Annual Report 2014 / 15

CONTACTING THE TRIBUNAL
By phone
You can call the AAT on 1800 228 333 from anywhere in Australia (calls are free from landline phones, however calls from mobiles may be charged).
Non-English speakers can call the Translating and Interpreting Service on 131 450 and ask them to call the AAT.
If you are deaf or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us through the National Relay Service. For more information, visit www.relayservice.gov.au.
In person, by email or by post
Visit our website to find our contact details, including your nearest Registry: www.aat.gov.au/contact-us.
Website
www.aat.gov.au

Annual Report 2014 / 15

This report
An electronic version of this annual report is on the AAT’s website at 
http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/corporate-information/annual-reports. 
More information about the Tribunal is on the website, www.aat.gov.au.
Photos on front cover: Graynoise
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and any third party material, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en).
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party material, it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are detailed on the following website: http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/coat-arms/.
Content from this publication should be attributed as: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Annual Report 2014–15.
Enquiries regarding the licence, any use of this work, or any other queries about this report may be sent to:
Registrar
Principal Registry
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
GPO Box 9955
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Tel: 02 9391 2491
Fax: 02 9391 2578
Email: enquiries@aat.gov.au
ISSN 1035-8161 (Print) 
ISSN 2205-2836 (Online)
Designed by Zoo Advertising
Printed by Union Offset

Contents
CHAPTER // 01 The year in review
President’s overview
Registrar’s review
2014–15 highlights and achievements
Chapter // 02 Overview of the AAT
Functions and powers
Organisation
Case management
Accessing the AAT
Chapter // 03 Our performance
Workload overview
Performance
External scrutiny
Service Charter
Additional functions conferred on tribunal members
Chapter // 04 Our users and our relationships
Our users
Our relationships
Chapter // 05 Our organisation and our people
Organisational management
Management of human resources
Information and development
Financial statements
Appendixes
Appendix // 01 Members of the AAT
Appendix // 02 Staff of the AAT
Appendix // 03 AAT jurisdiction
Appendix // 04 Applications, outcomes, listings and appeals statistics
Appendix // 05 Resourcing tables
Appendix // 06 Application fees
Appendix // 07 Decisions of interest
Appendix // 08 Speeches, publications and other activities
Appendix // 09 Other reporting requirements
End matter
Glossary
List of requirements
Index

Table of Figures
Chapters
Table 2.1 Membership of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Figure 2.2 Case management process
Chart 3.1 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Total
Chart 3.2 Applications lodged, finalised and current in 2014–15 – By jurisdiction
Chart 3.3 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Social security
Chart 3.4 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Veterans’ affairs
Chart 3.5 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Workers’ compensation
Chart 3.6 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Taxation Appeals Division and Small Taxation Claims Tribunal
Chart 3.7 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Other jurisdictions and applications
Table 3.8 Deliverables targets and results, 2014–15
Table 3.9 Key performance indicators and results, 2014–15
Chart 3.10 Performance against time standards
Table 3.11 Percentage of applications finalised within time standards
Table 3.12 Freedom of information requests
Table 3.13 Service standards
Table 3.13 Service standards (continued)
Table 3.14 Complaints to the AAT
Table 3.15 Issues raised in complaints to the AAT
Table 3.16 Applications relating to warrants, controlled operations and other functions considered by AAT members
Table 3.17 Examinations held under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Table 5.1 Executive Deputy Presidents/Senior Member, 2014–15
Table 5.2 Trends in expenditure on consultancy contracts
Table 5.3 Trends in staffing numbers
Table 5.3 Trends in staffing numbers (continued)
Table 5.4 Trends in compensation claims
Table 5.5 Employees who identify as Indigenous
Appendixes
Table A1.1 Members of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Table A2.1 Employment by registry, 30 June 2015
Table A2.2 Equal employment opportunity data, 30 June 2015
Table A2.3 Employment status and arrangements, 30 June 2015
Figure A2.4 Administrative structure of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Table A4.1 Applications lodged and applications finalised, 2014–15
Chart A4.2 Applications lodged – By state and territory
Chart A4.3 Applications finalised – By state and territory
Table A4.4 Percentage of applications finalised without a hearing
Table A4.5 Outcomes of applications for review of a decision finalised in 2014–15
Chart A4.6 Applications current at 30 June 2015 – By state and territory
Table A4.7 Alternative dispute resolution processes, interlocutory hearings and hearings conducted by the AAT
Table A4.8 Constitution of tribunals for hearings
Table A4.9 Appeals against decisions of the AAT – By jurisdiction
Table A4.10 Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions — By jurisdiction
Table A4.10 Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions — By jurisdiction (continued)
Table A5.1 AAT resource statement, 2014–15
Table A5.2 Expenses for outcome
Table A6.1 Fee revenue summary: total received, refunded and forgone
Table A6.2 Reduced fees paid
Table A6.3 Applications for which no fee paid where one fee payable for two or more applications lodged by the same applicant
Table A8.1 Speeches and presentations
Table A8.2 Competition adjudication and training
Table A8.3 Publications
Table A8.4 Other engagement activities
Table A9.1 Trends in non‑campaign advertising
Table A9.2 Environmental performance reporting

CHAPTER // 01 The year in review
President’s overview

Amalgamation of tribunals
The Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee (Kerr Committee) concluded in 1971 that the basic fault of the entire administrative law structure at that time was that review could not, as a general rule, be obtained on the merits despite that being what the aggrieved citizen was seeking. The Kerr Committee recommended that merits review be made available and that such review should be undertaken by a single independent, highly skilled, generalist body. Four decades later, with bipartisan support in the Parliament, that recommendation has been largely implemented. On 1 July 2015, the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) were amalgamated into the AAT.
The task of achieving the Government’s announced objective to amalgamate these key Commonwealth merits review tribunals was a primary area of focus of this Tribunal and its staff and members in 2014–15. The successful implementation of this decision was only possible because of the collaboration and cooperation of many people, particularly in the tribunals, the Attorney‑General’s Department and the portfolio departments for the MRT‑RRT and SSAT. Action was required across a broad range of areas, including development and passage of the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015, reviewing and updating practice and procedure documentation, consideration of membership and staffing arrangements, as well as the many other practical issues associated with creating a single organisation from 1 July 2015.
I thank the former Principal Members of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT, respectively Kay Ransome and Jane Macdonnell. Each worked tirelessly, and with selfless dedication, as heads of their respective jurisdictions to ensure the success of the amalgamation while also working with their members to ensure the day‑to‑day delivery of merits review was to the highest standards. The Registrars of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT, Colin Plowman and Louise Anderson respectively, made very significant contributions to the project as did the Registrars of the AAT, Philip Kellow and, from April 2015, Sian Leathem. Many other staff of the tribunals also played critical roles in the amalgamation, particularly through their participation in working groups established to deal with issues relating to client service delivery, financial and human resources management, information technology, library and information services, tribunal practice and procedure, property and security.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the staff of the Attorney‑General’s Department, particularly Deputy Secretary David Fredericks and the Tribunals Amalgamation Taskforce, who coordinated the implementation of the Government’s decision. The way in which they engaged with the tribunals has assisted in the establishment of an amalgamated AAT that is well‑placed to meet the needs of the Australian community into the future.
The amalgamation will simplify the pathways for individuals and organisations seeking review of Commonwealth administrative decisions without diminishing existing rights of review. The transfer of the members and staff of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT to the AAT and the broad preservation of the procedures of each of the tribunals will provide for a continuity of experience for users of the tribunals. However, bringing the tribunals together also offers opportunities to enhance the merits review system.
I welcome each of the members and officers of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT as a new and valued colleague within the expanded AAT. The new Tribunal has over 300 members and more than 600 staff. It will deal with some 40,000 matters a year. I look forward to working together to develop our new organisation which draws on the best know‑how that each of the amalgamating tribunals has to offer to ensure that our Australian model remains the best merits review model in the world.
The process of bringing together three significant existing institutions with minimal disruption necessarily has left some issues for the future. Some legacy issues that were incapable of quick agreement were put aside for later attention and we will now shift our focus to work on these. For example, we have inherited quite different funding models that apply to different parts of our single tribunal. It should also not be thought that the new system will be static. It would be surprising if the amalgamation does not reveal further opportunities for reform, including removal of any remaining legacy inconsistencies in aspects of our procedures which have no ongoing utility. The passage of the amalgamation legislation is not the end of the amalgamation reform task, but it is an essential and significant beginning.
Not only can the AAT exercise inquisitorial powers, but also in cases where it is appropriate, its members manage vigorously contested proceedings between legally represented parties. The commitment for professional development and the time and experience that must be devoted to acquire the skill sets and professionalism required of members is often underappreciated. As President of the AAT for the past three years, I have come to regard merits review decision‑making as a profession or vocation in its own right. The expertise acquired by an experienced member cannot be cheaply replicated. I intend, as far as I can, to ensure that member expertise is valued and, if possible, retained.
Parliament has required a formal review of the amalgamation to be conducted after 1 July 2018. We will need to demonstrate that the reforms have achieved their objective of providing a mechanism of merits review that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick, and proportionate to the importance and complexity of a matter. Australia has been well served for the past 40 years by those who have been members and staff of merits review tribunals, and with the significant experience and strong commitment we have from the renewed Tribunal’s members and staff, I am confident that we will continue to achieve this outcome.
Tribunal performance and other developments in 2014–15
While the AAT necessarily focused on work associated with the amalgamation, we continued to deliver high‑quality merits review in 2014–15.
Total lodgements in 2014–15 were some nine per cent lower than in 2013–14. The most significant change was a 50 per cent decrease in applications in the taxation jurisdiction. We did, however, experience a further increase in the number of applications for review of decisions about family assistance and social security decisions, reflecting higher numbers of applications dealt with in the SSAT in 2014–15. Two levels of merits review will continue to be available in the amalgamated AAT for these types of decisions and the Tribunal will monitor closely whether there is any change in the proportion of applications for second review under the new arrangements.
The AAT maintained its output in 2014–15, finalising the same number of applications as in 2013–14. We continued to meet our two key performance targets, resolving 80 per cent of applications without a hearing and finalising 78 per cent of applications within 12 months of lodgement. These results were achieved despite uncertainties relating to the future and some changes in the membership during the year.
The AAT is committed to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our review processes and there were two key developments in relation to our case management practices during the reporting year. Firstly, an Integrated Dispute Resolution Working Group was established to identify opportunities for improving how we manage cases with a particular focus on ensuring members, Conference Registrars and registry staff work together as effectively as possible during the review process. In March 2015, pilots commenced in the Adelaide and Sydney Registries for a team approach to the early assessment of social security applications to identify and implement the appropriate review pathway. The pilots will continue in 2015–16. Secondly, Deputy President Philip Hack SC led the development of a set of nationally consistent procedures that will apply to cases in the AAT’s new Taxation and Commercial Division from 1 July 2015. Consultation with user groups held around Australia indicated support for the proposed model. This will involve a member managing most cases from lodgement to finalisation and identifying with the parties the case management strategy that will most effectively deal with the real issues in dispute, including, where possible, by resolving the matter by agreement through the use of alternative dispute resolution.
Our people
The AAT is a strong and high‑performing organisation because of its people. As always is the case, it is very awkward to single out anyone for special mention but the past twelve months have seen a number of the AAT’s most valued and long‑serving members, each with 10 years or greater service, depart. All were valued colleagues who made significant contributions to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal.
Deputy President Stan Hotop who was first appointed in 1991 as a part‑time member retired as the full‑time Executive Deputy President in Perth after 24 years of service. Deputy President Robin Handley, initially appointed as a Senior Member and most recently as Executive Deputy President in Sydney, retired after 11 years of service over a period of 16 years; Deputy President Ray Groom retired after a decade as Executive Deputy President in Hobart; Senior Member Graham Friedman departed after 14 years of service, first as a full‑time Member and then as a full‑time Senior Member; Senior Member Graham Kenny departed after 13 years of service, first as a part‑time Member and later as a part‑time Senior Member; Member Professor Graham Johnston was also first appointed in 1991 and retired in 2014 after 23 years of service; Member Professor Tania Sourdin departed with 13 years of service and Senior Member Steven Penglis and Member Brigadier (Dr) Graham Maynard (ret’d) departed, each having contributed 10 years of service.
A number of other members departed during the year who also made valued contributions to the work of the AAT: Senior Member Anne Britton; Senior Member Robin Creyke; Senior Member Dean Letcher QC; Senior Member Jan Redfern; Member Dr Roslyn Blakley; Member Dr Jan Chaney; Member Dr Amanda Frazer; Member Dr Hadia Haikal‑Mukhtar; Member Kathryn Hogan; Member Mark Hyman; Member Dr Roderick McRae; Member Professor Peter Reilly AO and Member Dr Peter Wulf.
It was with sadness that we learnt of the passing of Alfred Argent, a former part‑time Member in Melbourne, who died in September 2014. In April of this year we learnt of the death of former judge of the High Court of Australia and Federal Court of Australia John Toohey AC QC. He was appointed a presidential member of the AAT in 1980 while serving as a judge of the Federal Court and remained so until his appointment to the High Court in 1987.
We have also welcomed several new members in 2014–15, including a number of judges who I am delighted have accepted an additional commission as a judicial member of the Tribunal. While the number of matters determined by the AAT as constituted by one or more judicial members makes up only a small percentage of our total cases, it is a great strength to have that option where the significance of a matter warrants it. I remain committed to increasing the utilisation of judicial members for reasons that were originally articulated by the Tribunal’s initial President, Brennan J.
We also welcomed the important appointments of Deputy Presidents Gary Humphries, Christopher Kendall and Greg Melick in Canberra, Perth and Hobart respectively. A full list of appointments and reappointments made during the reporting year is detailed in Appendix 1 of this report.

Gathered at the ceremonial sitting of the amalgamated Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 1 July 2015 were five Presidents of the Tribunal: the Hon Acting Justice Jane Mathews AO, the Hon Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE QC, the Hon Daryl Davies QC, the Hon Justice Kerr and the Hon Garry Downes AM QC.
Registrar’s review

It is an exciting and challenging time to be Registrar of the AAT. As a result of the amalgamation on 1 July 2015, we will become a significantly larger agency, with our caseload expected to increase by around 500 per cent, and our members and staff numbers increasing by approximately 250 per cent.
As I only commenced in the role of Registrar in April 2015, I wish simply to add my thanks and congratulations to those responsible for the excellent work undertaken in the 12 months preceding amalgamation. The smooth transition on 1 July 2015 is largely the result of the thorough planning, coordination and goodwill demonstrated by members and staff of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT in the lead up to amalgamation.
Unsurprisingly, a key focus for the reporting year was the work associated with the amalgamation of the tribunals and, in particular, the work required to bring together the people and systems of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT. Staff of the AAT worked closely with colleagues in the MRT‑RRT and SSAT and with officers of the Attorney‑General’s Department in a number of working groups to progress activities in a wide range of areas. 
Extensive work took place in the following key areas to ensure the smooth transition to an amalgamated tribunal.
•	Our users and stakeholders
Considerable efforts were made to ensure that the amalgamation was as seamless as possible for our users. Targeted communications were issued to existing review applicants and key agencies towards the end of 2014–15, to ensure they were aware of the upcoming changes. A single 1800 telephone number was activated from 1 July 2015, so that users could contact all divisions of the AAT via a single contact number. Arrangements were also put in place to ensure that every registry was in a position to receive any application lodged, irrespective of the division to which the application relates.
•	Our people
In the lead up to amalgamation, there was strong engagement with members and staff from across the tribunals to communicate the nature and extent of the upcoming changes and the impact that amalgamation would have on day‑to‑day operations. These communication activities were complemented by the delivery of targeted training to assist managers and staff in dealing with the challenges associated with change.
•	Our systems
The IT networks of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT have now been integrated so that all key applications used by the various divisions and Principal Registry can be accessed from all sites. Significant progress has also been made on transitioning the entire AAT workforce onto a single human resource management system.
A new organisational structure has been developed and implemented to ensure the successful integration and delivery of corporate services and to support the work of our divisions. We are now well advanced in developing integrated budgeting and financial management arrangements, including an Audit and Risk Committee that can serve the amalgamated AAT.
•	Our information resources
In the lead up to amalgamation, a new corporate brand was developed for the amalgamated AAT and has been in use from 1 July 2015. Drawing upon the branding, a new website was created to explain the operations of the amalgamated AAT while continuing to maintain access to the information and resources developed by the former tribunals. Furthermore, from 1 July 2015, all AAT members and staff have been able to access a single intranet, which will increasingly become a site for collaboration and internal information sharing across the divisions and Principal Registry.
•	Our workplace
Having inherited 15 separate workplace sites on 1 July 2015, an important aspect of amalgamation will be the consolidation and rationalisation of our property portfolio. To support this work, a property masterplan has been developed to guide the creation of workplaces that effectively meet the needs of our members, staff and users into the future. Work is now well advanced on the co‑location of offices in Sydney and Perth, with Brisbane expected to follow by the end of 2015–16.
Budget & 2014–15 financial result
At the end of financial year 2014–15, the Tribunal recorded an operating surplus of $2.970 million, prior to depreciation charges and revaluations. The surplus is largely attributable to the appointment of fewer members than anticipated and lower than expected numbers of review applications relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There will need to be a continued focus on strong budget management, particularly in light of the anticipated savings associated with the amalgamation.
Looking ahead
Work is already under way on the development of a strategic plan for the amalgamated AAT. This plan will identify our key priorities over the coming years and outline how the organisation will support the continued delivery of high-quality, effective and efficient merits review. The next year will also see the implementation of new governance arrangements as part of the creation of a single integrated organisation.
People and acknowledgements
During the reporting period there were a number of key staff changes in the Tribunal. I would like to particularly acknowledge the former Registrar of the AAT, Philip Kellow, and the former Executive Director Operations, Nerrilee Cuthbertson, who ably filled my role before I commenced in April. I would also like to extend my thanks to the President for his leadership during this critical period, and to all of the members and staff of the former tribunals for the constructive way in which they approached the task of amalgamation.
I look forward to working with all of the members and staff of the amalgamated AAT to create and deliver an integrated, client‑focused and high-performing Tribunal.
2014–15 highlights and achievements
6,581 applications lodged
6,748 applications finalised
80% applications finalised other than by way of a decision following a hearing
78% applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement
Our users – to provide a high‑quality independent merits review process that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick
•	We worked closely with the Attorney‑General’s Department and the MRT‑RRT and SSAT on the legislative changes required to give effect to the Government’s decision to amalgamate the tribunals from 1 July 2015. They included amendments which support more effective and efficient dispute resolution processes.
•	The AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT collaborated to produce revised practice directions, guides, guidelines and forms for the amalgamated AAT to take effect from 1 July 2015.
•	We developed and consulted users on a Review of Taxation and Commercial Decisions Practice Direction which sets out a new approach to managing these types of cases from 1 July 2015.
•	An Integrated Dispute Resolution Working Group was established and commenced two pilots for a team approach to the early assessment of social security applications.
•	We implemented a mobile and tablet friendly version of our website and ReadSpeaker text‑to‑speech software to enhance the accessibility of our website.
•	The AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT worked together on the development of a new website for the amalgamated AAT and implemented coordinated contact arrangements from 1 July 2015.
Our relationships – to engage effectively with government, tribunals, the legal profession and other interested organisations in Australia and internationally
•	We engaged extensively with the Attorney‑General’s Department, the MRT‑RRT and SSAT and their portfolio departments in relation to the establishment of the amalgamated AAT.
•	AAT members and staff continued to be active participants in the Council of Australasian Tribunals and other forums, and gave presentations at a wide range of conferences and seminars.
•	We welcomed a number of international visitors to the AAT, including hosting with the Federal Court of Australia the first judge to visit the Oceania region under a judges’ exchange program introduced by the International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions.
•	The tenth annual Mooting Competition and the second Negotiating Outcomes on Time Competition were held, giving Australian university students a comprehensive experience of the administrative review process at the AAT.
•	We offered a significant number of internship and work experience placements.
Our organisation – to manage our resources strategically and effectively
•	We worked closely with the MRT‑RRT and SSAT to plan for, and commence implementation of, coordinated approaches to financial and human resources management, information technology, library and information services, property and security for the amalgamated AAT.
•	The Long Term Accommodation Masterplan was developed for the amalgamated AAT and progress was made on planning for co‑location of our offices over coming years.
•	We pursued projects to improve the management of our administrative records.
•	We enhanced our IT systems to improve security compliance and network management activities and to improve the robustness of our electronic case management system, TRACS.
Our people – to maintain a professional, productive, rewarding and safe workplace
•	Learning and development programs were delivered to assist members and staff prepare for and deal with the changes associated with the amalgamation and a range of communication channels were used to keep members and staff informed about developments relating to the amalgamation.
•	Ongoing training was provided for members and staff in relation to the AAT’s National Disability Insurance Scheme jurisdiction.
•	We developed our relationship with the National Judicial College of Australia and worked with them to pilot a program for tribunal members on understanding and engaging people in tribunal hearings.
Chapter // 02 Overview of the AAT
Functions and powers
The AAT’s principal function is to conduct independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws. We review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies and, in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non‑government bodies. We also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws.
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 (MRT), the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) were merged with the AAT.
Jurisdiction
The AAT does not have a general power to review decisions. We can only review a decision if an Act, regulation or other legislative instrument states that the decision can be reviewed by the AAT.
The AAT has jurisdiction to review decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth Acts and legislative instruments. We review decisions in a wide range of areas, including decisions about bankruptcy, child support, citizenship, civil aviation, customs, family assistance and social security, freedom of information, immigration, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, passports, security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), taxation, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation.
From 1 July 2015, the AAT’s jurisdiction includes the review of decisions formerly reviewed by the MRT‑RRT and SSAT.
In relation to Norfolk Island, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decisions made under 39 Norfolk Island enactments. Decisions subject to review include decisions about customs, planning and social services.
The AAT is not always the first step in having a decision reviewed. In some cases, we cannot review a decision until there has been an internal review of the primary decision or review by a specialist review body like the Veterans’ Review Board.
Appendix 3 contains a list of the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island enactments under which decisions may be made that can be reviewed by the AAT as at 30 June 2015.
Review of decisions
Merits review of an administrative decision involves considering afresh the facts, law and policy relating to that decision. The AAT considers the material that is before it and decides what is the legally correct decision or, where there can be more than one correct decision, the preferable decision. The AAT can affirm, vary or set aside the decision under review.
In carrying out our functions in 2014–15, the AAT was required to pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick: section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. On 1 July 2015, the AAT’s statutory objective was amended to provide that the review mechanism must also be accessible, proportionate to the importance and complexity of a matter and promote public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the Tribunal.
The AAT seeks to provide administrative justice for individuals and organisations whose interests are affected by decisions that the AAT can review and, more broadly, to improve the quality of government decision‑making.
Organisation
The AAT consists of the President and the other members who may be appointed as Deputy Presidents, Senior Members or Members. The President is responsible for the overall management of the AAT with the assistance of the Registrar. Staff are employed to assist the AAT to carry out its functions.
Members of the AAT
The members of the AAT are appointed by the Governor‑General on a full‑time or part‑time basis for a term of up to seven years. Members may be reappointed.
Qualification requirements for the different categories of members are set out in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The President of the AAT must be a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The AAT’s other members may be:
•	judges of the Federal Court or Family Court of Australia
•	lawyers of at least five years standing, or
•	persons with relevant knowledge or skills.
Members of the AAT come from a wide variety of backgrounds with expertise in areas such as accountancy, aviation, disability, engineering, law, medicine, military affairs, public administration, science and taxation.
The President of the AAT is the Hon Justice Duncan Kerr, Chev LH. He was appointed a judge of the Federal Court of Australia on 10 May 2012, and President of the AAT on 16 May 2012 for a term of five years.
As at 30 June 2015, there were 79 members of the AAT. See Table 2.1 for the breakdown of full‑time and part‑time members by category. See Appendix 1 for a full list of the AAT’s members as at 30 June 2015.
On 1 July 2015, members of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT whose terms of appointment extended beyond 30 June 2015 became members of the AAT. A list of current members of the AAT is available on the AAT website.
Table 2.1 Membership of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Category of member	Judge	Full‑time	Part‑time	Total
(Women)	
President	1			1 (0)	
Presidential members:					
Federal Court judges	13			13 (3)	
Family Court judges	7			7 (4)	
Deputy Presidents		6	7	13 (3)	
Senior Members		7	12	19 (7) 	
Members		1	25	26 (7) 	
Total	21	14	44	79 (24) 	
Divisions
The AAT exercises its powers in divisions. During 2014–15, there were five divisions: General Administrative, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Security Appeals, Taxation Appeals and Veterans’ Appeals. The Taxation Appeals Division was known as the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal for the review of certain tax decisions.
From 1 July 2015, the AAT has eight divisions: Freedom of Information, General, Migration and Refugee, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Security, Social Services and Child Support, Taxation and Commercial, and Veterans’ Appeals. The Migration and Refugee Division deals with applications previously made to the MRT‑RRT. The Social Services and Child Support Division deals with applications previously made to the SSAT.
The President, other judges and Deputy Presidents can exercise powers in any of the divisions. Senior Members and Members may only exercise powers in the division or divisions to which they have been assigned.
Since 1 July 2015, a Deputy President may be assigned as the Head of one or more divisions to assist the President by directing the business in a division. A Deputy President or Senior Member may be assigned as the Deputy Head of one or more divisions to assist the Division Head.
Staff of the AAT
The position of Registrar is a statutory office appointed by the Governor‑General on the nomination of the President. In addition to assisting the President in managing the AAT’s administrative affairs, the Registrar also undertakes functions relating to the management of applications conferred by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and other enactments.
The AAT’s Registrar at 30 June 2015 is Sian Leathem. She began her five‑year appointment on 7 April 2015. Her predecessor was Philip Kellow. Following his departure in January 2015, Ms Nerrilee Cuthbertson was appointed Acting Registrar until Ms Leathem was appointed.
Other staff of the AAT are employed under the Public Service Act 1999 as ongoing, non‑ongoing or intermittent employees. At 30 June 2015, the Tribunal had 157 staff. See Appendix 2 for more staffing information and a figure showing the administrative structure of the AAT at 30 June 2015, including the names of senior staff.
Registries
Principal Registry
Principal Registry staff advise and assist the President and the Registrar, and provide a range of services for members and staff. They are responsible for business support services, communications, financial and human resource management, corporate legal and policy services, library and information management services and technology services.
District Registries
There are District Registries in each of the state capital cities and in Canberra. The registry service in Hobart is co‑located with the Federal Court. Applications in the Northern Territory are managed primarily from Brisbane. The Supreme Court of Norfolk Island provides basic registry services on Norfolk Island with applications managed principally by the registry in Sydney.
Conference Registrars conduct the majority of the alternative dispute resolution processes held by the AAT. Other District Registry staff:
•	provide information to parties and their representatives and the general public on the operation and procedures of the Tribunal
•	process applications and facilitate the listing and conduct of alternative dispute resolution processes and hearings, and
•	provide administrative and other support services to members.
Case management
The AAT’s case management processes are designed to promote the orderly passage of applications from lodgement to resolution, equitable treatment of parties, achievement of case management targets and effective use of Tribunal resources.
The case management processes described here and illustrated in Figure 2.2 are those that were used in the AAT during 2014–15. In general, they continue to apply from 1 July 2015 for applications dealt with in divisions other than the Migration and Refugee Division and the Social Services and Child Support Division.
When the AAT receives a valid application, we notify the decision‑maker that the application has been made. The decision‑maker then has 28 days to provide the AAT and the applicant with a statement of reasons for the decision and all documents relevant to the review.
In relation to most applications, the AAT’s approach is to assist the parties to attempt to reach an agreed outcome while ensuring that steps are taken to prepare the case for hearing in the event it cannot be resolved by agreement. A Conference Registrar will hold one or more conferences with the parties, either in person or by telephone, to discuss and define the issues in dispute, identify and consider additional material that may be obtained, explore whether the matter can be settled and discuss the future conduct of the review. Where appropriate, the application may be referred to another form of alternative dispute resolution – conciliation, mediation, case appraisal or neutral evaluation. We set timetables and issue directions for the steps the parties must take in the review.
We modify our case management process for particular types of cases as well as in individual cases to ensure they are dealt with in the most effective and efficient way. For example, some types of applications are managed from lodgement by Tribunal members holding directions hearings. These include applications that require an expedited review, applications about security assessments made by ASIO and, from 1 July 2015, most applications in the Taxation and Commercial Division. Where appropriate, applications may still be referred to an alternative dispute resolution process to attempt to reach an agreed outcome or narrow the issues in dispute.
If agreement cannot be reached in a case, the Tribunal – constituted by one, two or three members – conducts a hearing and makes a decision.
Distinct processes apply from 1 July 2015 in relation to applications in the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division and Social Services and Child Support Division, formerly dealt with in the MRT‑RRT and SSAT. More information about those processes is available on the AAT website.
Directions, guides, guidelines and process models
The AAT publishes a range of documents that set out our policies and procedures. They are designed to assist parties and their representatives to understand the AAT’s processes and what is expected of them during the review process.
Practice directions and jurisdictional guides issued by the President set out procedures for managing particular types of applications. Other presidential directions and guidelines deal with specific aspects of the review process such as constituting the Tribunal and the use of expert evidence. We have also developed process models describing each stage of the alternative dispute resolution processes used by the AAT and a policy that guides the referral of applications to those processes.
Our practice and procedure documents were reviewed and updated in anticipation of the commencement of the amalgamated AAT on 1 July 2015. They are available on the AAT website.
Figure 2.2 Case management process

