a significant impact on the operations of the Tribunal.
Freedom of information
The Tribunal received seven requests for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act in 2012–13. One request made in 2011–12 was outstanding at the beginning of the reporting period. 
Table 3.11 shows the number of requests made over the last three years.
Table 3.11	Freedom of Information requests
	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	
Number of requests made	2ª	5	7	
a This figure differs from the figure given in the 2010–11 Annual Report. An audit revealed that there had been one additional request in that year. 
The outstanding request from 2011–12 and all requests made to the Tribunal in 2012–13 were finalised in the reporting period. There were no requests outstanding at 30 June 2013.
Of the requests that were finalised, two requests were granted in full and three were granted in part. Three requests were refused on the basis that the Tribunal held no documents falling within the scope of the request. 
The Tribunal did not receive any requests to amend or annotate records. 
Information publication scheme
Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS). This requirement is in Part II of the Freedom of Information Act and has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an annual report. Each agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the IPS requirements.
Ombudsman
During 2012–13, the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 27 approaches concerning the Tribunal, seven fewer than in the previous reporting year. 
The Ombudsman did not conduct any investigations in relation to the approaches. 
Complaints to other bodies
There were three complaints to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner during the reporting period, one was withdrawn and two were declined. There was one complaint made to the Australian Human Rights Commission. This complaint was terminated by the Commission.
Reports by the Auditor-General or Parliamentary Committees
The Tribunal’s operations were not the subject of any report by the Auditor-General or any Parliamentary Committee during the reporting period.
TRIBUNAL SERVICE CHARTER
The Tribunal’s Service Charter sets out the Tribunal’s service standards and information relating to making complaints about the Tribunal. Information on the extent of the Tribunal’s compliance with the service standards (where information is available) is in Table 3.12. 
Table 3.12	Service standards
Commitment	Result for 2012–13	
We will treat you with respect and courtesy	
We will be polite, respectful and courteous and use language that is clear and understandable.	Tribunal members and staff strive to be polite, respectful and courteous and use language that is clear and understandable so that Tribunal users can understand the processes. Of the complaints finalised in 2012–13, no complaints were upheld in relation to issues of this kind.	
We will make ourselves accessible	
Country residents can contact us on our national telephone number.	The Tribunal’s national 1300 number was available throughout the year.	
People who are deaf or have a hearing or speech impairment can contact the Tribunal.	The Tribunal uses the National Relay Service to provide users with a range of call options, including a TTY service.	
Wheelchair access and hearing induction loops will be available at each office.	All Tribunal premises are wheelchair-accessible. Induction loops are available at each of the Tribunal’s registries. 	
Hearings will be held in capital cities and in country centres.	The Tribunal conducted 107 hearings and two conciliations in locations outside capital cities.	
Where appropriate you may participate in a hearing by telephone or video-link.	The Tribunal conducted the following listings by telephone: 
conferences – 6,052
other ADR processes – 12
directions hearings – 1,207
interlocutory hearings – 200
hearings – 49	
If you need an interpreter, we will provide one free of charge.	The Tribunal arranges for an interpreter to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process or hearing where needed. Interpreters are provided free of charge.	
If you are self-represented, we will help you understand AAT procedures through our Outreach program. Outreach officers will contact self-represented parties by telephone within 6 weeks of an application being lodged.	Data collated for Outreach, for 939 parties, shows the average time from lodgement of an application to Outreach was 37 days, approximately five weeks.	
We will deal with you fairly	
A private conference will usually be held within 10 weeks of an application being lodged.	75 per cent of first conferences were held within 10 weeks of lodgement, down from 80 per cent in 2011–12.	
We will operate in an efficient manner	
If a decision was not given orally at a hearing, written decisions will usually be provided within two months.	79 per cent of decisions were delivered within 60 days of the last day of hearing or the receipt of further submissions or other material, down from 80 per cent in 2011–12 (see Chart 3.9).	
Complaints to the Tribunal
Complaints may be made orally or in writing. In accordance with guidelines adopted in 2013, complaints relating to Tribunal members are dealt with by the President, while complaints about staff members or other matters are dealt with by the Registrar, one of the Executive Directors or a District Registrar. 
When a complaint is made in person or by telephone, the Tribunal attempts to resolve it immediately. The Tribunal aims to respond to written complaints within 20 working days, or 30 working days if the complaint is submitted in a language other than English. The length of time before a final response is provided depends on the extent of investigation which is necessary. If more time is required, because of the complexity of the complaint or the need to consult with other persons before providing a response, the Tribunal advises the complainant of progress in handling the complaint. 