Accessing the AAT
The AAT employs a range of measures to assist potential applicants, parties and other people to access the Tribunal and participate in the review process.
Information about the AAT and assistance in relation to the review process
We offer written information about our role and procedures in plain language in a variety of formats. Some information is also made available in community languages. AAT staff respond to enquiries from parties and representatives about the review process and also proactively contact self‑represented parties in certain types of cases to explain our processes, answer any questions and identify whether the party will require an interpreter or assistance because of a disability.
Self‑represented parties who have given the AAT a mobile telephone number receive an SMS reminder a few days before an upcoming case event.
Where relevant, the AAT makes information available to parties about legal aid services, community legal centres or other persons or organisations that may be able to provide advice and assistance in relation to the review process or how to find such assistance.
In New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, legal advice schemes have been established with the legal aid commissions. A legal aid solicitor attends the AAT on a weekly or fortnightly basis and provides advice and minor assistance to self‑represented parties in certain types of cases. Further assistance, such as representation, may be provided if a person makes a successful application for legal aid. The AAT advises self‑represented parties of the service and makes appointments for them.
Interpreting services
If a party or witness requires an interpreter, the AAT engages one and meets the cost. We generally use interpreters accredited by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) at the ‘Professional Interpreter’ level. If an interpreter is not available in a language at that level, we may use an interpreter accredited as a ‘Paraprofessional Interpreter’ or, if NAATI does not offer accreditation testing in the language, an interpreter recognised by NAATI.
We have developed information for interpreters in relation to our procedures and terminology as well as guidelines relating to the role of the interpreter.
Access by people with disability
The AAT strives to make access easier for people with disability by:
•	ensuring the website meets the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) web standard to Level AA
•	making ReadSpeaker, a text-to-speech software service, available on the website
•	providing portable hearing loop systems in Tribunal premises
•	facilitating telephone contact for people with a hearing or speech impairment
•	making all AAT premises wheelchair accessible and ensuring other premises used by the AAT are accessible, and
•	providing for participation in alternative dispute resolution processes or hearings by telephone or video‑link.
Service Charter and complaints
The AAT’s Service Charter sets out the standards of service that people can expect when they deal with the Tribunal. The Charter also includes information on how to make a complaint about the AAT and our complaint‑handling procedures. It is written in clear, simple language.
The Service Charter was reviewed during 2014–15 in advance of the amalgamation of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT. The revised Service Charter is on the AAT’s website.
The AAT’s compliance with its commitments under the Charter as it was in 2014–15 is discussed in Chapter 3, along with complaints information.
Chapter // 03 Our performance
The Tribunal aims to manage its workload in an effective and efficient manner, responding to changes in the number and nature of applications over time. Performance targets define standards for dealing with applications, and assist us to meet the outcome and program requirements defined in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
Workload overview
The AAT received 6,581 applications and finalised 6,748 applications in 2014–15. There were 4,900 applications current at 30 June 2015.
Lodgements during the reporting year were nine per cent lower than in 2013–14. While there was an increase in the number of applications relating to social security decisions, there was a significant decrease in applications for review of taxation decisions. Lodgements in our other major jurisdictions – veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation – remained relatively steady.
In relation to finalisations, the AAT completed the same number of applications in 2014–15 as it did in 2013–14. Finalisation patterns reflect recent lodgement trends with increases in the social security and workers’ compensation jurisdictions and a decline in the number of taxation applications finalised.
The number of applications on hand at 30 June 2015 was three per cent lower than the previous year, reflecting the overall decline in lodgements in 2014–15. The majority of applications on hand at 30 June 2015 were less than 12 months old with some increase in the proportion of cases older than 12 months.
Chart 3.1 shows applications lodged and finalised in the three most recent reporting years, and applications current at 30 June in each year. More detailed information on the types of applications lodged and finalised, and the outcomes of cases finalised during the reporting year, is available in Appendix 4.
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 AAT in 2014–15, constituting 35 per cent of all lodgements. Applications in the workers’ compensation and taxation jurisdictions comprised 23 per cent and 16 per cent of all lodgements respectively. The veterans’ appeals jurisdiction was six per cent of all lodgements. All other applications constituted 20 per cent of total lodgements.
The taxation jurisdiction is the only one in which the number of applications finalised was greater than the number lodged in 2014–15. Clearance rates were higher than 90 per cent in the social security, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation jurisdictions as well as in relation to all other types of applications.
The number of applications lodged and finalised in each of our major jurisdictions in 2014–15 and the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2015 is shown in Chart 3.2.
Chart 3.2 Applications lodged, finalised and current in 2014–15 – By jurisdiction

Social security
The number of applications for review of family assistance and social security decisions lodged with the AAT in 2014–15 was 16 per cent higher than in 2013–14, as shown in Chart 3.3. This rate of increase was double the size of the increase recorded in the preceding year. Applications about age pension, disability support pension and overpayments and debt recovery were the principal sources of the increase in lodgements in 2014–15.
The departments that administer family assistance and social security entitlements lodged 104 applications in 2014–15, four per cent of total lodgements in this jurisdiction. This compares with 54 and 47 applications lodged in the preceding two years respectively.
The number of applications finalised in 2014–15 increased by eight per cent, reflecting the increase in lodgements in this jurisdiction. The significant increase in lodgements during the reporting year has led to a 20 per cent increase in applications on hand at 30 June 2015.
Chart 3.3 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Social security

Veterans’ affairs
The number of applications lodged in the veterans’ affairs jurisdiction increased only marginally in 2014–15. This relates primarily to a greater number of applications for review of decisions under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 relating to disability pension. Overall, lodgements in this jurisdiction have remained relatively consistent in recent years.
As shown in Chart 3.4, there was a small increase in the number of applications finalised in 2014–15 as well as in the number of current applications at 30 June 2015.
Chart 3.4 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Veterans’ affairs

Workers’ compensation
Lodgements in the workers’ compensation jurisdiction in 2014–15 were similar to 2013–14 both in relation to applications for review of decisions made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992. While there was an increase in applications relating to decisions made by Comcare, there were fewer applications for review of decisions made by the Linfox group of companies and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.
The number of compensation applications finalised in 2014–15 rose by five per cent and the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2015 rose by seven per cent, as shown in Chart 3.5. These trends reflect the overall increase in lodgements in this jurisdiction in the last two reporting years.
Chart 3.5 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Workers’ compensation

Taxation
The number of applications lodged in the Taxation Appeals Division declined by 50 per cent in 2014–15. While the number of applications decreased for most case types, it was most marked in relation to applications for review of decisions relating to income tax. The commitment of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to new processes that facilitate the earlier resolution of matters which otherwise may have resulted in applications to the AAT is likely to have contributed to this result. These changes in the ATO’s processes are likely to affect the AAT’s case mix with the proportion of complex or intractable disputes increasing. The significant fall in lodgements led to a 13 per cent decrease in the number of applications finalised in 2014–15 and a 26 per cent decrease in the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2015, as shown in Chart 3.6.
There was a 27 per cent decrease in lodgements in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal in 2014–15 which can also be attributed primarily to a fall in the number of applications for review of income tax decisions. The number of finalisations was 19 per cent lower than in 2013–14. With finalisations exceeding lodgements for a third consecutive year, the number of applications on hand at 30 June 2015 declined by 43 per cent.
Chart 3.6 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Taxation Appeals Division and Small Taxation Claims Tribunal

Other jurisdictions and applications
The overall number of applications lodged in the AAT’s other jurisdictions fell marginally in 2014–15 following a significant increase in 2013–14. There were increases in the number of applications for review of a range of decision types in 2014–15, including decisions about citizenship, the fair entitlements guarantee, freedom of information and marriage celebrants. These were offset by decreases in the number of applications about civil aviation and customs decisions as well as a significant decline in the number of stand‑alone applications lodged with the AAT seeking an extension of time within which to lodge an application for review.
The number of finalisations in these areas of our work in 2014–15 was similar to 2013–14. As lodgements continued to exceed the number of finalisations, there was an 18 per cent increase in applications on hand at 30 June 2015.
The Tribunal received 18 applications for review of decisions made by the National Disability Insurance Agency in 2014–15, similar to the number received in 2013–14. Eighteen applications were finalised in 2014–15 with 12 outstanding as at 30 June 2015.
Chart 3.7 Applications lodged, finalised and current – Other jurisdictions and applications

Performance
Outcome and performance information
The AAT had one outcome specified in the 2014–15 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.
We are a single‑program agency.
Deliverables
The AAT’s primary deliverables for 2014–15 were completed reviews of decisions, and there were two paths to achieving them:
•	applications finalised without a hearing, and
•	applications finalised with a hearing.
Our deliverables targets and our actual performance for 2014–15 are shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Deliverables targets and results, 2014–15
	Target	Result	
Applications finalised without a hearing
    Number of matters finalised without a hearing	6,295	5,406	
Applications finalised with a hearing
    Number of matters finalised with a hearing	1,574	1,342	
The number of applications finalised by the AAT, both with and without a hearing, was lower than the budget projections for 2014–15. We received a lower than anticipated number of applications for review of decisions relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Key performance indicators
The AAT’s key performance indicators for 2014–15 were:
•	to finalise 75 per cent of applications within 12 months of lodgement, and
•	to resolve 80 per cent of applications without a hearing.
For the second indicator, we use alternative dispute resolution to help the parties try to reach agreement about how their case should be resolved. The Tribunal conducts a hearing and make a decision if an application cannot otherwise be resolved.
The AAT’s actual performance for 2014–15 is shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Key performance indicators and results, 2014–15
	Target	Result	
Percentage of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement	75%	78%	
Percentage of applications resolved without a hearing	80%	80%	
In relation to the timeliness of dealing with applications, we exceeded the target in the Portfolio Budget Statements by three percentage points. This target was also exceeded in the two previous financial years: 76 per cent of applications were finalised within 12 months in 2012–13 and 82 per cent in 2013–14. More information about timeliness is set out below.
In relation to resolving applications without a hearing, we met the target of 80 per cent in 2014–15. While higher than the 79 per cent result for 2012–13, it is lower than the 82 per cent result achieved in 2013–14. For more information on the percentage of applications finalised without a hearing in each of the major jurisdictions, see Table A4.4 in Appendix 4.
See Appendix 5 for the summary table showing total resources for the AAT compared with the total payments made during 2014–15. The appendix also includes a summary table showing the total resources for the AAT’s outcome.
Time standards
We monitor our performance against time standards for steps in the review process as well as for the finalisation of applications, both generally and in our major jurisdictions.
Time standards for steps in the review process
We report on the timeliness of completing four steps in the review process:
•	the time taken by the decision‑maker to lodge the documents relating to the decision under review that are required under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 after receiving notice of an application
•	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 AAT and the parties share the responsibility for the timeliness of steps two and three; and the AAT controls the timeliness of step four.
Timeliness results for 2014–15 and the two previous reporting periods are shown in Chart 3.10.
Chart 3.10 Performance against time standards

The proportion of applications in which the decision‑maker lodged the Section 37 Documents within five weeks of receiving notice of the application was again marginally lower in 2014–15 than in the previous year.
We continued to hold a high proportion of first conferences within 13 weeks of the lodgement of an application in 2014–15. However, the proportion of applications in which the hearing was held within 40 weeks of lodgement decreased further in the reporting year as did the proportion of decisions delivered within 60 days after a hearing.
Time standards for finalising applications in major jurisdictions
We aim to finalise the majority of applications within 12 months of lodgement with specific targets set for each of the major jurisdictions. In relation to the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, our goal was to finalise applications within 12 weeks of lodgement.
Our results for 2014–15 and the two previous reporting years are in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Percentage of applications finalised within time standards
Jurisdiction	Target
%	2012–13
%	2013–14
%	2014–15
%	
All	—	76	82	78	
Social securitya	90	93	93	93	
Veterans’ affairsa	80	70	70	61	
Workers’ compensationa	75	68	70	65	
Taxation Appeals Divisiona	75	67	77	73	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunalb	–	27	33	37	
a	Time standard: percentage of applications finalised within 12 months
b	Time standard: percentage of applications finalised within 12 weeks
The proportion of applications finalised within 12 months in the social security jurisdiction in 2014–15 exceeded the 90 per cent target by three percentage points. This is consistent with the results achieved in the previous two reporting years. Sixty‑seven per cent of all social security applications were finalised within six months of lodgement, and 98 per cent within 18 months.
The level of performance in the veterans’ affairs jurisdiction declined in 2014–15 with 61 per cent of applications finalised within 12 months compared to 70 per cent in the previous two financial years. Eighty‑five per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months, compared with 87 per cent in 2013–14.
In the workers’ compensation jurisdiction, the 65 per cent result achieved in 2014–15 was five percentage points lower than the result for 2013–14. Eighty‑seven per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months, marginally lower than the result achieved in 2013–14.
The proportion of applications finalised within 12 months in the Taxation Appeals Division fell from 77 per cent in 2013–14 to 73 per cent in the reporting year. However, the level of performance achieved in 2014–15 remains higher than the results for the years prior to 2013–14. Eighty‑seven per cent of applications were finalised within 18 months in the reporting year, which was consistent with the previous year.
In the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, the proportion of applications finalised within 12 weeks improved by four percentage points but remained relatively low. Our experience has been that applications dealt with in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal cannot necessarily be completed faster than other types of taxation reviews.
There are a range of reasons why an application may not proceed to hearing or be finalised within the time standards. The pace that applications progress through the pre‑hearing stage is heavily influenced by the time the parties need to undertake relevant investigations, obtain expert evidence and gather other relevant material. This is particularly so for applications in the veteran’s affairs and workers’ compensation jurisdictions where considerable investigation and evidence gathering is often not commenced, particularly by an applicant, until the review process begins. In workers’ compensation applications, an applicant who receives a favourable outcome at the AAT can only recover legal costs, including the costs of obtaining medical evidence, that have been incurred in relation to the AAT review process. Some applications can also be delayed pending a decision by the decision‑maker on a related matter, by criminal proceedings or because additional time is required to allow the parties a further opportunity to resolve the dispute without a hearing. In some cases, parties cannot proceed because of illness or other adverse circumstances. The AAT’s ability to list hearings in a timely manner is affected by the number of members who can be listed as well as the availability of parties, representatives and witnesses, particularly expert witnesses. Delays in the delivery of decisions following a hearing can also contribute to delays in finalising applications.
We continued to monitor the time that applications spend in each of the major stages of review in 2014–15 and registries conducted regular file audits on older cases. We will continue to identify sources of avoidable delay, and work with stakeholders on minimising such delays.
External scrutiny
AAT decisions may be appealed to the courts. Our 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 against AAT decisions
A party could appeal to the Federal Court, on a question of law, against most types of final decisions made by the AAT in 2014–15 pursuant to section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (section 44 appeals). The Federal Court could transfer the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court unless the Tribunal was constituted by, or included, a presidential member.
A party could also seek judicial review of decisions made in the course of the review process and in respect of 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 could be made to the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit Court or the High Court.
In 2014–15, 91 section 44 appeals were lodged with the Federal Court. There were six applications for judicial review made under other enactments, two of which related to decisions concerning visas under the Migration Act 1958. Table A4.9 in Appendix 4 provides information on the number of appeals lodged against decisions in each of the AAT’s major jurisdictions.
During the reporting year, 104 section 44 appeals and 16 applications for judicial review made under other enactments were finally determined in the courts. The AAT’s decision was set aside in 29 cases, representing 24 per cent of all appeals determined and less than one per cent of all applications that the AAT finalised in the reporting year. The proportion of AAT decisions set aside on appeal improved by four percentage points in 2014–15. In 2013–14, the AAT’s decision was set aside in 35 cases, representing 28 per cent of all appeals determined in that year.
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 AAT.
Freedom of information
The AAT received nine requests for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in 2014–15. One request made in 2013–14 was outstanding at the beginning of the reporting period. Table 3.12 shows the number of requests made over the last three years.
Table 3.12 Freedom of information requests
	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Number of requests made	7	10	9	
The outstanding request from 2013–14 and all requests made to the AAT in 2014–15 were finalised in the reporting year. There were no requests outstanding at 30 June 2015.
Of the ten requests that were finalised, four requests were granted in full and two were granted in part. Four requests were refused, three on the basis that the AAT held no documents falling within the scope of the request.
An application was lodged with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) during the reporting period for review of one of the AAT’s refusal decisions. The OAIC exercised its discretion not to review the decision on the basis that the application was misconceived.
The AAT did not receive any requests to amend or annotate records.
Information Publication Scheme
Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 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 1982 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. The AAT’s plan is on the website.
Ombudsman
During 2014–15, the Commonwealth Ombudsman received 40 approaches concerning the AAT. The Ombudsman conducted two investigations and concluded no further investigation was warranted in all of the circumstances.
Complaints to other bodies
No complaints were made to the Australian Human Rights Commission during the reporting period. The AAT did not receive notice of any complaints from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Reports by the Auditor‑General or parliamentary committees
The AAT’s operations were not the subject of any report by the Auditor‑General or any Parliamentary Committee during the reporting period.
Service Charter
The AAT has a Service Charter which sets out our service standards and information relating to making complaints about the Tribunal, including the standards for responding to complaints.
Information on the extent of the Tribunal’s compliance with the service standards in place during 2014–15 (where information is available) is in Table 3.13.
Table 3.13 Service standards
Commitment	Result for 2014–15	
We will treat you with respect and courtesy	
We will be polite, respectful and courteous and use language that is clear and understandable.	AAT members and staff strive to be polite, respectful and courteous and use clear and understandable language so that Tribunal users can understand our processes. Of the complaints finalised in 2014–15, two involved adverse findings in relation to issues of this kind.	
We will make ourselves accessible	
Country residents can contact us on our national telephone number for the cost of a local call.	The AAT’s national 1300 telephone number was available throughout the year.	
People who are deaf or have a hearing or speech impairment can contact the AAT.	The AAT used the National Relay Service to provide users with a range of call options including TTY as well as internet, SMS and video relay.	
Wheelchair access and hearing induction loops will be available at each office.	All AAT premises were wheelchair‑accessible. Portable induction loops were available at each of our registries. 	
Hearings will be held in capital cities and in country centres.	The AAT conducted 26 hearings, three conferences, two conciliations, one mediation and one interlocutory hearing in locations outside capital cities.	
Where appropriate you may participate in a hearing by telephone or by video‑link.	The AAT conducted the following listings by telephone or by video‑link:
•	conferences — 6,139
•	other alternative dispute resolution processes — 12
•	directions hearings — 1,332
•	interlocutory hearings — 351
•	hearings — 87	
If you need an interpreter, we will provide one free of charge.	The AAT arranged for an interpreter to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process or hearing where needed. Interpreters were provided free of charge.	
If you are self‑represented, we will help you understand Tribunal procedures through our Outreach program. Outreach officers will contact self‑represented parties by telephone within six weeks of an application being lodged.	Data collated for Outreach, for 1,328 parties, shows the average time from lodgement of an application to Outreach contact was 41 days.	
We will deal with you fairly	
A private conference will usually be held within 10 weeks of an application being lodged.	69 per cent of first conferences were held within 10 weeks of lodgement, which was five percentage points lower than the 74 per cent result achieved in 2013–14.	
Table 3.13 Service standards (continued)
Commitment	Result for 2014–15	
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.	68 per cent of decisions were delivered within 60 days of the last day of hearing or the receipt of further submissions or other material, which was seven percentage points lower than the 75 per cent result achieved in 2013–14 (see Chart 3.10).	
Complaints to the AAT
Complaints may be made to the AAT orally or in writing. When a complaint is made in person or by telephone, the AAT attempts to resolve it immediately. We aim to respond to written complaints within 20 working days. 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 AAT advises the complainant of progress in handling the complaint.
The AAT treats all complaints seriously and conducts investigations in an impartial manner as quickly as possible having regard to the principles of procedural fairness. Possible responses to a complaint include the provision of information or an explanation, an apology, a change to practice and procedure or consideration of additional training and development for AAT personnel.
During 2014–15, the AAT received complaints from 28 individuals. Table 3.14 shows the number of complaints made over the three most recent reporting years. The 28 complaints made in 2014–15 were about the issues shown in Table 3.15.
Table 3.14 Complaints to the AAT
	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Number of complaints made	24	25	28	
Table 3.15 Issues raised in complaints to the AAT
Issue	Number of complaints	
Tribunal decisions	10	
General procedural issues	8	
Conduct of AAT members	4	
Conduct of AAT staff	4	
Conduct of conferences	2	
Total	28	
The AAT provided a response to 28 complaints in 2014–15. The AAT responded to 27 of the 28 complaints within 20 working days. The average number of days from complaint to final response was 12 working days.
The AAT found that it could have handled matters more appropriately in relation to three complaints, which raised issues concerning the progress of an application for review and the conduct of AAT personnel. The Tribunal offered an apology in each case and raised the matters with the relevant personnel.
Additional functions conferred on tribunal members
As well as performing their role under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, AAT members may exercise powers under a range of other Acts in their personal capacity.
Warrants, controlled operations and other functions
Members of the AAT who meet the qualification requirements set out in the legislation 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 and issue delayed notification search warrants under the Crimes Act 1914
•	make continued preventative detention orders under the Criminal Code Act 1995
•	issue examination notices under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012
•	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, and
•	issue search warrants and exercise related powers under the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.
For some of these functions, only the President and Deputy Presidents may be nominated to exercise the power. In relation to other functions, Senior Members and Members who have been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years may be nominated.
All members of the AAT 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 3.16 shows the number of occasions on which AAT members considered applications under any of the above Acts over the past three years. There was a small increase in the number of occasions in 2014–15.
Table 3.16 Applications relating to warrants, controlled operations and other functions considered by AAT members
	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Number of occasions on which applications considered	2,764	2,715	2,786	
The AAT is flexible in performing these functions and members are available outside standard business hours. In the reporting period, there were 162 out‑of‑hours appointments held.
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.
Proceeds of crime examinations
All presidential members of the AAT, 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 to oversee compulsory examinations in connection with confiscation proceedings.
Table 3.17 shows the number of examination sessions conducted by AAT members in the last three years. The number of examinations has increased substantially in the past year.
Table 3.17 Examinations held under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Number of examination sessions held	28	28	57	

Chapter // 04 Our users and our relationships
Our users
The principal users of the AAT are the parties to applications in the Tribunal and their representatives. Parties may be individuals, organisations or government agencies. This part of the report provides information on actions undertaken during the reporting period relating to Goal One in the Tribunal’s Strategic Plan 2014–2017: to provide a high‑quality independent merits review process that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The strategic priorities were:
•	ensuring we provide highly effective and efficient integrated dispute resolution processes
•	providing accessible and effective registry services, and
•	maintaining effective communication and engagement with our users and the public.
Changes to the AAT’s legislation
Following the announcement in May 2014 of the Government’s decision to amalgamate the key Commonwealth merits review tribunals, the AAT worked closely with the Attorney‑General’s Department, the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal (MRT‑RRT), the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) and their portfolio departments on the development of the legislative amendments required to create the amalgamated AAT.
Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015
The Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014 was introduced into the Parliament on 3 December 2014, was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Winter sittings and received Royal Assent on 26 May 2015. The Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 commenced on 1 July 2015, amending the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Migration Act 1958, relevant social services legislation and a number of other Acts.
The amending legislation has established the governance structure for the amalgamated AAT and introduced a revised divisional structure for the management of our workload from 1 July 2015. In particular, the new Migration and Refugee Division deals with applications formerly made to the MRT‑RRT and the new Social Services and Child Support Division handles applications formerly made to the SSAT. The Small Taxation Claims Tribunal (STCT) has ceased to exist with all applications about tax decisions managed in the new Taxation and Commercial Division. A lower application fee continues to apply, however, in relation to the types of decisions that were reviewed in the STCT.
The amalgamation of the tribunals has not resulted in any diminution in rights of review. The two levels of merits review that existed for many decisions reviewed by the SSAT continue to be available by way of a first review in the Social Services and Child Support Division and a second review in the General Division.
While the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 has not made significant changes to the procedures that previously applied in the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT, changes were made to the AAT’s statutory objective and some other aspects of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our processes, particularly in the jurisdictions formerly dealt with by the AAT.
The AAT’s statutory objective under section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 has been broadened so that the Tribunal is required to provide a mechanism of review that:
•	is accessible
•	is fair, just, economical, informal and quick
•	is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter, and
•	promotes public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the Tribunal.
Parties and their representatives are also required to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to fulfil this objective: section 33(1AB).
Key changes to powers and procedures from 1 July 2015 include the following:
•	the obligation on decision‑makers to give the AAT, the applicant and any other party all documents they hold that are relevant to the review within 28 days after being notified of an application has been supplemented by an ongoing requirement to provide any relevant documents that come into their possession during the review process: section 38AA
•	the President may give directions specifying for particular classes of applications the types of documents that a decision‑maker is or is not required to give to us, the applicant and any other party under sections 37 and 38AA: section 18B(4)
•	the Act makes clear that the types of directions we may give for the purposes of a review include limiting the number of witnesses who may be called, requiring witnesses to give evidence at the same time, limiting the time for giving evidence or making oral submissions and limiting the length of written submissions: section 33(2A)
•	the Tribunal’s powers to dismiss an application have been extended to include circumstances in which the Tribunal is satisfied an application has no reasonable prospect of success or is otherwise an abuse of process: section 42B.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 was made on 25 June 2015 and commenced on 1 July 2015. It repealed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976.
The new regulations continue to prescribe a similar range of matters to support the operation of the amalgamated AAT, including providing for the Veterans’ Appeals Division and setting out the rules relating to the payment and refund of application fees. They have been updated to modernise and clarify various aspects of the Tribunal’s practices and procedures which will contribute to more effective and efficient processes for the AAT and the parties. Key changes that have been made include:
•	allowing the President to approve forms for the purposes of applications to the AAT rather than having forms prescribed in the regulations
•	extending the ways in which documents, including summonses, may be given to a person for the purposes of applications to the AAT
•	providing that a person who is summoned to produce documents to the AAT is entitled to be paid reasonable expenses for doing so, and
•	clarifying the procedures for dealing with disputes relating to the amount of fees and allowances that are payable for complying with a summons issued by the AAT.
AAT practice and procedure
The AAT monitors the operation of the review process and seeks to identify ways in which practice and procedure can be improved to promote the effective and timely disposition of applications lodged with the Tribunal.
Significant developments in relation to practice and procedure during the reporting period are discussed below.
Practice directions, guides, guidelines and forms for the amalgamated AAT
A working group comprising representatives from the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT was established during the reporting year to consider changes that would be required to each tribunal’s practice directions, guides, guidelines and forms as part of implementing the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015. Practice documents were revised in consultation with the President and Principal Members of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT to:
•	incorporate procedural and other changes made necessary by legislative changes, and
•	where possible, harmonise procedures and streamline practice documents.
On 30 June 2015, the President approved new practice documents to take effect from 1 July 2015 and has subsequently issued further documents. Some apply to all divisions of the amalgamated AAT such as the General Practice Direction, the Constituting the Tribunal President’s Direction and the Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence Guideline. Other documents apply only to one or more of the divisions. The full set of practice documents is available on the AAT website.
In June 2015, the President wrote to stakeholders, including decision‑makers, professional bodies, legal aid commissions and non‑government organisations, to provide information about the proposed changes to the practice documents. The President advised that the amalgamated AAT would progressively review the revised practice documents and welcomed any comments on their implementation.
Review of Taxation and Commercial Decisions Practice Direction
During the reporting year, we held a planning workshop to consider how management of cases may change with the transition to the amalgamated AAT. One of the outcomes of the workshop was the formation of a working group led by Deputy President Hack SC to develop a proposal for the management of applications in the new Taxation and Commercial Division.
The working group developed a proposed case management model incorporating national coordination and oversight. A draft practice direction was developed setting out the general principles underpinning the model and outlining the proposed procedures. In June 2015, the President and Deputy President Hack conducted a series of consultations with internal and external stakeholders across Australia. The feedback informed the finalisation of the practice direction.
On 30 June 2015, the President issued the Review of Taxation and Commercial Decisions Practice Direction which applies from 1 July 2015. It provides for the early allocation of each application to the member who will generally manage the case from lodgement to finalisation, including conducting any hearing. While some cases may be referred to the conference process, the first case event in most cases will be a directions hearing with the managing member at which:
•	the issues in dispute are discussed
•	directions are made in relation to the further material that will be lodged, and
•	dates are set for an alternative dispute resolution process and the hearing.
The aim is to identify the real issues in dispute early, limit factual investigation to what is required in relation to those issues and adopt a case management strategy that will be most effective to achieve early resolution by way of agreement between the parties or by the AAT making a decision.
Integrated Dispute Resolution
During 2014–15, an Integrated Dispute Resolution Working Group was established to explore opportunities for improving how we manage cases with a focus on mechanisms for increased collaboration between members, Conference Registrars and registry staff. The working group is piloting the use of a team approach to the early assessment of social security cases in the Adelaide and Sydney Registries. The pilots commenced in March 2015 and will continue into the next reporting period before being evaluated. The working group has also undertaken targeted consultations with registry staff to identify further opportunities for improvements in collaboration and knowledge sharing within and between registries.
Practice Direction relating to the Taxation of Costs
In limited circumstances, and most commonly in the workers’ compensation jurisdiction, the AAT has the power to order that a party to a proceeding pay the costs incurred by another party. If the parties cannot agree on the amount, they can apply to the Tribunal to tax the costs. On 10 April 2015, the President issued the Practice Direction relating to the Taxation of Costs, which outlines the process the AAT will follow. In summary, a Taxing Officer will give an estimate of the costs likely to be payable. If this is not accepted, a settlement conference will be held and then, if necessary, a full taxation.
Alternative dispute resolution
We make extensive use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It is a core element of the review process. ADR contributes to a review process that is economical, informal and quick as well as fair and just by assisting the parties to reach agreement or narrow the issues in dispute. The activities outlined below were pursued during 2014–15 to enhance and promote the use of ADR in the AAT.
Improved data on ADR performance
We have continued to focus on the production and analysis of data relating to ADR. Data on the duration of ADR events demonstrates that ADR is cost-effective. The average number of minutes spent in ADR per case finalised in 2014–15 was 60 minutes. The time investment required on the part of the AAT and the parties is therefore low to achieve very high rates of finalisation without a hearing and formal determination. In relation to timeliness, cases reached their last ADR event on average within 132 days in 2014–15. Given the AAT allows a minimum of 28 days for the decision‑maker to lodge the documents that are relevant to the review prior to listing the first ADR event and time for the parties to gather further relevant material, this represents a timely finalisation of the ADR stage of AAT proceedings.
Improved collaboration on ADR
We liaised with stakeholders in relation to the use of ADR in 2014–15, including specific discussions in the social security, taxation, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation jurisdictions. We contributed material to the development of ADR models at the Veterans’ Review Board and also continued our participation in the independent study into the use of ADR processes in tax disputes involving the Australian Taxation Office conducted by the Australian Centre for Justice Innovation at Monash University.
Raising awareness of ADR
To raise awareness of our approach and expectations in relation to ADR processes, AAT members and staff spoke at a variety of external conferences and seminars: see Appendix 8 for more information. We also continued with a competition for university students, Negotiating Outcomes on Time, which focuses on ADR processes. See page 47 for more details.
High‑quality ADR practitioners
All Conference Registrars, and members regularly involved in conducting ADR processes, are accredited as mediators under the National Mediator Accreditation Standards. The AAT is a Registered Mediator Accreditation Body and ensured that AAT mediators were offered a range of professional development activities in 2014–15 to maintain the competencies required by the Standards. Maintaining accreditation is a key mechanism to ensure quality and consistency in mediation practice within the Tribunal.
One measure of whether quality is being maintained is the rate of complaints about ADR processes or practitioners. As outlined in Table 3.15 of this report, the AAT received only two complaints in 2014–15 about the conduct of conferences. Given that the AAT conducted 8,321 ADR processes during this period, this is very low level of complaints and indicates ADR processes are being conducted appropriately.
eServices
The AAT is committed to providing accessible and effective services to our users and the public. In 2014–15, we continued work on projects aligned with our Electronic Services and Information Management Program which was developed to support the delivery of more electronic services and improve our ability to manage our information digitally.
In April 2015, we extended to Comcare electronic notification of applications made to the AAT. Another significant project was work undertaken with the MRT‑RRT and SSAT in the first half of 2015 on an online forms solution which will enable the electronic lodgement of applications in the divisions of the AAT where online lodgement has not been available. It is anticipated this will be implemented in the second quarter of 2015–16.
The development of an eServices Strategy for the amalgamated AAT will be a priority in 2015–16.
Communication and engagement with AAT users
The AAT uses various methods to engage with our users in relation to the services that we provide and to ensure those services meet the needs of users. We also communicate with our users in a variety of ways to assist their understanding of our role and procedures.
Ongoing liaison with users
As part of our commitment to being an open and transparent organisation, the AAT met with regular users and other stakeholders during 2014–15.
Members and senior AAT staff held liaison meetings with representatives of the National Disability Insurance Agency to discuss a range of operational issues in the NDIS jurisdiction. District Registries arranged local liaison meetings with persons and organisations who appear regularly before the Tribunal – departments, agencies and other decision‑makers, private legal practitioners, legal aid commissions, community legal centres and disability advocacy organisations. Some registries held meetings with users from all jurisdictions while others arranged jurisdiction‑specific meetings. The meetings were a forum in which we could inform users of changes to practice and procedure and users could give feedback on the service the Tribunal is providing.
Agency Multicultural Plan
The AAT engages with many people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and strives to be accessible and responsive to their needs. Our Agency Multicultural Plan set out actions to be taken over the two‑year period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 to maintain and improve our performance in the provision of services to these users.
In 2014–15, we maintained our suite of information products in languages other than English and continued to promote and support Harmony Day. A number of members and Conference Registrars participated in cultural competency training. Work on some actions set out in the plan was deferred in light of the amalgamation of tribunals. A new Agency Multicultural Plan will be developed for the amalgamated AAT in 2015–16.
Indigenous access to the AAT
The AAT is committed to improving access for Indigenous Australians. Among other initiatives, we have established an Indigenous Access Working Group which identifies and implements strategies in this area. Various activities and projects were completed or progressed during 2014–15.
Reconciliation Action Plan
The AAT’s Reconciliation Action Plan 2014–2017 sets out a range of practical actions aimed at showing respect for, developing relationships with, and increasing opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The plan focuses on ensuring the AAT and its personnel respond appropriately to the needs of Indigenous people, gathering better information and engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to access and service delivery issues, and attracting and retaining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.
Activities undertaken in 2014–15 included:
•	the completion of Indigenous cultural competency training by a number of staff
•	participation in NAIDOC week activities in various locations
•	the revision of our application form to allow applicants to identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the implementation of changes to our electronic case management system to facilitate the recording of this information which will provide better data about Indigenous users of the AAT, and
•	engagement with law schools and other organisations to promote Indigenous internships and other work experience opportunities at the Tribunal.
Outreach activities
The working group has developed a program to promote communication and consultation with legal centres and advocacy organisations who deal with Indigenous clients, particularly in relation to the NDIS and social security issues. The aims of outreach are to:
•	increase awareness about the right to challenge decisions and provide information about the appeal process and where people can get help, and
•	connect with community workers, giving them resources and information, and liaising with them on how the Tribunal could improve its accessibility for the community.
In October 2014, District Registrar Catherine Cashen participated in an outreach visit to the Barkly region in the Northern Territory, one of the NDIS trial sites. District Registrar Cashen met with local community members, key service providers and representatives of the National Disability Insurance Agency.
Information products
The AAT has a range of products available for users which provide information about our role and procedures. They include practice directions, guides, guidelines, fact sheets and our standard letters. A key focus during the reporting year was the revision and updating of our information products in advance of the amalgamation of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT.
We developed two new fact sheets in plain language to inform users of the changes that would occur as part of the amalgamation. One fact sheet provides an overview of what the amalgamated AAT does and how to apply and the second focused on key changes for existing users of the merging tribunals. These were published online on 1 July 2015.
AAT Alerts and the AAT Bulletin
AAT Alerts are emails to subscribers with information about AAT news and events. Two AAT Alerts were issued over the course of the reporting year.
Subscribers can also elect to receive the AAT Bulletin, a weekly publication that provides information on recent AAT decisions and appeals, changes to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and other important developments.
During the year, the number of subscribers to AAT Alerts continued to increase, rising to 929 at 30 June 2015 compared with 870 a year earlier. The number of subscribers to the AAT Bulletin also increased to 659, up from 502 a year earlier.
Website
The AAT website provided key information for users and other visitors about the Tribunal’s role, procedures and operations during the reporting year as well as enabling access to publicly available information about select applications lodged with the AAT through our eCaseSearch tool.
Major developments to the website during 2014–15 were:
•	the introduction of a mobile and tablet friendly version of the website, and
•	the implementation of the ReadSpeaker text‑to‑speech software which enhances access for users with a visual impairment and learning or literacy difficulties.
Usage of the website continued to increase. The number of unique visits for the year was 185,019 compared with 159,423 in 2013–14.
Significant work was also undertaken with the MRT‑RRT and SSAT in 2014–15 on the development of a new website for the amalgamated AAT, including a refreshed design and updated content. The new website was launched on 1 July 2015.
Our relationships
This part of the report provides information on actions undertaken to meet Goal Four in the AAT’s Strategic Plan 2014–2017: to engage effectively with government, tribunals, the legal profession and other interested organisations in Australia and internationally. The strategic priorities were:
•	contributing to strategic discussions, reviews and forums dealing with administrative review and related issues in Australia
•	establishing and maintaining cooperative and collaborative engagements with courts and other tribunals, and with our international counterparts, and
•	promoting greater understanding of the AAT and our role within the broader context of the AAT as an agency aimed at improving the accountability and transparency of government and the quality of government decision‑making.
Developing and enhancing links with government, other tribunals, organisations and individuals
The AAT maintained and developed relationships with a range of government departments and agencies, organisations and individuals during 2014–15.
Liaison with the Attorney‑General’s Department, other departments and agencies
We worked closely with the Attorney‑General’s Department during the reporting year, particularly in relation to the amalgamation of tribunals but also on other matters, including the Tribunal’s membership, budget and jurisdiction. We engaged with the Department as well as other agencies in relation to proposals that affect the Tribunal and in the context of reviews relevant to work the AAT undertakes.
In May 2014, the Government announced its proposal to transfer merits review of decisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to the AAT. The Attorney‑General’s Department consulted the AAT on the legislation to give effect to the decision, the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014. We also met with the OAIC to discuss practical issues relating to the proposal, including the proposed transfer to the AAT of reviews not finalised by the OAIC on commencement of the legislation.
Other liaison activities undertaken in 2014–15 included:
•	consultation in relation to other proposed legislative amendments such as changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
•	meeting with the Productivity Commission in relation to its review of the mutual recognition schemes to discuss our experiences in this area of jurisdiction.
Amalgamation of tribunals
Implementation of the Government’s decision to amalgamate the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT required extensive collaboration between the AAT, the other tribunals, the Attorney‑General’s Department, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Department of Social Services. This occurred in various ways.
The Attorney‑General’s Department convened a group comprising the President, the Principal Members of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT and a Deputy Secretary from each of the portfolio departments to discuss key policy issues associated with the amalgamation. The Registrar of the AAT was a member of the Tribunals Amalgamation Steering Committee which included the Registrars of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT as well as representatives from the portfolio departments and the Departments of Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet. The AAT also liaised extensively with the Attorney‑General’s Department’s Tribunals Amalgamation Taskforce which coordinated the project.
The President, the Principal Members of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT and the Registrars of the tribunals met frequently during the reporting year to consider and decide the many issues raised by the establishment of an amalgamated AAT. Staff of the AAT participated in working groups which focused on planning for and implementing the changes required in the areas of finance, human resources, information technology, library and information services, property and security. A dedicated Transition Team was also created to progress a number of key tasks for the amalgamated organisation.
In addition to the cooperative work required in the context of the amalgamation, there was ongoing liaison between officers of the tribunals throughout the reporting period about matters such as learning and development activities and staff vacancies.
Other forums
Australian Institute of Administrative Law
The AAT participated in the activities of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law during the year, including the National Administrative Law Conference. Senior Member Professor Robin Creyke was an officer of the National Executive of the Institute and Member Regina Perton was a committee member of the Victorian Chapter.
Council of Australasian Tribunals
The AAT is a member of the Council of Australasian Tribunals (COAT), an association for tribunals and those who work in, or have an interest in, tribunals in Australia and New Zealand. It consists of a National Council with local chapters, and was established to facilitate discussion and collaboration on matters relevant to tribunals.
We continued our involvement in the Council during the year, participating in COAT conferences as well as other training and networking opportunities. Tribunal members and staff were active contributors to the work of the Council. Justice Kerr was the Chair of the National COAT Executive during 2014–15. Senior Member Anne Britton continued in her roles as the Secretary for the National COAT Executive and Convenor of the New South Wales Chapter during her term of appointment to the AAT and Registrar Sian Leathan continued as Treasurer of the New South Wales Chapter. Deputy President Katherine Bean was the Secretary for the South Australian Chapter, and Member Regina Perton and District Registrar Susan Woodford were committee members of the Victorian Chapter.
Resource‑sharing arrangements
The AAT had cooperative arrangements with a number of courts and tribunals in relation to the provision of facilities and services either by the AAT or for the AAT in 2014–15.
Federal Court of Australia
The AAT and the Federal Court continued to operate a joint registry in Hobart. Court staff provided registry services and conducted ADR processes for the Tribunal.
Migration Review Tribunal–Refugee Review Tribunal
We provided accommodation and hearing room facilities for MRT‑RRT members, including hearing room assistance and videoconferencing facilities. AAT staff in Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth received applications and handled enquiries on behalf of the MRT‑RRT.
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
We provided hearing rooms and related facilities for the SSAT in our Canberra Registry.
Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
The AAT extended our agreement with the Administration of Norfolk Island for the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island to provide basic registry services in relation to applications made to the Tribunal.
Veterans’ Review Board
We made facilities available in our registries in Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Perth for the Veterans’ Review Board to conduct hearings.
International relationships and delegations
International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions
The AAT is a member of the International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions (IASAJ), an organisation for bodies that are empowered to adjudicate public law disputes. The association’s purpose is to promote the exchange of ideas and experiences between jurisdictions. The IASAJ was founded in 1983, and the AAT has been a member since 2004.
In 2014, the IASAJ implemented an exchange program for judges to develop a better knowledge of judicial practices in other countries. The exchanges take the form of a two‑week traineeship. The Federal Court and the AAT offered to host a judge. Ms Semeh Bey, a Judge of the Administrative Court of Tunisia, was the first judge to visit the Oceania region under this program. She completed her exchange in July 2014.
International delegations
The AAT regularly hosts visitors from international courts and tribunals, as well as other organisations and individuals interested in gathering information on the Tribunal and our operations. These visits also provide an opportunity for us to learn about the public law systems of other countries and how similar organisations undertake their work.
In July 2014, we welcomed a delegation from Thailand led by the Office of the Administrative Courts of Thailand. The delegation was in Australia as part of the Court’s Training Course on Administrative Law for Executives from the public and private sectors in Thailand.
In October 2014, we hosted a delegation from the Revenue Appeals Tribunal of Zambia. The focus of their visit was to gather information about the Tribunal’s tax jurisdiction.
In April 2015, the Tribunal welcomed Judge Shota Watanuki, a judge of the Saga (Toyko) District Court and the 2014–15 Australian Network for Japanese Law Judge in Residence at the University of Sydney. Judge Watanuki was particularly interested in learning about the use of ADR at the AAT.
Better understanding of the AAT and our role
We undertook a range of activities in 2014–15 aimed at promoting a better understanding of the Tribunal and our role in administrative law.
AAT participation in external conferences, seminars and other activities
Members and staff gave presentations on the AAT and our operations at various external conferences, seminars and forums during the reporting period, helping to raise awareness of the Tribunal and our role in a variety of communities. These included general community information sessions relating to the review of NDIS and social security decisions.
See Appendix 8 for more information on these activities.
AAT competitions
We offered two competitions for students during the year as a means of promoting understanding of administrative law and the Tribunal’s role and processes. The National Mooting Competition gave students the opportunity to participate in an abridged version of a Tribunal hearing, while the Negotiating Outcomes on Time Competition involved participation in an ADR process.
Mooting competition
The annual National Mooting Competition marked its 10th anniversary this year with a record number of thirty teams registered. The 2014 competition consisted of five rounds, running from July through to October.
Over a series of rounds, students made submissions to AAT members about the facts and how the law should be applied in realistic scenarios drawn from the Tribunal’s customs, immigration, social security, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation jurisdictions. The competition allowed students to demonstrate their research and advocacy skills and promoted their understanding of practice in administrative law.
The competition culminated in the grand final which was held at the Brisbane Registry on 7 October 2014 before the President, Justice Kerr, Deputy President Ian Molloy and Senior Member Bernard McCabe. The team from the University of Queensland, consisting of Nathan Lindsay, Eloise Gluer and Erin Gourlay was successful. The runner‑up team, from the University of Western Australia, consisted of Nigel Siegwart, Sam Pack and Cassandra Lee. Senior Member Egon Fice awarded Nathan Lindsay the Best Orator award for 2014.
All prizes were generously donated by the Law Council of Australia, which has been a longstanding supporter of the competition. 