If a complaint is upheld, possible responses include an apology, a change to practice and procedure or consideration of additional training and development for Tribunal personnel.
The Tribunal publishes information on its website as part of its Service Charter explaining how complaints can be made and how they will be responded to.
During 2012–13, the Tribunal received complaints from 24 individuals: 23 written and one oral. Chart 3.13 shows the number of complaints made over the three most recent reporting years.
Chart 3.13	Complaints to the Tribunal

The 24 complaints made in 2012–13 were about the issues shown in Table 3.14. 
Table 3.14	Issues raised in complaints to the Tribunal
Issue	Number of complaints	
Tribunal decisions	11	
Conduct of Tribunal members	4	
General procedural issues	4	
Other parties to Tribunal proceedings	3	
Conduct of Tribunal staff	2	
Total	24	
The Tribunal provided a substantive response to 25 complaints in 2012–13, responding within 20 working days to 15 of the complaints. The average number of days from complaint to final response was 22 working days. 
The Tribunal does not measure whether a complainant believes his or her complaint was resolved. One complainant wrote again to the Tribunal after receiving an initial response to their complaint. They were given further information to address any outstanding concerns.
ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON TRIBUNAL MEMBERS
As well as performing their role under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, Tribunal members may exercise powers under a range of other Acts in their personal capacity.
Warrants, controlled operations and other functions
All Deputy Presidents and full-time Senior Members, and any part-time Senior Member or Member who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years, may be nominated by the responsible minister 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
•	vary controlled operations authorities under the Crimes Act 1914.
The President, all Deputy Presidents, and any Senior Member who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years, may be nominated to make orders allowing information given to the Inspector of Transport Security to be disclosed to another government agency under the Inspector of Transport Security Act 2006.
The President and all Deputy Presidents are eligible to be appointed as issuing authorities for making continued preventative detention orders under the Criminal Code Act 1995. 
All presidential members of the Tribunal may be nominated to issue examination notices under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012.
From 1 October 2012, all Deputy Presidents, and any non-presidential member who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years, could be nominated to issue search warrants and exercise related powers under the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. 
All members of the Tribunal are authorised to exercise a range of powers relating to monitoring overseas students’ compliance with visa conditions under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the Migration Act 1958.
Table 3.15 shows the number of occasions on which Tribunal members considered applications under any of these Acts over the past three years. There was a further 11 per cent increase in the number of appointments held in 2012–13. 
Table 3.15	Applications relating to warrants, controlled operations and other functions considered by Tribunal members
	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	
Number of occasions on which applications considered	2,160	2,496	2,764	

The Tribunal is flexible in performing these functions and members are available outside standard business hours. In the reporting period, there were 251 out-of-hours appointments (before 9 am or after 5 pm on weekdays or at any time on the weekend or on a public holiday).
In a proportion of applications, the issue of a warrant or other authorisation is only granted after further information is provided at the request of the authorised member. A small number of warrant applications are refused, some only granted after conditions are imposed (including conditions in relation to privacy) and, in some instances, the warrant is issued for a lesser period of time than that sought by the law enforcement agency.
In recognition of the importance of the functions performed by authorised members, the Tribunal hosted a one-day seminar in October 2012 which included sessions dealing with the interception and surveillance application process, how the ‘product’ from the use of warrants/surveillance devices is used in the prosecution process and with what effect, the political and community context in which telephone interception and other surveillance is taking place, and policy and legislative challenges (including the role of Public Interest Monitors in Queensland and Victoria). 
The Tribunal also updated its guidelines which contain practical information about the exercise of these functions, and continued to liaise with the Attorney-General’s Department about legislative and administrative reforms. The Tribunal has raised with the Department the need for a robust and consistent data collection and reporting regime to improve government and community understanding of how the various schemes operate. The need for improved data collection was recognised by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security in its Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation that was tabled on 24 June 2013.
Proceeds of crime examinations
All presidential members of the Tribunal, and any Senior Member or Member, who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years, may be appointed by the responsible minister as an approved examiner under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or the Proceeds of Crime Regulations 2002. Approved examiners are authorised to issue examination notices at the request of the Australian Federal Police and oversee compulsory examinations in connection with confiscation proceedings. 
Table 3.16 shows the number of examination sessions conducted by Tribunal members in the last three years. The number of examinations held increased in 2012–13 but remains relatively low. 
Table 3.16	Examinations held under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
	 2010–11	 2011–12	2012–13	
Number of examination sessions held	12	2	28