Left to right standing: Eloise Gluer, Nathan Lindsay, Erin Gourlay, Senior Member Fice, Samuel Pack, Cassandra Lee, Nigel Siegwart. Left to right seated: Deputy President Molloy, the Hon Justice Kerr, Senior Member McCabe.
Negotiation competition
In 2015, we held our second Negotiating Outcomes on Time Competition (NOOT). The competition complemented the National Mooting Competition by offering students a realistic insight into conciliation processes, promoting the importance of early settlement discussions and articulating the high standards expected of legal practitioners in ADR processes.
Ten teams of Queensland law students took part in the final in the Brisbane Registry on 30 May 2015 and they displayed outstanding ADR skills. First place was awarded to Cameron McCormack and Tim Noonan (Bond University), second place to Jack Siebert and Hannah McAlister (University of Queensland) and third place to Felicity Young and Kristen Centorame (Bond University). The Best Communicator prize was awarded to Felicity Young (Bond University). The following teams were highly commended: Matthew Naylor and Stephanie Centorame (Bond University), Taylor McCaw, Rosemary Kirby and Daniel Posner (Queensland University of Technology) and Jonathan Chabowski, Jackson Saunders and Kit Yan Lam (Queensland University of Technology).
We extend our thanks to LEADR & IAMA and the Bond University Dispute Resolution Centre who provided the major prizes, the Law Council of Australia who sponsored the trophies, the Australian Mediation Association who contributed continuing professional development webinars and Bond University Faculty of Law who provided their purpose‑built ADR training facilities for the preliminary rounds.
Sponsored work experience placements and student visits
The AAT provides various opportunities for work experience candidates, creating meaningful opportunities for the students to develop an understanding of the Tribunal’s role and processes. A number of placements were arranged during the reporting year.
The Adelaide Registry provided placements for two students under the University of Adelaide Public Law Internship Program and one student who completed a two-week placement as part of their Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice program requirements. The Brisbane Registry hosted a group of Year 11 and 12 students arranged by the University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre as part of the Inspire U Law Camp for Indigenous high school students from across Queensland. One student undertook work experience in the President’s Chambers in the Hobart Registry and two students from the Leo Cussen Centre for Law undertook a placement in the Melbourne Registry.
The Sydney Registry maintained its relationship with the University of New South Wales, offering work experience placements to six students under the Law Faculty Public Interest Internship Program during the reporting period. The AAT also accepted three students from the University of Newcastle for placements under a similar arrangement. One student from the University of Wollongong completed a placement and we accepted our first student from the University of Wollongong’s Lucy Mentoring Program, an innovative leadership program for female law students. One school student also completed a work experience placement.
Chapter // 05 Our organisation and our people
This part of the report sets out information relating to the governance and administration of the AAT, including human resource management. It also provides information on actions undertaken during the reporting period to meet Goals Two and Three in the Tribunal’s Strategic Plan 2014–2017 which relate to our organisation and our people:
•	to manage our resources strategically and effectively, and
•	to maintain and continually develop a professional, productive, rewarding and safe workplace.
Organisational management
The AAT has a range of structures, policies and practices in place which contribute to sound corporate governance and management.
Governance
The President of the AAT is responsible for ensuring the expeditious and efficient discharge of the AAT’s business and for managing its administrative affairs. The President is assisted by the Registrar who is the Accountable Authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Agency Head for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999.
During the reporting year, the Registrar was assisted by two Executive Directors who are Senior Executive Service employees. The Executive Director, Information and Development was Mr Christopher Matthies and the Executive Director, Operations was Ms Nerrilee Cuthbertson. Ms Carolyn Krochmal acted in the Executive Director, Operations role during the latter part of the reporting year.
Local management of each of the District Registries in 2014–15 was the responsibility of a Deputy President or Senior Member appointed as Executive Deputy President/Senior Member and a District Registrar. Table 5.1 lists the Executive Deputy Presidents and Senior Member who performed the role in 2014–15.
Table 5.1 Executive Deputy Presidents/Senior Member, 2014–15
Registry 	Executive Deputy President/Senior Member	
Sydney	Deputy President Robin Handley
Deputy President James Constance 	
Melbourne 	Deputy President Stephanie Forgie	
Brisbane	Deputy President Philip Hack SC 	
Adelaide 	Deputy President Katherine Bean 	
Perth	Deputy President Stanley Hotop
Deputy President Christopher Kendall	
Hobart 	Deputy President Raymond Groom AO
Deputy President Gregory Melick AO RFD SC	
Canberra	Senior Member Professor Robin Creyke
Deputy President Gary Humphries 	
A number of committees comprising AAT members and staff assisted the President in relation to the management of the AAT in 2014–15.
The Executive Committee was responsible for monitoring and providing advice on a range of executive management matters, including budget, property and strategic planning. Its members included the President, Deputy President Constance, the Registrar, the Executive Directors, the Director, Alternative Dispute Resolution and District Registrar Carolyn Krochmal. The Executive Deputy Presidents Committee met regularly to discuss issues relating to the management of the AAT’s caseload and to provide high level input to the President on significant organisational developments.
Other key member and staff committees which met to consider issues in specific areas of the AAT’s operations in 2014–15 included the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, the Library Committee, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Monitoring Committee, the Practice and Procedure Committee, the Practice and Procedure Consultative Group, the Professional Development Committee and the Warrants Committee.
Information relating to the AAT’s Audit Committee and other committees follows below.
Corporate planning
Following a planning process conducted in 2013–14, the AAT’s Strategic Plan 2014–2017 was released in July 2014. In addition to articulating our vision, mission and core values and behaviours, the plan set out strategies to achieve our goals in relation to our users, our people, our organisation and our relationships. These strategies informed the work plans of the Principal Registry and District Registries during the reporting year. Achievements are noted in Chapters 1, 4 and 5 of this report.
At the time the strategic plan was released, it was recognised that it would need to be revisited in light of the amalgamation of the AAT with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) from 1 July 2015. A revised strategic plan for the amalgamated AAT will be developed in addition to the corporate plan required under section 35 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Financial management
The AAT’s audited financial statements for 2014–15 follow this chapter.
The financial result for the reporting year is an operating surplus of $2.970 million, prior to unfunded depreciation charges and revaluations. The surplus is a result of lower than anticipated spending on supplier and employee costs during the year. Our principal focus remains on our core business.
Purchasing
The AAT observed the core principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and relevant best practice guidelines in our purchasing activities in 2014–15. The Accountable Authority Instructions and other guidance material were relied on to ensure officials with purchasing duties achieved value for money, encouraged effective competition and ensured efficient, effective, economical and ethical procurement.
In relation to major purchases and contracts, open tender or prequalified tender processes were employed unless the procurement purchase was covered by a mandatory whole‑of‑government arrangement or a limited tender was appropriate in the particular circumstances. For purchases and contracts below the mandatory tender threshold, at least three quotes were generally required, together with an assessment of the need justifying the purchase request and an analysis of why the selected quote would achieve value for money.
The AAT supports small business participation in the Commonwealth Government procurement market. We utilise the Commonwealth Contracting Suite for low‑risk procurements valued under $200,000 and use electronic systems to facilitate on‑time payment of invoices. Small and Medium Enterprises and Small Enterprise participation statistics are available on the Department of Finance’s website: www.finance.gov.au/procurement/statistics-on-commonwealth-purchasing-contracts.
Consultants
We engage consultants where there is a need for independent research or assessment or for specialised or professional skills that are unavailable within the AAT. Consultants were engaged in 2014–15 to investigate an issue or problem, carry out an independent review or evaluation and provide independent advice that assisted with our decision‑making on corporate matters. Any decision to engage a consultant is made in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and relevant internal policies noted above.
During 2014–15, the AAT entered into 20 new consultancy contracts involving total actual expenditure of $241,428.66. One ongoing consultancy contract was active in 2014–15, involving total actual expenditure of $52,534.05.
Table 5.2 sets out the AAT’s total actual expenditure on all consultancies in the three most recent reporting years.
Table 5.2 Trends in expenditure on consultancy contracts
	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Total actual expenditure (incl. GST)	$192,209	$241,387	$293,963	
Reporting on purchases
All purchases were gazetted as required. Details of all contracts of $100,000 or more that are current in the most recent calendar or financial year are available on the AAT’s website in accordance with the Senate order on agency contracts.
There were no contracts of $100,000 or more let in 2014–15 that did not include a clause providing for the Auditor‑General to have access to the contractor’s premises.
There were no contracts of more than $10,000 (including GST) or standing offers exempt from being published on the AusTender website on the basis that they would disclose exempt matters under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Information on the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website www.tenders.gov.au.
Risk management
Audit and fraud control
During the reporting year, the AAT’s Audit Committee comprised an independent chairperson, another member who was a part‑time member of the AAT until November 2014, a District Registrar and the Registrar. The committee met regularly to review operations, and to plan and approve the audit policy for the forthcoming year. It also advised the Registrar, who is the AAT’s Accountable Authority, on matters such as the financial statements, compliance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and fraud control.
The AAT’s independent internal auditor undertook an audit program during the reporting year covering a range of transactions to give assurance that our systems were complying with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Accountable Authority Instructions. This included auditing the Principal Registry’s finance and human resources operations, which are audited annually, as well as the Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra Registries. Identified issues were addressed by management and reviewed by the Audit Committee. No major issues or risks were identified by the audits.
The Audit Committee implemented processes to enable the Registrar to complete the Certificate of Compliance for the 2014–15 financial year.
Membership of the Audit Committee will be altered in 2015–16 in light of the establishment of the amalgamated AAT and to comply with the requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 relating to the constitution of audit committees.
CERTIFICATION OF AAT FRAUD CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS
I, Sian Leathem, certify that I am satisfied the AAT:
•	has prepared fraud assessments and fraud control plans
•	has in place appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting mechanisms that meet the specific needs of the AAT, and
•	has taken all reasonable measures to appropriately deal with fraud relating to the AAT.

Sian Leathem
Registrar
28 September 2015
Insurance
The AAT is insured through Comcover. In general terms, we have a low risk of insurance exposure and a limited likelihood of major disruption to our services. However, cover is provided should that occur. There was a small increase in the insurance premium in 2014–15.
Risk assessment and planning
The AAT regularly assesses its risk position, particularly for risks that may have an impact on national operations. These assessments consider registry operations, public interaction and information systems, and link with the Fraud Control Plan. We maintain and regularly update our risk documentation as well as national and local business continuity plans. The AAT’s Business Continuity Management Committee comprising the Registrar and a number of senior managers met regularly in 2014–15.
Maintaining ethical standards
Rules and standards relevant to ethical conduct, including the APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles, are incorporated into the AAT’s policies, guidelines and instructions.
The APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles are available on the intranet. Online training relating to the Values and Code was available to all staff and formed part of our induction process in 2014–15. All new staff were provided with a copy of the APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles as well as relevant excerpts from the Crimes Act 1914 and the Australian Privacy Principles, and were required to sign a statement confirming they had read and understood them.
The Tribunal’s Learning and Development Manager conducted face‑to‑face training on the APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles for individuals and small groups on request during the reporting year. Some AAT staff also attended similar sessions for SSAT staff conducted by the SSAT.
Property and security
During 2014–15, the AAT operated from commercially‑leased premises in Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, and from the Commonwealth Law Courts buildings in Brisbane and Hobart.
Following the announcement in May 2014 of the Government’s decision to amalgamate the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT, focused planning commenced for co‑location of tribunal premises into single locations in each city. A Long Term Accommodation Masterplan was adopted in May 2015, which establishes the guiding principles to be used to select and manage accommodation.
On 30 June 2015, the AAT signed a lease for new premises in Sydney which involves taking up additional space in the building occupied by the former MRT‑RRT. Property arrangements for Perth are being finalised. A property search for premises in Brisbane commenced in April 2015 and preparatory work for property searches in Melbourne and Adelaide commenced in October 2014 and March 2015 respectively.
In relation to security, some further recommendations originally made in the AAT’s 2012 Security Risk Review and 2013 Enterprise Security Risk Assessment were implemented in 2014–15 to improve our compliance with the Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF). We submitted our second annual PSPF compliance report in August 2014 and achieved a high level of compliance.
In February 2015, a review of the protective security arrangements in place across the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT was commissioned to assist in planning for the amalgamated AAT.
We place a high priority on security to ensure that members, staff and visitors are in a safe and secure environment at our premises. Measures to ensure physical security that were in place in 2014–15 included secure office areas accessible by proximity card, photo ID cards, and duress alarms installed in conference and hearing rooms and at registry counters to protect members, staff and others in the event of an incident. The AAT arranged additional security services for conferences and hearings as required. If necessary, for matters involving a security risk, we may arrange with the Family Court or the Federal Court to use their court rooms and security arrangements.
The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency undertook security vetting of staff whose duties require a security clearance, in compliance with the PSPF.
Management of human resources
This part of the report provides information on our effectiveness in managing and developing our staff to achieve our objectives.
Staffing overview
At 30 June 2015, the AAT had 157 employees under the Public Service Act 1999: 94 ongoing and 63 non‑ongoing, of whom 25 were engaged to undertake duties that are irregular or intermittent
Table 5.3 shows the AAT’s staffing numbers over the last three years by engagement type, classification level, full‑time or part‑time status, gender and location. A more detailed breakdown of staffing at 30 June 2015 is in Appendix 2.
Table 5.3 Trends in staffing numbers
	30 June 2013	30 June 2014 	30 June 2015	
Total 	163 	156 	157	
By engagement type 	
Ongoing 	109 	105 	94	
Non‑ongoing
(irregular/intermittent)	54
(18) 	51
(20) 	63
(25)	
By classification category 	
SES 	2 	2 	2	
Executive Level 	33 	34 	37	
APS Level 	128 	120 	118	
By full‑time/part‑time status 	
Full‑time 	117 	113 	115	
Part‑time (including irregular/intermittent) 	46 	43 	42	
By gender 	
Men 	47 	45 	53	
Women 	116 	111	104	
Table 5.3 Trends in staffing numbers (continued)
	30 June 2013	30 June 2014 	30 June 2015	
By location 	
Adelaide	16	16	14	
Brisbane	38	38	41	
Canberra	11	11	13	
Hobart	5	4	5	
Melbourne	27	22	22	
Perth	18	17	16	
Sydney	48	48	46	
Total staffing numbers at 30 June 2015 were similar to the previous year. However, there was some change in the numbers of ongoing and non‑ongoing staff. The reduction in ongoing staff was the result of a mix of resignations and retirements, staff taking extended leave and staff on secondments to other agencies. The increase in non‑ongoing staff related partly to the continued operation in 2014–15 of the restrictions on filling vacancies in the Australian Public Service, particularly ongoing staff, but also the need for some additional staff to assist on a short‑term basis with the increased workload associated with the amalgamation of the AAT.
Employment agreements and arrangements
During 2014–15, most of the AAT’s staff were covered by the AAT’s enterprise agreement known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Agency Agreement 2011–2014. It originally came into force on 29 August 2011 and nominally expired on 30 June 2014.
Bargaining for a new enterprise agreement commenced on 21 July 2014 and 14 meetings of the Agency Bargaining Committee were held during 2014–15. Bargaining will continue in 2015–16 with a committee which includes management and staff representatives for the amalgamated AAT.
As at 30 June 2015, five employees had entered into Individual Flexibility Arrangements. The terms and conditions of employment of one employee was set out in a determination made under section 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. No AAT employees were covered by an Australian Workplace Agreement at 30 June 2015.
More detail about the number of employees covered by the AAT’s enterprise agreement and by individual employment arrangements at 30 June 2015 is shown in Table A2.3 of Appendix 2. Table A2.3 also shows the salary ranges available for the AAT’s employees by classification level.
Senior Executive Service employee remuneration
Remuneration for the AAT’s Senior Executive Service employees is determined having regard to the remuneration for SES staff in similar Australian Government agencies. The remuneration package allows the occupant to cash out certain items in accordance with common Australian Government practice.
Performance pay
No performance bonuses were paid by the AAT in 2014–15. The AAT did not have a performance pay or bonus system for any employee.
Non‑salary benefits
Non‑salary benefits that were available to the AAT’s staff in 2014–15 under the enterprise agreement included:
•	two days of paid leave between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, other than for skeleton staff who maintained basic registry functions
•	two additional weeks of paid maternity/parenting leave
•	ability to participate in a Transport Loans Scheme, and
•	health and wellbeing benefits such as assistance for group or individual participation in health and fitness activities, the Employee Assistance Program, eyesight testing and flu vaccinations.
Studies assistance
Under the AAT’s Studies Assistance Scheme, ongoing staff could apply for assistance which could include full or partial reimbursement of fees and costs as well as limited time off work to attend lectures, tutorials and examinations. In certain circumstances, non‑ongoing staff could apply for limited time off work for study purposes. The scheme allowed staff to develop their own capability, as well as that of the AAT, through vocational education at pre‑tertiary, undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Requests for studies assistance were approved in 2014–15 for studies in government, law, management and training and assessment. Thirteen staff gained approval for financial support with total expenditure of $21,620.
Performance management program
In accordance with the AAT’s Performance Management Program in place during 2014–15, all ongoing AAT staff were required to have performance agreements and training and development plans. Staff appraisals were conducted in accordance with the performance management guidelines, taking leave of absence and other approvals for extension into consideration. Staff advanced to the next salary point if their performance was assessed as fully effective or higher.
Salary levels for non‑ongoing staff were generally reviewed at contract expiration or on the completion of 12 months’ service, whichever was earlier. Salary advancement was based on performance.
During the reporting year, work commenced on revising our performance management framework. It is anticipated that a revised framework for the amalgamated Tribunal will be implemented in 2015–16.
Learning and development
Learning and development are a priority for the AAT. During the reporting year, we undertook a wide range of activities to meet the needs of members and staff and to strengthen the capability of the Tribunal.
Major professional development activities
A major focus in the reporting period was on preparing employees for change in relation to the amalgamation of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT. AAT staff in each registry participated in two programs between September and December 2014: an Australian Public Service Commission “Dealing with Change” workshop delivered by facilitators from the AAT and SSAT and a building resilience at work session.
Another identified priority was further development of the change management capabilities of the AAT’s leaders and senior managers. The Australian Public Service Commission Strategic Centre for Leadership, Learning and Development delivered its two‑day “Planning and Managing Change” program in Sydney and Melbourne in February 2015. The program was positively evaluated with most participants reporting increased confidence in leading and managing change as a consequence of their participation.
In November 2014, members, Conference Registrars and staff undertaking work in the NDIS jurisdiction came together for a one‑day colloquium. It provided an opportunity for further training on the legislative framework and to discuss our experiences to date in relation to the review of decisions made under the scheme.
Members’ professional development
The AAT’s Members’ Professional Development Program was developed as a comprehensive program based on a framework of competencies specific to the AAT. It comprises induction, mentoring, appraisal and other professional development opportunities.
One formal group induction program was conducted in 2014 and local individualised programs were arranged for newly appointed members. The induction program included a comprehensive introduction to the AAT, our key jurisdictions and operations.
Under the AAT’s mentoring scheme, new members were paired with a more experienced member to assist them to gain a better understanding of the workings of the AAT and their role. Senior Member Bernard McCabe was the coordinator of the Mentoring Scheme during 2014–15.
The appraisal scheme combines self‑assessment with appraisal by another AAT member against the framework of competencies. Self‑assessment and peer review give members the opportunity to reflect upon their practice and consider options for further professional development.
The Members’ Professional Development Program is being revised in light of the amalgamation of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT from 1 July 2015. Work is being undertaken on developing a revised competency framework as well as guidelines and associated tools for induction, mentoring and appraisal for members of the amalgamated AAT.
In relation to professional development activities for members, a priority identified for 2014–15 was the development of a program on understanding and engaging with people in hearings, particularly self‑represented parties. Members of the AAT’s Professional Development Committee worked with subject-matter experts from the National Judicial College of Australia to contextualise for tribunal members a program that the College had developed for the judiciary. A two‑day pilot program was delivered in Sydney and Melbourne in April 2015 which was attended by members from the AAT and MRT‑MRT. It is anticipated the College may offer the program to other tribunals in the future.
We actively sought to develop closer ties with the College during 2014–15. AAT members participated in a number of courses conducted by the College, including the witness assessment program and the inaugural online decision‑making program for tribunal members and judicial officers.
A range of other learning activities was offered to members during 2014–15. Members attended in‑house professional development sessions, including a decision‑writing course and individual and small group sessions on library and information services. Members also participated in a range of external seminars, workshops and other professional activities, including those organised by the Australian Institute of Administrative Law, the Council of Australasian Tribunals, the Law Council of Australia, and other national and state‑based professional bodies.
Conference Registrars’ professional development
The AAT’s Conference Registrars have a Professional Development Program which is also based on a framework of competencies specific to the AAT and includes induction, mentoring, reflective learning, peer review and performance appraisal.
Conference Registrars participated in a range of professional development activities in 2014–15. Internal activities were focused on working effectively with Tribunal users, including cultural competency training, and recent developments in the NDIS and tax jurisdictions. Access to continuing professional development assisted Conference Registrars to meet requirements to remain accredited under the National Mediator Accreditation System.
Staff learning and development
Learning and development for staff during the reporting year sought to meet the learning needs of individuals and teams in all registries. Staff undertook in‑house activities as well as a range of external conferences, seminars and workshops.
Internal learning and development sessions were delivered in a variety of modes in 2014–15 that included face‑to‑face delivery, e‑learning programs and collaborative approaches. Foundation and core skills development was addressed in 2014–15 with face‑to‑face sessions on information and records management as well as access to online modules on diversity, security awareness and work health and safety. Seminars and workshops developed capabilities in constructive conversations at work, performance conversations, and writing, editing and proofreading.
Membership of learning communities
The AAT continued to work collaboratively with other Australian tribunals and courts on member and staff training initiatives during the reporting year, particularly with the MRT‑RRT and SSAT. We shared information about developments in this area and developed and facilitated shared training opportunities. The AAT was also involved in a project initiated by the Council of Australasian Tribunals to develop an online induction program for tribunal members.
Work health and safety
The AAT is committed to providing and maintaining a safe and healthy work environment through cooperative, consultative relationships. It is also committed to introducing and promoting measures for ensuring the health, safety and welfare of all workers.
To ensure that members and staff understand the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and their duties under it, Comcare’s e‑learning programs for workers and managers are available on our intranet. All new staff, as well as staff acting for the first time in roles involving management or supervisory responsibilities, were required to complete the modules during the reporting year.
Health and wellbeing initiatives available to all employees during 2014–15 included the Employee Assistance Program, eyesight testing, flu vaccinations, providing taxis to increase personal safety in certain circumstances and assistance with return to work costs.
We continued to make available to members and staff e‑learning modules on best practice for manual handling and ergonomics and they were included as part of the AAT’s induction program. Workstation assessments and training were undertaken in all registries and remedial action implemented as required.
A Mental Health First Aid e‑learning program was available to all members and staff on the intranet. It complemented access to two other mental health guides from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Public Service Commission.
All AAT First Aid Officers completed training in 2014–15 and received particular guidance in the use of external defibrillators which were available in all registries. We also funded training for backup First Aid Officers to cover staff absences.
The AAT’s Health and Safety Committee met four times during the reporting year and minutes of meetings were made available to all members and staff on the intranet. Health and Safety Representatives conducted regular formal and informal inspections in their registries, finding no specific registry issues that had a national impact or required central involvement.
The AAT continued to have a low number of compensation claims as shown in Table 5.4 below. 
Table 5.4 Trends in compensation claims
	2012–13	2013–14 	2014–15	
Number of claims accepted	4 	0	0	
Notifiable incidents and investigations
There were no notifiable incidents that the AAT was required to report to Comcare in 2014–15 under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Comcare did not undertake any investigations in relation to the AAT during the reporting year, nor did it issue any notices to the AAT.
Workplace harassment
The AAT’s commitment to preventing and eliminating all forms of harassment in the workplace was set out in the Prevention and Elimination of Workplace Harassment Policy which articulates the AAT’s expectations of members, managers and staff in preventing and dealing with workplace harassment. Managers and supervisors were actively encouraged to be familiar with, promote and support the policy and strategies for dealing with harassment.
The AAT’s Workplace Diversity Officer in 2014–15 was a qualified lawyer and mediator experienced in resolving disputes and dealing with harassment issues. The officer was available for all members and staff. The AAT also had three Workplace Harassment Contact Officers, including one member.
Workplace diversity
Valuing and making proper and effective use of the different qualities, skills, qualifications and experiences of members and staff can improve the workplace for individuals and the performance of the AAT in general. The Registrar approved a Workplace Diversity Statement of Commitment in June 2015. A new Workplace Diversity Plan will be developed for the amalgamated AAT in 2015–16.
Appendix 2 shows the number of staff in various equal employment opportunity categories. Table 5.5 shows the number of ongoing and non‑ongoing AAT employees who identify as Indigenous as at 30 June 2015 and for the two previous years.
Table 5.5 Employees who identify as Indigenous
	30 June 2013	30 June 2014 	30 June 2015	
Ongoing 	1	1 	1	
Non‑ongoing	0	0 	0	
Total	1	1	1	
National Consultative Committee
The AAT’s National Consultative Committee continued to provide a forum in 2014–15 for the exchange of information between management and staff in relation to workplace matters and for consultation on issues with Tribunal‑wide implications. It formed part of the AAT’s commitment to cooperative workplace relations and participatory decision‑making.
The National Consultative Committee was chaired by the Executive Director, Operations and included seven staff representatives and four management representatives. Three meetings were held and minutes were made available on the intranet.
Productivity gains
The AAT utilised the available member, staff and other resources during the reporting year to conduct a greater number of conferences and hearings and to sustain the total number of applications that were finalised. This reflects a range of efforts to deal with cases effectively and efficiently.
We maintained our commitment to health and wellbeing initiatives to improve employee health and reduce unplanned absences. The reported level of unplanned absences due to illness decreased marginally in 2014–15.
During the reporting year, a number of options for productivity improvements were identified as part of the enterprise bargaining process and in the work undertaken by the Integrated Dispute Resolution Working Group. Further work on productivity will be undertaken in 2015–16 in the context of the amalgamated AAT.
Benevolent trust
The AAT’s benevolent trust, established in 2003, exists to assist members or staff, and their immediate families, who may require financial assistance. Voluntary contributions by members and staff fund the trust which is managed by elected trustees.
During 2014–15, the trust received one request from a staff member for financial assistance. The trustees approved a grant and an interest‑free loan to assist that person.
Information and development
The AAT’s Information and Development Section delivered communications, legal and policy, library and information management and technology services to the Tribunal in 2014–15. The Section contributed to achieving the AAT’s priorities, as set out in the Strategic Plan 2014–2017, in a number of ways.
Communications
The AAT developed and implemented strategies during the reporting year to meet its internal and external communication needs. The focus of external communication activities were tasks associated with the amalgamation of the AAT with the MRT‑RRT and SSAT undertaken in collaboration with the other tribunals. These included working with a design agency to develop the look and feel for the amalgamated AAT, coordinating the roll out of revised templates and assisting with the development of the new website and other information products to help inform our users and stakeholders about the role and operations of the amalgamated AAT.
Amalgamation was also a focus for internal communications. @ The AAT, our monthly internal newsletter was published throughout 2014–15 with the assistance of the Tribunal’s network of Communications Champions and was a key channel for keeping members and staff informed about developments. In May 2015, a weekly Amalgamation Update newsletter was created to provide information to members and staff across all three tribunals. Work was also undertaken during the reporting year on the development of a new intranet for the amalgamated AAT which launched on 1 July 2015.
We responded to 43 media enquiries from print, radio and television outlets in 2014–15. This was at a similar level to the previous year. Information was provided within 24 hours in relation to the majority of enquiries.
Information management
The AAT continued work during the reporting year on a range of projects aimed at improving the AAT’s information and records management. They included:
•	completing the implementation of the AAT’s new records authority issued under the Archives Act 1983
•	assisting the AAT’s District Registries to improve the management of their electronic records in accordance with our business classification system
•	delivering records management training, and
•	working on projects relating to the management of administrative records for the amalgamated AAT.
Legal and policy
The AAT’s Legal and Policy team advised and assisted the President, Registrar and Executive Directors during 2014–15 on a range of legal and policy issues affecting the AAT, and helped the Tribunal meet its accountability obligations. The Legal and Policy team provided information and assistance to members and staff on legislative changes and practice and procedure issues and also undertook a range of other tasks, including managing litigation in which the AAT was named as a party, monitoring appeals from Tribunal decisions, managing freedom of information requests, producing resource materials, coordinating reporting on AAT performance, and supporting the Practice and Procedure Committee and the Practice and Procedure Consultative Group.
A significant part of the Legal and Policy team’s work in 2014–15 related to the amalgamation of the AAT, MRT‑RRT and SSAT and included:
•	coordinating the AAT’s contribution to the development of the legislative amendments required to give effect to the creation of the amalgamated AAT, and
•	working with officers of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT to produce a revised and updated set of practice documents and internal authorisations and delegations for the amalgamated AAT.
Library and information services
The Library Network provided library and information services to AAT members and staff, legal professionals appearing before the Tribunal and self‑represented parties during the reporting year. The Library Network was also responsible for publishing and managing information on the AAT’s website and intranet, and managing the delivery of AAT decisions to publishers, government departments and agencies, and other interested parties. Libraries were located in the Principal Registry in Brisbane, and the District Registries in Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.
The Director, Library and Information Services supported the AAT’s Library Committee which oversaw the development of the library collection. The Committee made decisions on the selection of new library materials and monitored the implementation of changes to the print collection based on changing usage patterns.
Library Network staff also worked closely with officers of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT in 2014–15 on preparations for amalgamation. Following an audit of collections, services and systems in each of the tribunals, recommendations were made and actions implemented in relation to the consolidation of subscriptions, and changes to decisions publication processes from 1 July 2015. A roadmap for further consolidation of services, collections and systems for the amalgamated AAT during 2015–16 was also developed.
Technology services
The Technology Services team managed the planning, implementation and support of computer hardware, software, business systems and telecommunications in 2014–15. Key achievements during the reporting year included:
•	working with officers of the MRT‑RRT and SSAT on a range of projects to facilitate the ICT requirements associated with amalgamation of the tribunals, including implementing email and network connectivity and shared systems
•	further deployment of features of the system installed in 2013–14 to improve security compliance and other network management activities, and
•	implementing a technical upgrade to the AAT’s case management system, TRACS.
Financial statements

Appendixes
Appendix // 01 Members of the AAT
Table A1.1 sets out a list of the members of the AAT as at 30 June 2015. Lists of the members who were appointed and reappointed in 2014–15 and members whose terms of appointment ended during the reporting year follow the table.
The list of members in Table A1.1 is ordered by membership category and then alphabetically. For members who have been reappointed, the first appointment date reflects the date from which there have been continuous appointments to the AAT.
The President, other judges and Deputy Presidents can exercise the powers of the Tribunal in any of the AAT’s divisions. Senior Members and Members may exercise the powers of the Tribunal only in the divisions to which they have been assigned. The divisions to which Senior Members and Members were assigned as at 30 June 2015 are indicated in the table as follows:
G 	General Administrative Division
N 	National Disability Insurance Scheme Division
S 	Security Appeals Division 
T 	Taxation Appeals Division
V 	Veterans’ Appeals Division
Table A1.1 Members of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Name	First appointed	Appointment expires	Location	Divisions	
President	
The Hon Justice Duncan Kerr, Chev LH 	16/05/2012	15/05/2017	 Hobart	 	
Presidential members – Judges of the Federal Court of Australia	
The Hon Justice Michael Barker 	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Perth	 	
The Hon Justice Annabelle Bennett AO 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Sydney	 	
The Hon Justice Richard Edmonds 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Sydney	 	
The Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Brisbane	 	
The Hon Justice Jayne Jagot 	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Sydney	 	
The Hon Justice Susan Kenny 	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Melbourne	 	
The Hon Justice John Logan RFD	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Brisbane	 	
The Hon Justice John Mansfield AM	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Adelaide	 	
The Hon Justice John Middleton 	24/11/2010	23/11/2015	Melbourne	 	
The Hon Justice Tony Pagone 	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Melbourne	 	
The Hon Justice Nye Perram	16/05/2013	15/05/2018	Sydney	 	
The Hon Justice Antony Siopis 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Perth	 	
The Hon Justice Richard White	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Adelaide	 	
Presidential members – Judges of the Family Court of Australia 	
The Hon Justice Robert Benjamin 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Hobart	 	
The Hon Justice Victoria Bennett	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Melbourne	 	
The Hon Justice David Berman	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Adelaide	 	
The Hon Justice Christine Dawe 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Adelaide	 	
The Hon Justice Mary Finn 	23/11/2005	23/11/2015	Canberra	 	
The Hon Justice Colin Forrest	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Brisbane	 	
The Hon Justice Janine Stevenson	29/05/2015	28/05/2020	Sydney	 	
Presidential members – Deputy Presidents – Full‑time	
Ms Katherine Bean	7/12/2009	31 May 2018	Adelaide		
Mr James Constance 	9/12/2010	8/12/2015	Sydney	 	
Miss Stephanie Forgie 	8/09/1988	3/11/2021	Melbourne	 	
Mr Philip Hack SC 	9/01/2006	30/11/2015	Brisbane	 	
Mr Gary Humphries	1/01/2015	31/12/2019	Canberra		
Dr Christopher Kendall	5/09/2014	29/06/2020	Perth		
Presidential members – Deputy Presidents – Part‑time	
Ms Fiona Alpins	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Melbourne	 	
Professor Robert Deutsch	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Sydney	 	
Mr Stephen Frost 	24/08/2006	4/04/2017	Sydney	 	
Major General Gregory Melick AO RFD SC	5/09/2014	4/09/2019	Hobart	 	
Mr Ian Molloy	11/04/2013	10/04/2018	Brisbane	 	
The Hon Robert Nicholson AO 	6/09/2007	26/10/2015	Perth	 	
The Hon Brian Tamberlin QC 	23/11/2005	29/09/2015	Sydney	 	
Senior Members – Full‑time	
Dr Damien Cremean	1/06/2015	31/05/2020	Melbourne	G, S, V	
Mr Egon Fice 	12/06/2003	31/05/2018	Melbourne	G, S, T, V	
Mr John Handley 	14/06/1989	3/05/2018	Melbourne	G, N, T, V 	
Mr Bernard McCabe 	1/07/2001	30/11/2016	Brisbane	G, S, T ,V	
Dr Peter McDermott RFD 	15/11/2004	14/02/2018	Brisbane	G, T, V	
Dr James Popple	1/01/2015	31/12/2017	Canberra	G, S, T, V	
Ms Jill Toohey 	17/08/2009	4/09/2017	Sydney	G, N, S, T, V	
Senior Members – Part‑time	
Mr Anthony Cotter	5/09/2014	4/09/2019	Brisbane	G, T, V	
Ms Ann Cunningham 	5/09/1995	30/11/2017	Hobart	G, N, S, T, V	
Mr Rodney Dunne 	15/06/2005	31/05/2018	Adelaide	G, T, V 	
Ms Geri Ettinger 	19/06/1991	25/01/2016	Sydney	G, S, T, V	
Ms Naida Isenberg 	1/07/2001	30/11/ 2017	Sydney	G, S, V	
Ms Gina Lazanas	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Sydney	G, T, V	
Dr Kenneth Levy RFD 	5/07/2004	30/11/2016	Brisbane	G, T, V 	
Dr Nicholas Manetta	5/08/2013	4/08/2018	Adelaide	G, V	
Dr Teresa Nicoletti 	24/08/2006	30/11/2017	Sydney	G, V 	
Mr Francis O’Loughlin 	23/09/2009	16/01/2017	Melbourne	G, T, V	
Mr Peter Taylor SC 	24/08/2006	30/11/2017	Sydney	G, T, V	
Ms Chelsea Walsh 	1/06/2010	31/05/2018	Perth	G, T, V	
Members – Full‑time	
Ms Regina Perton OAM	9/08/2004	4/09/2017	Melbourne	G, N, S, V	
Members – Part‑time	
Dr Ion Alexander 	2/08/2004	25/01/2017	Sydney	G, V 	
Mr Ronald Bartsch	11/04/2013	10/04/2018	Sydney	G	
Professor David Ben‑Tovim 	1/12/2010	30/11/2015	Adelaide	G, N, V	
Dr Michael Couch	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Sydney	G, V	
Ms Lynne Coulson Barr	5/08/2013	4/04/2018	Melbourne	G, N	
Air Vice Marshal Franklin Cox AO (ret’d)	24/08/2006	30/11/2015	Canberra	G, V 	
Dr Marella Denovan 	15/12/2005	30/11/2015	Brisbane	G, V 	
Brigadier Conrad Ermert (ret’d)	19/06/1991	31/05/ 2017	Melbourne	G, T, V	
Mr Warren Evans 	21/09/2006	30/11/2016	Perth	G, V 	
Mr Nicholas Gaudion	11/04/2013	10/04/2018	Sydney	G, T	
Dr Gordon Hughes 	5/07/2004	16/01/2017	Melbourne	G, T, V	
Dr Bernard Hughson 	1/12/2010	30/11/2015	Canberra	G, N, V 	
Dr William Isles	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Sydney	G, N, V	
Professor Ronald McCallum AO	5/08/2013	4/08/2018	Sydney	G, N	
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Ormston (ret’d)	1/09/2011	31/08/2016	Adelaide	G, S, V	
Miss Anne Shanahan 	19/06/1991	16/04/2018	Melbourne	G, V	
Dr Leslie Stephan	26/06/2015	25/06/2020	Adelaide	G, V	
Dr Marian Sullivan	5/04/2012	4/04/2017	Brisbane	G, V	
Ms Sandra Taglieri	5/08/2013	4/08/2018	Hobart	G, N	
Mr Ian Thompson	5/08/2013	4/08/2018	Adelaide	G, N	
Dr Hooi Toh 	24/08/2006	30/11/2017	Sydney	G, N, V	
Dr Robert Walters RFD 	16/11/2006	30/11/2017	Hobart	G, V 	
Brigadier Gerard Warner AM LVO (ret’d)	15/06/2005	31/05/2018	Perth	G, N, S, V	
Mr Simon Webb 	16/07/2001	4/09/2017	Canberra	G, V	
Dr Peter Wilkins MBE	24/08/2006	30/11/2015	Canberra	G, N, V	
Appointments and cessations, 2014–15
New appointments
The Hon Justice Victoria Bennett
The Hon Justice David Berman
The Hon Justice Colin Forrest
The Hon Justice Tony Pagone
The Hon Justice Janine Stevenson
The Hon Justice Richard White
Deputy President Gary Humphries
Deputy President Dr Christopher Kendall
Deputy President Major‑General Gregory Melick AO RFD SC
Senior Member Anthony Cotter
Senior Member Dr Damien Cremean
Senior Member Dr James Popple
Member Dr Leslie Stephan
Re‑appointments
Deputy President the Hon Brian Tamberlin QC
Senior Member Rodney Dunne
Senior Member Geri Ettinger
Senior Member Egon Fice
Senior Member Dr Peter McDermott RFD
Senior Member Francis O’Loughlin
Senior Member Jill Toohey
Senior Member Chelsea Walsh
Member Dr Ion Alexander
Member Brigadier Conrad Ermert (ret’d)
Member Dr Gordon Hughes
Member Regina Perton OAM
Member Anne Shanahan
Member Brigadier Gerard Warner AM LVO (ret’d)
Member Simon Webb
Cessations
Deputy President the Hon Raymond Groom AO
Deputy President Robin Handley
Deputy President Stanley Hotop
Senior Member Anne Britton
Senior Member Professor Robin Creyke
Senior Member Graham Friedman
Senior Member Graham Kenny
Senior Member Dean Letcher QC
Senior Member Steven Penglis
Senior Member Jan Redfern PSM
Member Dr Roslyn Blakley
Member Dr Janette Chaney
Member Dr Amanda Frazer
Member Dr Hadia Haikal‑Mukhtar
Member Kathryn Hogan
Member Mark Hyman
Member Professor Graham Johnston AM
Member Brigadier Dr Graham Maynard (ret’d)
Member Dr Roderick McRae
Member Professor Peter Reilly AO
Member Professor Tania Sourdin
Member Peter Wulf

Appendix // 02 Staff of the AAT
Table A2.1 Employment by registry, 30 June 2015
Classification	Registries	
	Sydney	Melbourne	Brisbane	Adelaide	Perth	Hobart	Canberra	Principal Registry	Total	
APS Level 2	–	–	6	–	4	–	–	–	10	
AAT Broadband 3/4	19	14	15	9	6	2	8	5	78	
APS Level 5	–	1	–	–	–	–	–	7	8	
APS Level 6	2	2	1	1	1	–	1	14	22	
Executive Level 1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	12	12	
Executive Level 2	5	4	3	3	3	–	3	4	25	
SES Band 1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	
Total 	26	21	25	13	14	2	12	44	157	
There were no staff at APS Level 1.
These figures include all full‑time and part‑time ongoing and non‑ongoing staff, including 25 staff employed for irregular or intermittent duties. Staff on long‑term leave are not included. If they have been replaced, the replacement staff are included.
Principal Registry staff were based in Sydney (20), Melbourne (1), Brisbane (16), Adelaide (1), Perth (2), Hobart (3) and Canberra (1).
Table A2.2 Equal employment opportunity data, 30 June 2015
Classification	Total staff	Women	Men	A&TSI	NESB	PWD	
APS Level 2	10	8	2	–	–	–	
AAT Broadband 3/4	78	54	24	1	24	3	
APS Level 5	8	5	3	–	2	–	
APS Level 6	22	13	9	–	6	–	
Executive Level 1	12	4	8	–	6	–	
Executive Level 2	25	19	6	–	6	–	
SES Band 1	2	1	1	–	–	–	
Total	157	104	53	1	44	3	
A&TSI 	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
NESB	People of non‑English‑speaking background
PWD	People with disability 
The data in this table is based, in part, on information voluntarily provided by staff

Table A2.3 Employment status and arrangements, 30 June 2015
Classification	Salary range	Employment status	Total	Employment arrangements	
		Full‑time	Part‑time	Irregular/ Intermittent		Enterprise Agreement	Individual Flexibility Arrangement	Section 24(1) Determination	
APS Level 1	$42,745 – 47,240	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	
APS Level 2	$48,374 – 54,419	–	–	10	10	10	–	–	
AAT Broadband 3/4	$57,282 – 66,675	63	5	10	78	78	–	–	
APS Level 5	$68,491 – 72,629	8	–	–	8	8	–	–	
APS Level 6	$74,196 – 84,975	16	3	3	22	22	–	–	
Executive Level 1	$93,976 – 110,611	11	1	–	12	12	3	–	
Executive Level 2	$112,527 – 127,929	15	8	2	25	25	2	–	
SES Band 1	$126,686 – 145,259	2	–	–	2	1	–	1	
Total	 	115	17	25	157	156a	5a	1	
a Note: The three Executive Level 1 and two Executive Level 2 staff with Individual Flexibility Arrangements were covered by the AAT’s enterprise agreement.

Figure A2.4 Administrative structure of the AAT, 30 June 2015

Appendix // 03 AAT jurisdiction
This appendix lists the laws — the Acts and legislative instruments — under which decisions could be made that were subject to review by the AAT as at 30 June 2015. The list does not include laws that were assented to or made in the reporting period but had not commenced at 30 June 2015.
The laws listed in bold conferred new jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under that enactment.
Commonwealth laws
A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005
Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976
Adult Disability Assessment Determination 1999
Age Discrimination Act 2004
Aged Care Act 1997
Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Regulations 1995
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995
Air Navigation Act 1920
Air Navigation (Aircraft Engine Emissions) Regulations
Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 1984
Air Navigation (Aviation Security Status Checking) Regulations 2004
Air Navigation (Coolangatta Airport Curfew) Regulations 1999
Air Navigation (Essendon Airport) Regulations 2001
Air Navigation (Fuel Spillage) Regulations 1999
Air Navigation Regulations 1947
Air Services Act 1995
Air Services Regulations 1995
Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995
Airports Act 1996
Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996
Airports (Control of On‑Airport Activities) Regulations 1997
Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997
Airports (Ownership – Interests in Shares) Regulations 1996
Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996
Airports Regulations 1997
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Regulations 1994
Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 
Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006
Archives Act 1983
AusCheck Regulations 2007
Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Act 2012
Australian Citizenship Act 2007
Australian Education Act 2013
Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013
Australia Grape and Wine Authority Regulations 1981
Australian Hearing Services Act 1991
Australian Jobs Act 2013
Australian Meat and Live‑stock Industry Act 1997
Australian Meat and Live‑stock Industry (Beef Export to the USA—Quota Years 2015–2021) Order 2014
Australian Meat and Live‑stock Industry (Export Licensing) Regulations 1998
Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011
Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006
Australian Passports Act 2005
Australian Passports (Application Fees) Act 2005
Australian Passports Determination 2005
Australian Postal Corporation Regulations 1996
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 1999
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
Australian Sports Anti‑Doping Authority Regulations 2006
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Act 2011
Automotive Transformation Scheme Regulations 2010
Aviation Transport Security Act 2004
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005
Banking Act 1959 
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996
Biological Control Act 1984
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010
Business Names Registration Act 2011
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2011
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011
Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994
Child Care Benefit (Eligibility of Child Care Services for Approval and Continued Approval) Determination 2000
Child Disability Assessment Determination 2001
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
City Area Leases Ordinance 1936
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
Clean Energy Advances for Approved Care Organisations Administrative Scheme Determination 2012
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Act 2014
Clothing and Household Textile (Building Innovative Capability) Scheme 2010
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992
Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 
Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905
Commercial Television Conversion Scheme 1999
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Continence Aids Payment Scheme 2010
Copyright Act 1968
Copyright Regulations 1969
Corporations Act 2001
Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006
Criminal Code Act 1995
Cultural Bequests Program Guidelines (No. 1) 1997
Customs Act 1901
Customs (International Obligations) Regulation 2015 
Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956
Customs Tariff Act 1995
Dairy Adjustment Levy Collection Regulations 2000
Dairy Produce Act 1986
Dairy Produce Regulations 1986
Defence Act 1903
Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989
Defence Determination 2005/15
Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990
Defence Force Regulations 1952
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) Determination 1988
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Regulations 2008
Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) Regulations 1957
Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001
Defence Service Homes Act 1918
Defence Trade Controls Act 2012
Defence Trade Controls Regulation 2013
Designs Act 2003
Designs Regulations 2004
Development Allowance Authority Act 1992
Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Disability Services Act 1986
Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002
Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000
Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981
ETR Payments Administrative Scheme (FaHCSIA) Determination 2012
Excise Act 1901
Excise Regulation 2015
Explosives Transport Regulations 2002 
Export Charges (Collection) Act 2015
Export Control (Animals) Order 2004
Export Control (Eggs and Egg Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Fees) Orders 2001
Export Control (Fish and Fish Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) Regulations 1996
Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Milk and Milk Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Organic Produce Certification) Orders
Export Control (Plants and Plant Products) Order 2011
Export Control (Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products) Orders 2010
Export Control (Prescribed Goods — General) Order 2005
Export Control (Rabbit and Ratite Meat) Orders 1985
Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations
Export Control (Wild Game Meat and Wild Game Meat Products) Orders 2010
Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act 1985 
Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 
Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012
Fair Work (Building Industry – Accreditation Scheme) Regulations 2005
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget and Other Measures) Act 2008
Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008
Family Law (Fees) Regulation 2012
Farm Household Support Act 2014
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999
Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012
Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Act 1998
Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001
First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008
Fisheries Management Act 1991
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991
Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986
Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000
Fuel Quality Standards Regulations 2001
Fuel Tax Act 2006
Gene Technology Act 2000
Gene Technology Regulations 2001
Governor‑General Act 1974
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983
Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) (OECD Decision) Regulations 1996
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Regulations 1996
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995
Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010
Health Insurance Act 1973
Health Insurance (Eligible Collection Centres) Approval Principles 2010
Hearing Service Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997
Hearing Services Administration Act 1997
Hearing Services Rules of Conduct 2012
Hearing Services Voucher Rules 1997
High Court of Australia (Fees) Regulation 2012
Higher Education Funding Act 1988
Higher Education Support Act 2003
Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Act 2011
Horticultural Export Charge Regulations
Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Export Efficiency) Regulations 2002 
Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946
Imported Food Charges (Collection) Act 2015
Imported Food Control Act 1992
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Income Tax Regulations 1936
Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Regulations 1990
Industry Research and Development Act 1986
Insurance Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1991
Insurance Act 1973
Interactive Gambling Act 2001
Interstate Road Transport Act 1985
Interstate Road Transport Regulations 1986
Jervis Bay Territory Emergency Management Ordinance 2015
Judges’ Pensions Act 1968
Lands Acquisition Act 1989
Lakes Ordinance 1976
Law Officers Act 1964
Leases Ordinance 1918
Leases (Special Purposes) Ordinance 1925
Life Insurance Act 1995
Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014
Marine Orders Parts 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 91, 93, 96, 97, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506 and 507 
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Regulation 2013
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003
Marriage Act 1961
Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984
Medibank Private Sale Act 2006
Medical Indemnity Act 2002
Medical Indemnity (Prudential Supervision and Product Standards) Act 2003
Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010
Migration Act 1958
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme 2004
Motor Vehicle Compensation Scheme 2004 
Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989
Motor Vehicle Standards Regulations 1989
Mutual Recognition Act 1992
Narcotic Drugs Act 1967
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 
National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Act 1998
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008
National Health Act 1953
National Health (Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines – Cost Recovery) Regulations 2009
National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960
National Health Security Act 2007
National Library Regulations 1994
National Measurement Act 1960
National Measurement Regulations 1999
National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008
National Television Conversion Scheme 1999
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Act 2011
Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999
Native Title (Tribunal) Regulations 1993
Navigation Act 2012
Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995
Nuclear Non‑Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987
Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) (National Standards) Regulations 2003
Offshore Minerals Act 1994
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011
Ombudsman Act 1976
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations 1995
Paid Parental Leave Act 2010
Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Regulations 1961
Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973 
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948
Patents Act 1990
Patents Regulations 1991
Personal Property Securities Act 2009
Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012
Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Regulations 2005
Pig Industry Act 2001
Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994
Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations 1994
Pooled Development Funds Act 1992
Premium Support (Medical Indemnity Provider) Scheme 2006
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999
Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991
Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Regulations 1991
Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998
Privacy Act 1988
Private Health Insurance Act 2007
Product Grants and Benefits Administration Act 2000 
Product Stewardship Act 2011
Product Stewardship (Voluntary Arrangements) Instrument 2012
Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act 2013
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986
Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981
Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008
Public Lending Right Act 1985
Quality Agency Principles 2013
Radiocommunications Act 1992
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation) Determination 2000
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation – 2 GHz Band) Determination 2000
Radiocommunications Taxes Collection (Penalties on Unpaid Tax) Determination 2015
Radiocommunications (Trading Rules for Spectrum Licences) Determination 2012
Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Transitional Provision) Regulations 2010
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001
Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009
Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002
Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997
Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations 1997
Roads and Public Places Ordinance 1937
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Sanctions Principles 2014
Sea Installations Act 1987
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Act 2012
Shipping Registration Act 1981
Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (One‑Off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Act 2007
Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999
Social Security (Pension Valuation Factor) Determination 1998
Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan 1995
Southern Squid Jig Fishery Management Plan 2005
Space Activities Act 1998
Space Activities Regulations 2001
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012
Student Assistance Act 1973
Student Identifiers Act 2014
Superannuation Act 1922
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994
Superannuation (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Taxation Act 1987
Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 
Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Regulations 2001
Tax Agent Services Act 2009
Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009
Taxation Administration Act 1953
Taxation Administration Regulations 1976
Telecommunications Act 1997
Telecommunications (Annual Numbering Charge – Late Payment Penalty) Determination 2000
Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999
Telecommunications (Eligible Revenue) Determination 2015
Telecommunications (Freephone and Local Rate Numbers) Allocation Determination 2007 (No. 1)
Telecommunications Integrated Public Number Database Scheme 2007
Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997
Telecommunications (Service Provider – Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2013
Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination 2010 (No. 1)
Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination 2010 (No. 2)
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Act 2012
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency (Eligible Revenue) Determination 2013
Television Licence Fees Regulations 1990
Telstra Corporation Act 1991
Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2011
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Post–2005 Strategic Investment Program Scheme 2005
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Scheme 1999
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations 2002
Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
Trade Marks Act 1995
Trade Marks Regulations 1995
Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetics) Regulations 1991
Trade Support Loans Act 2014
Tradespersons’ Rights Regulation Act 1946
Tradex Scheme Act 1999
Trans‑Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997
Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Act 1985
Venture Capital Act 2002
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Veterans’ Entitlements (Clarke Review) Act 2004
Veterans’ Entitlements Regulations 1986
Veterans’ Entitlements (Rehabilitation Allowance) Regulations
Veterans’ Entitlements (Special Assistance — Motorcycle Purchase) Regulations 2001
Veterans’ Entitlements (Special Assistance) Regulations 1999
Veterans’ Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme
Water Act 2007
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (ACT)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cth)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Qld)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Tas)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Vic)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2006 (NT)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2006 (WA)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Determination 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Act 2006 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011
Norfolk Island laws
Absentee Landowners Levy Act 1976
Animals (Importation) Act 1983
Apiaries Act 1935
Associations Incorporation Act 2005
Birds Protection Act 1913
Bookmakers and Betting Exchange Act 1998
Brands and Marks Act 1949
Building Act 2002
Business Names Act 1976
Business Transactions (Administration) Act 2006
Business Transactions (Levy Imposition) Act 2006
Companies Act 1985
Crown Lands Act 1996
Customs Act 1913
Electricity (Licensing and Registration) Act 1985
Environment Act 1990
Financial Institutions Levy Act 1985
Fuel Levy Act 1987
Goods and Services Tax Act 2007
Healthcare Levy Act 1990
Land Administration Fees Act 1996
Land Titles Act 1996
Land Valuation Act 2012
Liquor Act 2005
Lotteries and Fundraising Act 1987
Medical Practitioners Registration Act 1983
Migratory Birds Act 1980
Norfolk Island Broadcasting Act 2001
Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island Botanic Garden Act 1984
Planning Act 2002
Public Health Act 1996
Public Reserves Act 1997
Roads Act 2002
Social Services Act 1980
Subdivision Act 2002
Telecommunications Act 1992
Tourist Accommodation Act 1984
Tourist Accommodation (Ownership) Act 1989
Trees Act 1997

Appendix // 04 Applications, outcomes, listings and appeals statistics 
Table or Chart	Title	
A4.1	Applications lodged and applications finalised in 2014–15	
A4.2	Applications lodged – By state and territory	
A4.3	Applications finalised – By state and territory	
A4.4	Percentage of applications finalised without a hearing 	
A4.5	Outcomes of applications for review of a decision finalised in 2014–15	
A4.6	Applications current at 30 June 2015 – By state and territory 	
A4.7	Alternative dispute resolution processes, interlocutory hearings and hearings conducted by the AAT	
A4.8	Constitution of tribunals for hearings	
A4.9	Appeals against decisions of the AAT by jurisdiction	
A4.10	Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions – By jurisdiction	
Table A4.1 Applications lodged and applications finalised, 2014–15
	Applications lodged	Applications finalised	
	No	%	No	%	
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS — MAJOR JURISDICTIONS	
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME	
Eligibility to access scheme	8		10		
Review of supports in participant plan	10		8		
Subtotal	18	< 1	18	< 1	
SOCIAL SECURITY	
Age pension/Pension bonus scheme	176		146		
Austudy payment	12		11		
Carer allowance and carer payment	74		61		
Compensation preclusion period	64		68		
Disability support pension	1,253		1,108		
Family tax benefit	94		62		
Newstart allowance	104		100		
Overpayments and debt recovery 	440		454		
Parenting payment	18		27		
Rent assistance	12		11		
Special benefit	11		11		
Youth allowance	18		17		
Other	44		53		
Subtotal	2,320	35	2,129	32	
Veterans’ Affairs	
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004	72		61		
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 					
Disability pension	229		225		
Service pension/Income support supplement/ Pension bonus	38		30		
Widows pension	44		57		
Other	8		6		
Subtotal	391	6	379	6	
Workers’ compensation	
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, by decision‑maker		
Asciano Services	7		15		
Australian Air Express Pty Limited	11		7		
Australian Postal Corporation	294		302		
BIS Industries Limited	12		7		
Comcare	569		485		
Commonwealth Bank of Australia and related companies	27		27		
John Holland Group Pty Limited and related companies	21		16		
K & S Freighters Pty Limited	26		33		
Linfox Armaguard Pty Limited/Linfox Australia Pty Limited	94		88		
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission	105		113		
National Australia Bank Limited/National Wealth Management Services Limited	28		32		
Optus Administration Pty Limited	9		12		
Prosegur Australia Pty Limited	19		7		
Telstra Corporation Limited	81		97		
TNT Australia Pty Limited	38		23		
Transpacific Industries Pty Limited	49		34		
Other decision‑makers	25		31		
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992	83		89		
Subtotal	1,498	23	1,418	21	
TAXATION	
Taxation Appeals Division	
Excess contributions tax 	8		15		
Fringe benefits tax	13		13		
Goods and services tax	97		112		
Income tax (other than tax schemes)	727		1,153		
Income tax (tax schemes)	1		1		
Private rulings	8		31		
Superannuation guarantee charge	12		32		
Taxation administration	5		8		
Other	25		20		
Subtotal	896	14	1,385	21	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal					
Goods and services tax	2		4		
Income tax	62		80		
Refusal of extension of time to lodge objection	23		21		
Release from taxation liabilities	67		71		
Superannuation contributions surcharge	0		16		
Other	5		5		
Subtotal	159	2	197	3	
Subtotal 	1,055	16	1,582	23	
SUBTOTAL for major jurisdictions	5,282	81	5,526	82	
	
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS — BY PORTFOLIO	
AGRICULTURE	
Agricultural and veterinary chemicals	3		8		
Fisheries	1		0		
Research participation certificates for Conservation Tillage Refundable Tax Offset	2		2		
Subtotal	6	< 1	10	< 1	
Attorney‑General’s	
Anti‑money laundering and counter‑terrorism financing	1		1		
Background checking	4		3		
Bankruptcy	26		25		
Human rights	1		1		
Marriage celebrants	24		22		
Personal property securities	6		1		
Privacy	4		0		
Tax offset for films	1		1		
Waiver of fees in courts	1		1		
Subtotal	68	1	55	< 1	
COMMUNICATIONS					
Communications and media	1		1		
Subtotal	1	< 1	1	< 1	
Defence					
Defence Force retirement and death benefits	3		6		
Other	2		2		
Subtotal	5	< 1	8	< 1	
Education AND TRAINING	
Education services for overseas students	9		12		
Higher Education Loan Program	48		46		
Mutual recognition of occupations	10		10		
National vocational education and training regulation	36		32		
Tertiary education quality and standards	8		7		
Trade support loans	1		1		
Subtotal	112	 2	108	2	
EMPLOYMENT	
Fair entitlements guarantee	29		17		
Subtotal	29	< 1	17	< 1	
ENVIRONMENT	
Clean energy regulation	1		3		
Environment protection and biodiversity	2		2		
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park	2		2		
Hazardous waste	2		0		
Ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management	1		1		
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust	1		1		
Subtotal	9	< 1	9	< 1	
Finance	
Electoral matters	2		3		
Subtotal	2	< 1	3	< 1	
Foreign Affairs and Trade 	
Export market development grants	2		5		
Passports	20		18		
Subtotal	22	< 1	23	< 1	
Health	
Industrial chemicals	1		2		
Medicare	1		2		
Pharmacists	12		13		
Sports anti‑doping	0		3		
Therapeutic goods	7		9		
Subtotal	21	< 1	29	< 1	
Immigration and BORDER PROTECTION	
Citizenship	324		290		
Customs	31		31		
Migration agent registration	10		4		
Protection visa cancellation or refusal	3		6		
Visa cancellation or refusal on character grounds 	6		5		
Subtotal	374	6	336	5	
INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE	
Automotive industry	0		1		
Industry research and development	14		4		
Patents, designs and trade marks	3		2		
Subtotal	17	< 1	7	< 1	
Infrastructure and REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT	
Airports	1		2		
Aviation and maritime transport security	1		2		
Civil aviation 	28		47		
Coastal trading	0		1		
Maritime safety	4		3		
Motor vehicle standards	12		10		
National land decisions	0		1		
Subtotal	46	1	66	< 1	
SOCIAL SERVICES	
Aged care	26		38		
Child care services	5		3		
Child support – percentage of care review	35		27		
Child support – review of SSAT refusal to extend time	10		9		
Child support – other	12		16		
Disability services	0		1		
Paid parental leave	16		14		
Subtotal 	104	2	108	2	
treasury	
Auditors and liquidators registration	2		2		
Business names registration	23		18		
Charities and not‑for‑profit entities	1		1		
Consumer credit	3		1		
Corporations and financial services	32		20		
Insurance and superannuation	3		4		
Tax agent registration	24		17		
Subtotal 	88	1	63	< 1	
SUBTOTAL for portfolios	904	14	843	12	
	
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS — OTHER 	
Security appeals	
ASIO security assessments	11		8		
Decisions of National Archives of Australia relating to ASIO records	0		1		
Subtotal	11	< 1	9	< 1	
Whole of government	
Archives Act 1983	25		15		
Freedom of Information Act 1982	64		53		
Subtotal	89	1	68	1	
JURISDICTION and Tribunal decisions	
Decisions not subject to review by the Tribunal 	155		162		
Review of decisions relating to fees	1		1		
Subtotal	156	2	163	2	
SUBTOTAL for other	256	4	240	4	
					
APPLICATIONS — OTHER, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT	
Applications for extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision	138		139		
Applications under the AAT Act relating to a finalised case	1		0		
Subtotal	139	2	139		
					
APPLICATIONS — NORFOLK ISLAND					
	0		0		
Subtotal	0	0	0		
					
TOTALa	6,581	100	6,748	100	
a	Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.
Chart A4.2 Applications lodged – By state and territory

Chart A4.3 Applications finalised – By state and territory

Table A4.4 Percentage of applications finalised without a hearingª 
Jurisdiction	2012–13
%	2013–14
%	2014–15
%	
All	79	82	80	
Social security	76	77	77	
Veterans’ affairs	71	72	67	
Workers’ compensation 	87	86	86	
Taxation 				
Taxation Appeals Division	85	87	82	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal	63b	86	83	
a	Applications finalised by the AAT without it completing the review and giving a decision on the merits under section 43 of the Administration Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Includes applications finalised in accordance with terms of agreement lodged by the parties (sections 34D and 42C), applications withdrawn by the applicant (section 42A(1A)) and applications dismissed by the Tribunal (sections 42A and 42B).
b	The figure for the percentage of applications finalised without a hearing in the STCT in 2012–13 differs from the figure that appeared in the 2012–13 and 2013–14 annual reports as a result of a clerical error.

Table A4.5 Outcomes of applications for review of a decision finalised in 2014–15
	All applications	Social security	Veterans’ affairs	Workers’
compensation	Taxation	
					Taxation Appeals Division	Small Taxation Claims Tribunal	
	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	
By consent or withdrawn	
Decision affirmeda 	458	7	10	< 1	2	< 1	432	30	8	< 1	1	< 1	
Decision varieda 	492	7	26	1	34	9	64	5	324	23	39	20	
Decision set asidea 	1,165	18	273	13	79	21	324	23	299	22	37	19	
Dismissed by consentb	90	1	30	1	3	1	7	< 1	36	3	3	2	
Dismissed by operation of lawc	282	4	282	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Withdrawn by applicant	2,015	30	734	34	126	33	344	24	384	28	65	33	
Subtotal	4,502	68	1,355	64	244	64	1,171	83	1,051	76	145	74	
By decision	
Decision affirmedd 	1,017	15	420	20	74	20	138	10	189	14	29	15	
Decision variedd	51	< 1	9	< 1	8	2	9	< 1	18	1	0	0	
Decision set asided 	274	4	54	3	43	11	58	4	46	3	4	2	
Subtotal	1,342	20	483	23	125	33	205	14	253	18	33	17	
Other	
Dismissed by Tribunale	228	3	117	5	5	1	20	1	39	3	5	3	
No jurisdictionf	271	4	42	2	4	1	18	1	19	1	6	3	
Extension of time refused 	147	2	116	5	0	0	4	< 1	3	< 1	1	< 1	
No application fee paid	84	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	 1	0	0	
Otherg	35	< 1	16	< 1	1	< 1	0	0	3	< 1	7	4	
Subtotal	765	12	291	14	10	3	42	3	81	6	19	10	
Totalh	6,609	100	2,129	100	379	100	1,418	100	1,385	100	197	100	
a	Applications finalised by the AAT in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties either in the course of an alternative dispute resolution process (section 34D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975) or at any stage of review proceedings (section 42C).
b	Applications dismissed by consent under section 42A(1).
c 	If an application in the family assistance and social security area relates to the recovery of a debt, the parties may agree in writing to settle the proceedings. On receipt of the agreement, the application is taken to have been dismissed.
d	Applications finalised by a decision of the AAT under section 43.
e	Applications dismissed under section 42A(2) (non‑appearance at a case event), section 42A(5) (failure to proceed with an application or to comply with a direction of the AAT) and section 42B(1) (application is frivolous or vexatious).
f	Applications in relation to which the AAT determined it does not have jurisdiction or that were dismissed under section 42A(4) on the basis the applicant failed to demonstrate that a decision was reviewable.
g	Includes applications for review of a decision that were lodged out of time and in relation to which no extension of time application was subsequently received.
h	Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.	

Chart A4.6 Applications current at 30 June 2015 – By state and territory

Table A4.7 Alternative dispute resolution processes, interlocutory hearings and hearings conducted by the AAT
Event type	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
Conferences	7,606	7,636	7,775	
Case appraisals	3	3	1	
Conciliations	485	555	523	
Mediations	42	39	13	
Neutral evaluations	32	22	9	
Interlocutory hearingsa	437	524	625	
Hearings	1,063b	1,083	1,183	
a	Includes hearings relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hearings relating to applications for orders of the following kind:
– 	to extend the time to lodge an application for review
– 	to be joined as a party to a proceeding
– 	to make a confidentiality order under section 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
– 	to stay the operation or implementation of a reviewable decision
– 	to dismiss an application
– 	to reinstate an application.
b	The figure for the number of hearings conducted by the AAT in 2012–13 differs from the figure that appeared in the annual report for that year. A technical issue with the operation of the AAT’s electronic case management system led to some hearings not being counted in the report for that year.
Table A4.8 Constitution of tribunals for hearings
Tribunal type	2012–13a	2013–14	2014–15	
	No	%	No	%	No	%	
Judge alone	0	0	3	< 1	16	1	
Judge with 1 other member 	8	< 1	4	< 1	2	< 1	
Judge with 2 other members	1	< 1	3	< 1	0	0	
Deputy President alone	187	18	242	22	283	24	
Deputy President with 1 other member 	51	5	29	3	25	2	
Deputy President with 2 other members	2	< 1	0	0	5	< 1	
Senior Member alone	469	44	491	45	544	46	
Senior Member with 1 other member	93	9	56	5	35	3	
Senior Member with 2 other members	2	< 1	1	< 1	1	< 1	
Member alone	239	22	243	22	269	23	
Two Members	11	1	11	1	3	< 1	
Three Members	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Totalb	1,063	100	1,083	100	1,183	100	
Total multi‑member tribunals	168	16	104	10	71	6	
a	The figures for the number of hearings conducted by the AAT in 2012–13 differ from those that appeared in the annual report for that year. A technical issue with the operation of the Tribunal’s electronic case management system led to some hearings not being counted in the report for that year.
b	Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.
Table A4.9 Appeals against decisions of the AAT – By jurisdiction
Jurisdiction	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
	Section 44a	Otherb	Section 44a	Otherb	Section 44a	Otherb	
Social security	8	0	19	1	22	0	
Veterans’ affairs	8	1	11	0	6	0	
Workers’ compensation	17	2	24	2	21	0	
Taxation							
Taxation Appeals Division	22	4	18	0	17	2	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Immigration and citizenship	4	21	6	7	7	2	
Other	13	2	18	1	18	2	
Total 	72	30	96	11	91	6	
a	Appeals lodged in the Federal Court under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. In some circumstances, a party may lodge an application seeking relief under section 44 and under another enactment. These applications are treated as section 44 appeals for statistical purposes.
b	Applications for judicial review made under other enactments, including the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Judiciary Act 1903, Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 and section 75(v) of the Constitution.
Table A4.10 Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions — By jurisdictiona 
Outcome	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
	Section 44	Other	Section 44	Other	Section 44	Other	
SOCIAL SECURITY	
Allowed/Remitted	4	0	4	0	1	0	
Dismissed	6	0	13	0	9	0	
Discontinued	1	0	3	0	8	0	
Subtotal	11	0	20	0	18	0	
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS	
Allowed/Remitted	5	0	5	0	8	0	
Dismissed	3	1	6	0	6	0	
Discontinued	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Subtotal	8	1	11	0	14	0	
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION	
Allowed/Remitted	9	0	11	1	6	0	
Dismissed	9	1	14	1	10	2	
Discontinued	1	0	3	0	4	0	
Subtotal	19	1	28	2	20	2	
TAXATION	
Taxation Appeals Division	
Allowed/Remitted	7	1	6	1	4	0	
Dismissed	11	1	11	0	13	1	
Discontinued	3	0	4	0	5	0	
Subtotal	21	2	21	1	22	1	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal	
Allowed/Remitted	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Dismissed	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Discontinued	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Subtotal	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Subtotal	21	2	21	1	22	1	
Table A4.10 Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions — By jurisdictiona (continued)
Outcome	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	
	Section 44	Other	Section 44	Other	Section 44	Other	
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP	
Allowed/Remitted	1	9	0	3	1	3	
Dismissed	2	12	3	11	4	9	
Discontinued	2	1	1	1	3	0	
Subtotal	5	22	4	15	8	12	
Other	
Allowed/Remitted	2	0	3	1	6	0	
Dismissed 	7	2	14	1	11	0	
Discontinued	0	0	2	0	5	1	
Subtotal	9	2	19	2	22	1	
Total	73	28	103b	20	104	16	
							
ALL	
Allowed/Remitted	28	10	29	6	26	3	
Dismissed	38	17	66	13	53	12	
Discontinued	7	1	8	1	25	1	
Total	73	28	103b	20	104	16	
a	Where a decision of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court, a single judge of the Federal Court or the Full Court of the Federal Court has been appealed, only the ultimate result is counted for the purpose of these statistics.
b	The figures for the number of section 44 appeals from AAT decisions that were finalised in 2013–14 differ from those that appeared in the annual report for that year. The AAT did not become aware of the result of some appeals until after the publication of the report.
Appendix // 05 Resourcing tables
The AAT had one outcome specified in the 2014–15 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 AAT is a single‑program agency. The primary deliverables were completed reviews of decisions, and there were two paths to achieving them:
•	applications finalised without a hearing
•	applications finalised with a hearing.
Resource statements
Table A5.1 shows the AAT’s various sources of funding.
Table A5.1 AAT resource statement, 2014–15
		Actual
available
appropriation
for 2014–15
$’000	Payments
made
2014–15
$’000	Balance
remaining
2014–15
$’000	
		(a)	(b)	(a) – (b)	
Ordinary Annual Services1 	
Departmental appropriation2		52,672	35,203	17,469	
Total Available Annual Appropriations and payments		52,672	35,203 		
Special appropriations 	
Special appropriations limited by criteria/entitlement		 			
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 – s77		 	328		
Total special appropriations		 	328		
Total net resourcing and payments for Administrative Appeals Tribunal	52,672	35,531		
1	Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2014–15 and Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2014–15. This includes $13.551m from prior periods and $2.680m in section 74 Retained Revenue Receipts.
2	Includes an amount of $1.525m in 2014–15 for the Departmental Capital Budget. For accounting purposes this amount has been designated as ‘contributions by owners’.
Expenses by outcome
Table A5.2 shows how the 2014–15 budget appropriations for the AAT translated to total resourcing for the AAT’s outcome, including administered expenses, revenue from the government (appropriation), revenue from other sources and the total price of the programs.
Table A5.2 Expenses for outcome
Outcome 1: 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.  	Budget1
2014–15
$’000	Actual
Expenses
2014–15
$’000	Variation
2014–15
$’000	
	(a)	(b)	(a) – (b)	
Program 1.1: Administrative Appeals Tribunal		 		
Administered expenses		 		
Special appropriations	700	328 	372	
Departmental expenses		 		
Departmental appropriation2	36,001	34,348	1,653	
Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year	3,224	3,378 	(154)	
Total expenses for Outcome2	39,925	38,054 	1,871	

 	2013–14 	2014–15	
Average Staffing Level (number)	160	157	
1	Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2014–15 Budget at Additional Estimates.
2	Departmental appropriation combines Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Acts Nos. 1 and 3) and Retained Revenue Receipts under section 74 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Appendix // 06 Application fees
Application fees and refunds
The rules relating to fees that were payable to lodge applications with the AAT during 2014–15 were in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976. The primary rules for the payment and refund of fees were in regulations 19 and 19AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976. Subject to the exceptions described below, an application fee was payable for lodging an application:
•	for review of a decision
•	for a decision on whether a person was entitled to be given a statement of reasons for a decision, and
•	for a declaration, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, that a statement of reasons for a decision is not adequate.
If an application was not accompanied by an applicable fee, the AAT was not required to deal with the application unless and until the fee was paid. If the fee was not paid within six weeks after an application was lodged, the Tribunal could dismiss the application under section 69C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. 
Application fee amounts
The standard application fee in 2014–15 was $861, and the fee to lodge an application in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal was $85.
Application fee not payable
Applications for review of the following types of decisions did not attract a fee:
•	any decision specified in Schedule 3 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976
•	any decision under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 made in relation to a document that related to a decision specified in Schedule 3 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976.
Schedule 3 decisions included those in the areas of family assistance and social security, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, veterans’ affairs and workers’ compensation.
Reduced application fee payable
A reduced application fee of $100 was payable instead of the standard application fee if the person liable to pay the fee was: 
•	granted legal aid for the matter to which the application related
•	the holder of a health care card, a health benefit card, a pensioner concession card, a Commonwealth seniors health card or any other card that certified entitlement to Commonwealth health concessions
•	an inmate of a prison, in immigration detention or otherwise lawfully detained in a public institution
•	a child under 18 years
•	in receipt of youth allowance, Austudy payment or benefits under the ABSTUDY Scheme.
The AAT could also order that a $100 fee was payable rather than the standard application fee if it considered that payment of the full fee would cause financial hardship to the person.
The fee payable to lodge an application in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal had to be paid in all circumstances.
One fee payable
If two or more applications related to the same applicant and could be conveniently heard before the Tribunal at the same time, the AAT could order that only one fee was payable for those applications.
Refunds
A person was entitled to a: 
•	full refund if they had paid an application fee that was not payable
•	partial refund if they had paid the standard application fee but were entitled to pay the $100 fee. 
A person was also entitled to a partial refund if the person had paid the standard application fee or the equivalent of a standard application fee and the AAT certified that the proceedings terminated in a manner favourable to the applicant. The refund amount was the difference between the application fee paid and $100. There was no refund if the person had paid the reduced application fee or if the application was dealt with in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal.
Fee statistics for 2014–15
In 2014–15, the AAT received $730,485 and refunded $328,355 in application fees.
Total revenue forgone on the basis that a person was eligible to pay a reduced fee or only one fee was payable for multiple applications lodged by the same person was $595,937 (see Tables A6.1, 6.2, 6.3).
The AAT received one application for review of a decision not to reduce an application fee on financial hardship grounds. The decision was affirmed. 
Table A6.1 Fee revenue summary: total received, refunded and forgone
Fees and applications	Amount and number	
Total fee revenue 	$730,485	
Total refunded	$328,355	
Total revenue forgone (fees reduced or single fee for multiple applications)	$595,937	
Number of applications: fees reduced	339	
Number of applications: fees not paid	429	
Table A6.2 Reduced fees paid
Reason	Number of applications affected	
Applicant eligible to pay reduced fee	227	
Fee reduced by AAT on financial hardship grounds	112	
Total	339	
Table A6.3 Applications for which no fee paid where one fee payable for two or more applications lodged by the same applicant
Category	Number of additional applications for which fee was not payable	
Standard application fee	388	
Reduced fee 	27	
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal fee 	14	
Total	429	

Appendix // 07 Decisions of interest
Archives and Freedom of Information
Pemberton and Director General, National Archives of Australia 
[2015] AATA 115; 27 February 2015
Senior Member Dr James Popple 
Whether access should be granted under the Archives Act 1983 to the personnel files of military college cadets
Mr Pemberton applied under the Archives Act 1983 (the Act) for access to the personal files of 11 staff cadets who attended the Royal Military College, Duntroon in the 1970s. The National Archives of Australia (the Archives) refused access to parts of the files. On internal reconsideration, the Archives decided to release further pages from each of the files, but otherwise affirmed its original decisions. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of those decisions. 
The main issue for the Tribunal was whether any parts of the requested files were exempt under section 33(1)(g) of the Act on the basis that their release would involve unreasonable disclosure of information relating to personal affairs. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal also had to consider what, if any, weight it should give to the Archives’ policy on the application of the exemption. 
The Tribunal held that the policy had to be taken into account even though it was finalised after the decisions under review were made and even if it represented a more restrictive approach to the release of information. The policy could be given some weight as it was consistent with the Act and successfully struck a balance between the interests of good government and consistent decision-making on the one hand and the ideal of justice in the individual case on the other. 
In interpreting section 33(1)(g) of the Act, the Tribunal had regard to Federal Court decisions relating to an analogous provision previously in the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Tribunal examined the files, noting that they included applications for admission to the College, reports of progress and correspondence about medical conditions and financial affairs. Each of the files was found to contain information relating to the personal affairs of the cadets and, in some cases, other persons. 
The Tribunal held that, whether disclosure would be unreasonable is a question of fact and degree that requires balancing all legitimate interests and consideration of the public interest, including the public interest in the protection of personal privacy. Evidence before the Tribunal included affidavits from some of the cadets, from the Chief of Army and from office holders of the Australian Defence Force Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and Defence Families Australia about their concerns regarding the release of information of the kind in the files. The Tribunal considered the nature and perceived sensitivity of the information, the age and current relevance of the information, the age of the subjects, the fact that none of the information was in the public domain, the scholarly interest in the files, the ease with which disclosed information could be disseminated and the increased level of community concern about information privacy. The Tribunal concluded that disclosure of the information would be unreasonable.
The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Securities and Investments Commission 
Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority 
[2014] AATA 531; 4 August 2014
[2014] AATA 539; 6 August 2014
Deputy President James Constance
Whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 
Mr Sweeney has been seeking to expose what he believes is fraudulent conduct involving the administration of a superannuation fund of which he was a member. From 2009, Mr Sweeney made numerous requests to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act). Between 1 November 2010 and 9 August 2013 Mr Sweeney made at least 143 requests to ASIC and 118 requests to APRA. 
Following applications by ASIC and APRA, the Australian Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) made two separate declarations under section 89K(1) of the Act that Mr Sweeney was a vexatious applicant. The Commissioner declared that, until 9 August 2014, ASIC and APRA were not required to consider any request or application made by Mr Sweeney unless the Commissioner granted permission for the request or application to be made. Mr Sweeney applied to the Tribunal for review of the Commissioner’s decisions to make the declarations. 
The Tribunal identified the issues for determination as whether Mr Sweeney had repeatedly engaged in access actions involving an abuse of process and, if so, whether a vexatious applicant declaration should be made. ASIC and APRA contended the declarations should be extended to 1 January 2016.
Evidence before the Tribunal was that, in addition to the requests made prior to the making of the declarations, Mr Sweeney had continued to make requests to ASIC and APRA under various pseudonyms without the permission of the Commissioner. He made one application to the Commissioner for permission to apply to APRA, but permission was denied.
The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Sweeney had repeatedly engaged in access actions and found this repeated engagement involved an abuse of process in two respects. Firstly, Mr Sweeney’s conduct involved harassment of at least one ASIC employee. Secondly, his conduct unreasonably interfered with the operations of ASIC and APRA. In making this finding, the Tribunal had regard to a range of matters, including the volume and frequency of Mr Sweeney’s requests, the time taken to process the requests, the number of requests that were for access to documents he had already provided to ASIC and the number of repeat requests for documents previously sought. 
In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to make a declaration, the Tribunal considered the objects of the Act and whether Mr Sweeney’s actions indicated that his exercise of the rights the Act provides had gone beyond achieving those objects. Having regard to the number and nature of access actions, the Tribunal determined it was reasonable to make declarations to restrict his use of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that, notwithstanding Mr Sweeney’s actions, his legitimate concerns about the administration of the superannuation fund should not be underestimated. It would not be reasonable to extend the declarations to 1 January 2016 and restrict Mr Sweeney’s rights for such a lengthy period. The Tribunal also considered that the terms of the declarations made by the Commissioner were unduly harsh in the circumstances. The right to seek information under the Act is of such importance that a requirement to seek the Commissioner’s permission before making a request should only be imposed in the most compelling circumstances.
In relation to ASIC, the Tribunal determined that the preferable decision would be to set aside the Commissioner’s declaration and substitute a revised declaration which would remain in force until 1 January 2015. The declaration set out a number of terms and conditions, including limiting the number and frequency of access requests Mr Sweeney could make and the scope of what could be requested as well as preventing him from using pseudonyms or using an agent. 
In relation to APRA, the Tribunal did not consider Mr Sweeney should be further restrained from exercising his rights under the Act after 9 August 2014. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.
Aviation
Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority
[2014] AATA 820; 31 October 2014 
Senior Member Bernard McCabe 
Whether the applicant’s pilot licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled because of incidents that occurred during the filming of a television series 
Mr Jones held flight crew licences that included a private helicopter pilot licence. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reviewed footage shot in the course of a reality television series based on the life of Mr Jones, his family and employees on the Coolibah Station in the Northern Territory. The television series featured a number of incidents that CASA found to be in breach of the rules and regulations applicable to helicopter pilots. CASA decided to cancel Mr Jones’s licences and Mr Jones applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision.
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 allow CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence on a number of grounds, including where the holder:
•	has failed in his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe navigation or operation of an aircraft, or
•	is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of such a licence. 
The Tribunal was required to determine whether any of the incidents and matters raised by CASA contravened the laws regulating civil aviation and, if so, whether Mr Jones’s licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled.
The Tribunal found that a number of the incidents and matters did involve contraventions of the applicable rules by Mr Jones. These included engaging in aerial photography without holding a commercial pilot’s licence, leaving a helicopter unattended while the engine was running, staging a race in a helicopter against his brother-in-law on a jet ski, towing his son on a wave board, attempting to snare and tow a crocodile, failing to wear seat belts correctly and allowing his son to start a helicopter engine.
While he was not involved in as many contraventions as CASA contended, the Tribunal found that Mr Jones had engaged in a pattern of conduct that demonstrated a poor knowledge of both the law and applicable flight manuals and safety notices as well as an unhealthy attitude towards risk and flawed judgment and decision-making skills. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Jones had failed in his duty with respect to the safe navigation and operation of aircraft. It also found that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a pilot’s licence.
In relation to whether Mr Jones’s licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled, the Tribunal considered regulatory action was required but it was not satisfied that cancellation was necessary or appropriate. It concluded that Mr Jones’s identified shortcomings, while serious, could be addressed through appropriate training and testing.
The Tribunal set aside CASA’s decision and ordered that Mr Jones’s licences be suspended until he is able to demonstrate by seeking and receiving an appropriate certification that he has attended to the gaps in his knowledge and has the decision-making skills required for the flight crew licences he holds. 
National Disability Insurance Scheme
ZNDV and National Disability Insurance Agency
[2014] AATA 921; 25 November 2014
Deputy President Katherine Bean and Member Ian Thompson 
Whether the National Disability Insurance Scheme should fund an occupational therapy room and equipment
The applicant, a five-year old child with Asperger’s syndrome, was accepted as a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) approved a plan setting out a range of supports that would be funded under the NDIS. Additional supports requested by the applicant’s family were not approved, including funding for equipment which would allow them to set up an occupational therapy room for use in the family home. The NDIA was not satisfied that funding for a sensory room and associated equipment was a reasonable and necessary support under section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. 
The applicant’s mother applied for an internal review of the NDIA’s decision. The original decision was varied in certain respects. However, the part of the decision denying the request for the occupational therapy equipment was not changed. The applicant’s mother applied to the Tribunal for review of the internal review decision.
The primary issue for the Tribunal to determine was whether the applicant’s plan should be varied to include funding of approximately $10,000 for the occupational therapy equipment. The Tribunal noted that, in deciding whether a support is reasonable and necessary, each of a number of criteria must be satisfied, including:
•	the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative supports, and
•	the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice.
It was contended for the applicant that he would be likely to derive the following benefits from having an occupational therapy room at home: the development of gross and fine motor skills, body awareness, physical development and confidence, strength, muscle tone and postural control, motor coordination, modulation of arousal, and self-regulation and management of anxiety/reduction of stress levels. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the applicant was progressing well in each of the areas relating to physical development compared with other children his age and the Tribunal was not persuaded that he required the room to assist in these areas. 
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant required assistance in the areas of anxiety and arousal management and self-regulation. However, it also accepted expert evidence that an occupational therapy room has not been shown to be effective in assisting with these issues. The expert evidence was that cognitive behaviour therapy and movement breaks have been shown to be effective.
The Tribunal concluded that, given the significant cost, the provision of the equipment would not represent value for money. For the same reasons, the Tribunal would not have been satisfied that the room would be, or be likely to be, effective and beneficial for the applicant having regard to current good practice. 
During the course of the review, the parties agreed that certain other additional supports should be included in the plan. The Tribunal varied the decision under review to give effect to the agreement.
National Security And Passports
MYVC and Director-General of Security
MYVC and Minister for Foreign Affairs
[2014] AATA 511; 28 July 2014
Deputy President Robin Handley, Senior Member Geri Ettinger and Senior Member Jill Toohey
Whether ASIO had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia – whether the applicant’s passport should be cancelled
MYVC arrived in Australia in 2002 and became a citizen in 2006. He subsequently spent significant time outside Australia. In 2012, he was interviewed by officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) about alleged involvement in people smuggling activities which he denied. In 2013, the Director-General of Security made an adverse security assessment and requested that the Minister for Foreign Affairs cancel MYVC’s passport and refuse to issue him a new passport should he reapply. The Minister accepted the recommendation and decided to cancel MYVC’s passport. MYVC applied to the Tribunal for a review of the adverse security assessment and the Minister’s decision to cancel his passport. 
The functions of ASIO include advising Ministers and Commonwealth authorities in respect of matters relating to security. The term “security” is defined in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 which was amended in 2010 to include the protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrity from serious threats. Section 14 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 provides that ASIO can request the refusal or cancellation of an Australian passport if it suspects on reasonable grounds that the person would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country and that the person should be refused a passport in order to prevent the person from engaging in that conduct.
In accordance with the procedure for reviews of this kind set out in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the material before the Tribunal included both open and closed evidence and submissions. The closed evidence and submissions were the subject of Ministerial certificates and could not be disclosed to MYVC. The Tribunal undertook to put any questions identified by MYVC’s representative to ASIO’s witness in the part of the hearing conducted in the absence of MYVC or his representative.
MYVC’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he had had no involvement in people smuggling activities, nor earned any money from such activities. His travel to different countries was for the purposes of his business or to visit his family. However, the Tribunal was satisfied from the evidence subject to the Ministerial certificates that MYVC had been involved in people smuggling activities for a number of years, facilitating the arrival in Australia of a significant number of people. He had derived substantial earnings from these activities.
The Tribunal held that organised people smuggling could pose a serious threat to Australia’s border integrity and therefore falls within the definition of “security”. While not satisfied on the open evidence alone, the Tribunal was satisfied from the closed evidence that the Director-General could suspect on reasonable grounds that, if MYVC holds an Australian passport, he would be likely to engage in conduct which might prejudice the security of Australia and that denying him a passport would have an important preventative effect on his ability to engage in people smuggling activities. The Tribunal was also satisfied there were strong grounds supporting the exercise of the Minister’s powers to cancel MYVC’s passport. 
The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
Social Security
Hananeia and Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department
[2015] AATA 319; 14 May 2015
Deputy President Stanley Hotop 
Whether the applicant was entitled to an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment 
Mr Hananeia was an Australian resident who was holidaying in Bali in October 2002. When the bombing at the Sari Club occurred, he was at his hotel which was located approximately 600 metres in a straight line from the Sari Club or 1.9 kilometres by road. Mr Hananeia went to the bomb site, arriving about 10 to 15 minutes later. He said he tried to help people when he first arrived but left after a certain amount of time. He returned later that night and again the next morning to do some filming before leaving Bali later that day. Following his return to Australia, Mr Hananeia was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. 
In December 2013, Mr Hananeia applied for an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment (AVTOP) but his claim was refused. The decision was affirmed on internal review and by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). Mr Hananeia applied to the Tribunal for review of the SSAT’s decision.
To qualify for an AVTOP under section 1061PAA of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act), a person must, among other criteria, be a primary victim or a secondary victim of a declared overseas terrorist act. A primary victim is a person who was in the place where the terrorist act occurred and was harmed as a direct result of the terrorist act. The Prime Minster has made a declaration that the Bali bombings are a declared overseas terrorist act.
The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Hananeia was in the place where the terrorist act occurred. The Tribunal held that the Prime Minister’s declaration specifies for the purposes of the Act the place or location where the relevant terrorist act occurred. In this case, the requirements of the Act could only be satisfied if Mr Hananeia was “at the Sari Club, Kuta”. The Tribunal also held that, while the Act does not expressly include a temporal element, such a temporal requirement is necessarily to be implied. The person must be in the place where the terrorist act occurred at the time when it occurred. 
The Tribunal concluded that, as Mr Hananeia was neither in the place where the declared overseas terrorist act occurred nor in close proximity to that place, he did not qualify for the AVTOP. The Tribunal also found that the harm to Mr Hananeia’s mental health was not as a direct result of the terrorist act but suffered as a result of his voluntarily and unnecessarily attending the site of the terrorist act after it occurred.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Rus and Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department 
[2015] AATA 367; 28 May 2015
Senior Member John Handley
Whether the Tribunal should extend the time for an applicant to lodge an application for review of a decision about entitlement to an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment
Ms Rus is an Australian resident who was travelling to her workplace in London when terrorist acts took place on 7 July 2005. The Tube train on which she was travelling was stopped and all passengers were asked to alight. Ms Rus then boarded a No. 18 bus in Tavistock Square. She considered boarding a No. 30 bus but decided to stay where she was. After the bus was redirected, Ms Rus alighted and started walking towards her office. When she was 142 metres from Tavistock Square, she heard an explosion and felt a tremor. She did not have direct line of sight to Tavistock Square. She became aware that a No. 30 bus had been blown up in Tavistock Square after looking at the news online when she got to work. A few weeks after the bombings, Ms Rus suffered a stroke. She was also later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In September 2014, Ms Rus applied for an AVTOP but her claim was refused. This primary decision was affirmed on internal review and by the SSAT. Ms Rus applied to the Tribunal for review of the SSAT’s decision. As the application was lodged outside the 28-day time limit, Ms Rus applied to the Tribunal to extend the time to lodge her application. The Secretary opposed the application. In deciding whether to grant the extension of time, the Tribunal was required to determine whether her application had some prospect of success if the time was extended.
The Prime Minister has made a declaration that the bus bombing at Tavistock Square on 7 July 2005 is a declared overseas terrorist act. The primary issue for the Tribunal was whether Ms Rus was in the place where the terrorist act occurred.
The Tribunal held that the words “in the place” are intended to mean within the immediate vicinity of or close proximity to the location of the terrorist act. In this case, the place where the terrorist attack occurred was in Tavistock Square. The Tribunal found that Ms Rus was not in the immediate vicinity of or in close proximity to that place. Although she was aware that something was happening within her vicinity, she did not know that the bombing had occurred until she arrived at her workplace and saw photographs on the Internet. 
The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Rus would have no prospect of success and that granting an extension of time to commence the proceedings would be futile. The Tribunal refused the application.
Sharp and Secretary, Department of Social Services 
[2015] AATA 127; 6 March 2015
Member Regina Perton
Whether the applicant was entitled to receive parenting payment – use of material from Facebook as evidence in deciding whether the applicant was a member of a couple 
Ms Sharp and Mr O’Brien had an intermittent relationship which ended in mid-2009 when she was pregnant with their first child. In 2012, they bought a three-storey, four-bedroom house which they owned as joint tenants so their son had a better environment and to enable Mr O’Brien to spend time with him. Ms Sharp and Mr O’Brien had separate bedrooms on different floors of the property. In January 2014, Ms Sharp announced on Facebook that she and Mr O’Brien were “expecting a little girl”. She responded to congratulatory posts from friends and family with comments including “it’s been a long road” and “we are over the moon”. 
In May 2014, Centrelink cancelled Ms Sharp’s parenting payment on the basis that she and Mr O’Brien were members of a couple. This primary decision was affirmed on internal review and by the SSAT. Ms Sharp applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.
In deciding whether Ms Sharp was a member of a couple as defined in section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991, the Tribunal was required to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship at May 2014, including the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of their household, the social aspects of the relationship, any sexual relationship between them and the nature of their commitment to each other. In relation to the social aspects of their relationship, there was evidence that Ms Sharp and Mr O’Brien had started holidaying at a particular camping ground when they were first together and this had continued despite the change in their relationship. A Facebook entry showed they had stayed there from Boxing Day in 2013. 
The Tribunal noted that Ms Sharp and Mr O’Brien did not consider themselves to be in a de facto relationship. However, the nature of their property ownership as joint tenants was an objective indicator of the way a couple would purchase a property and also indicated a pooling of financial resources. The announcement of the pregnancy on Facebook seemed to point to a desired baby that both Ms Sharp and Mr O’Brien were excited about. Taking into account the criteria as a whole, the Tribunal found that Ms Sharp was a member of a couple in May 2014. 
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Ms Sharp’s parenting payment.
Sports Anti-Doping
Kennedy and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and Chief Executive Officer, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Earl and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and Chief Executive Officer, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
[2014] AATA 967; 31 December 2014
[2014] AATA 968; 31 December 2014
Deputy President Stephen Frost
Whether entries made on the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel’s Register of Findings relating to “possible non-presence anti-doping rule violations” by two professional sportsmen should be upheld
The applicants were professional sportsmen playing in the National Rugby League (NRL) competition. The Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel formed a view that it was possible that each of the applicants had contravened the National Anti-Doping Scheme (NAD Scheme) set out in the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006. Neither of the applicants was the subject of an “adverse analytical finding” (such as the presence of a prohibited substance in their blood or urine sample), but the Panel considered that it was possible that they had attempted to use, or possessed (or in Mr Earl’s case, actually used) a prohibited substance. Whether the applicants actually committed a non-presence anti-doping rule violation would be considered by the NRL’s Anti-Doping Tribunal. 
The information relied on by the Panel to make its findings had been provided to it by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). ASADA had obtained the information from the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), which in turn had obtained it from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs Service).
The applicants claimed that the information in the possession of the Customs Service, which it had sourced from another individual known to the applicants, had been obtained unlawfully. The information was held on a mobile phone carried by that individual when he arrived at Sydney airport on a flight from overseas. The applicants accepted that the Customs officers were entitled to read the contents of the mobile phone, but they were not empowered to make a copy of those contents, which they did. The applicants claimed that the Customs Service should not have provided the copied material to the ACC and that the ACC should not have made the material available to ASADA. The applicants claimed that the Panel should not have had regard to the information sourced in that way, and submitted that the Tribunal should set aside the findings of the Panel because the information had been obtained and used improperly.
The Tribunal found that the copying of the material by the Customs officers was authorised by the Customs Act 1901. The Customs Service was under an obligation to provide the material to the ACC in response to the ACC’s formal notice requiring its production, and the ACC was authorised to disseminate the material to ASADA. Accordingly, the Panel was entitled to take the material into account in deciding whether to make the entries on the Register of Findings.
The Tribunal then considered whether the findings made by the Panel in relation to the possible non-presence anti-doping rule violations should be affirmed or set aside. The Tribunal held that the NAD Scheme contemplates that a relevant finding would only be made if there were material available which, rationally analysed, could support a finding that it is possible that an athlete has committed a violation. In respect of Mr Kennedy, the Tribunal concluded that all the findings were justified, and the Panel’s decision to make the relevant entries on the Register was affirmed. In respect of Mr Earl, the Tribunal concluded that most, but not all, of the Panel’s findings were justified. The Tribunal set aside those findings that were not justified, and substituted a decision that the entries should not be made. The remaining entries were affirmed.
Taxation
GHP 104 160 689 Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation
[2014] AATA 515; 29 July 2014
[2014] AATA 869; 24 November 2014
President Justice Duncan Kerr
Whether the applicant was entitled to deductions for research and development expenditure at a premium rate
The applicant was carrying out mining operations at a number of sites in Australia. Over several income tax years, related companies undertook research and development activities directed to developing knowledge and increasing the effectiveness of their copper and lead-zinc concentrators and a copper smelter. Plant trials were conducted to test changes under ordinary operational conditions and to assess the impacts of the changes. 
The company claimed that it was entitled to deductions at the premium rate of 125 per cent for a considerable part of the expenditure incurred during the plant trials in accordance with section 73B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the Act). For each of the relevant income tax years, the Commissioner of Taxation disallowed many of the items of expenditure. The company applied to the Tribunal for review of these decisions.
There were two main issues for the Tribunal to decide:
•	whether the disputed expenditure was feedstock expenditure which is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of research and development expenditure, and 
•	whether overlap between the company’s research and development activities in respect of its Mt Isa copper concentrator and smelter meant that certain expenditure became feedstock expenditure.
Feedstock expenditure was defined in the Act to mean “expenditure incurred by the company in acquiring or producing materials or goods to be the subject of processing or transformation by the company in research and development activities”. The Commissioner contended that all of the disputed expenditure was feedstock expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the feedstock expenditure exclusion only applies to expenditure on such goods or materials as are acquired or produced in order that they will be subjected to processing or transformation in the research and development activity. Contrary to the Commissioner’s arguments, the exclusion does not extend to what a company spends to subject those goods or materials to processing or transformation. 
The Tribunal found that the company’s feedstock expenditure consisted only of the following types of expenditure: expenditure incurred in acquiring or producing ores for the plant trials in its concentrator plants; expenditure incurred in acquiring or producing copper concentrate to be fed into the company’s Mt Isa smelter process for the plant trials; and expenditure incurred on the oxygen inserted into the smelter process. None of the other disputed expenditure items was feedstock expenditure and could therefore be deducted at the premium rate. 
In relation to the overlap issue, the evidence was that, when the company’s research and development activities were being undertaken concurrently in the Mt Isa copper concentrator and smelter, all of the concentrate produced was sent to the smelter. The Tribunal considered whether the definition of feedstock expenditure could be interpreted so as to exclude expenditure incurred in producing products in other research and development activities but held that the statutory language was clear. The Tribunal found that the expenditure incurred in producing copper concentrates to be used in the smelter plant trials was feedstock expenditure. 
The Tribunal varied the Commissioner’s decisions, allowing the company to claim deductions at the premium rate for some of the expenditure incurred during the plant trials. It also varied the amounts of shortfall interest charge imposed on the company.
Veterans’ Affairs
Hoang and Repatriation Commission
[2015] AATA 470; 30 June 2015
Deputy President James Constance 
Whether the applicant is entitled to benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 as a result of service with the South Vietnam Air Force
Mr Hoang claimed he was a member of the South Vietnam Air Force during the Vietnam War. In 2013, Mr Hoang applied to the Repatriation Commission to have his service recognised as qualifying service for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) on the basis that he was an allied veteran. The Commission decided that he did not render qualifying service. Mr Hoang applied to the Tribunal for review of the Commission’s decision. 
There were three issues for the Tribunal to determine:
•	whether Mr Hoang enlisted as a member of the South Vietnam Air Force and rendered continuous full-time service during the relevant period of hostilities (31 July 1962 to 11 January 1973) 
•	whether he incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy during that service, and
•	if so, whether the service was rendered in connection with a war in which the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia were engaged.
In relation to his enlistment and period of service, the Tribunal considered evidence from Mr Hoang and from two other men who said they first met him in 1972. The Tribunal also took into account a photograph of Mr Hoang wearing the uniform of the South Vietnam Air Force cadets and a German travel document issued to him in 1982 which noted his occupation as a pilot. While there were some inconsistencies in Mr Hoang’s evidence as to when he joined the Air Force, the Tribunal was satisfied that he had enlisted as a trainee helicopter pilot sometime in 1972 and continued as a member of the Air Force until the fall of Saigon.
Mr Hoang gave evidence that he had been present during Vietcong attacks on two different Air Force bases in 1972. He claimed that, in both attacks, rockets had exploded close to him. While there were discrepancies in his evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied Mr Hoang was an honest witness and it took into account the effects of the passage of time on his memory in accordance with section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal was satisfied that the first attack had occurred in 1972, that Mr Hoang was exposed to the risk of death or injury and therefore incurred danger from hostile forces. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Mr Hoang’s service was rendered in connection with a war in which Australian forces were engaged.
The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commission and substituted it with a decision that Mr Hoang had rendered qualifying service within the meaning of the Act. 
Workers’ Compensation
Ripper and Australian Postal Corporation
[2015] AATA 15; 14 January 2015
Senior Member Graham Friedman
Whether a return to work program was a suitable rehabilitation program – whether the applicant refused or failed to undertake the rehabilitation program
Ms Ripper suffered an injury to her left knee in a work-related motor vehicle accident in 2001. The Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) accepted liability to pay compensation in respect of the injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). Aggravations to the injury caused her to reduce her working hours from 2008.
In September 2011, Australia Post met with Ms Ripper and Ms Ripper’s general practitioner to discuss a return to work program. Ms Ripper was subsequently referred for a rehabilitation pain management assessment which led to her participation in a pain management program. Ms Ripper’s doctor certified that Ms Ripper could only work 1.5 hours per day. However, the multidisciplinary rehabilitation pain management team concluded she had a work capacity of two hours per day. 
In June 2012, Australia Post determined that Ms Ripper should commence a rehabilitation upgrade program starting with two hours’ work one day a week and increasing the number of hours and days over time. Ms Ripper commenced the program but managed to work only 1.5 hours per day. In July 2012, Ms Ripper’s compensation payments were suspended on the basis that she had failed to undertake or continue to participate in the program. Ms Ripper requested reconsideration of the decision that she undertake the rehabilitation program and the decision to suspend her compensation payments. Both decisions were affirmed and she applied to the Tribunal for review.
The issues before the Tribunal were:
•	whether the rehabilitation program was valid and, if so, whether it was suitable; and
•	whether Ms Ripper had failed to undertake the program and, if so, without reasonable excuse.
It was argued for Ms Ripper that the program was invalid because Australia Post had failed to have regard to two matters as required by section 37(3) of the Act. Firstly, it was contended that Australia Post had failed to have regard to her attitude to the program. While the Tribunal noted that communication with Ms Ripper was not optimal, it found Australia Post did have regard to her attitude to the program. Secondly, it was submitted that Australia Post had failed to consult Ms Ripper and her doctor in developing the program in accordance with Comcare’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation Authorities 2005. However, the Tribunal found that Australia Post did consult Ms Ripper and made reasonable attempts to consult the doctor, including by sending her the proposed program and attempting to contact her on two occasions. 
In considering whether the rehabilitation program was suitable, the Tribunal took into account a range of matters, including that there was only a 30 minute difference between the view of Ms Ripper’s doctor and the multidisciplinary team as to her capacity and that the program provided for ongoing reviews as to her fitness for work. The Tribunal found that the program was flexible enough to accommodate Ms Ripper’s situation and was a suitable program.
The Tribunal held that, for the purposes of the Act, the requirement to undertake a rehabilitation program means more than to begin or to commence the program, but less than completing it. It is synonymous with “to participate in” or “to engage in” and by inference requires a real or genuine level of commitment. The Tribunal found that Ms Ripper made a genuine and reasonable effort within her physical capability to fulfil her obligations under the program. She complied substantially with the program and, as a result, did not fail to undertake the program.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision that she should undertake the rehabilitation program but set aside the decision to suspend her compensation payments.
Appendix // 08 Speeches, publications and other activities
AAT members and staff undertake a wide range of activities that assist to raise awareness of the AAT’s role, procedures and activities. Members and staff give speeches at conferences and seminars, participate in training and education activities, publish books and articles and undertake other engagement activities. The record of activities for 2014–15 is in four lists: speeches and presentations; competition adjudication and training; publications; and other engagement activities. The lists in Tables A8.1, A8.2 and A8.4 are arranged by date and the list in Table A8.3 is in alphabetical order.
Table A8.1 Speeches and presentations
Title/role	Event/organisation	Participant/speaker(s)	Date	
Federal Administrative Review and its Accessibility	Administrative Law Conference, Federal Court of Australia, Melbourne 	Senior Member Jill Toohey	29 August 2014	
Integrated Dispute Resolution at the AAT	National Mediation Conference, Melbourne	Justin Toohey, Director ADR	11 September 2014	
Administrative Law Challenges and the National Disability Insurance Scheme	Seminar, Australian Institute of Administrative Law, Canberra	Senior Member Jill Toohey	14 October 2014	
Merits Review through the Prism of National Disability Insurance Agency Decisions	Government and Public Law Update, University of New South Wales, Sydney	Senior Member Jill Toohey	15 October 2014	
Engaging with State and Federal Policy Makers to Increase Australia’s Long‑Term Economic and Social Prosperity	Launch of A Federation for the 21st Century, Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Sydney	Justice Duncan Kerr	27 October 2014	
The AAT: Practical Aspects	Lecture, University of Canberra, Canberra	Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain 	6 November 2014	
Observations and Insights regarding Licensee AAT Cases	Seminar, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Licensees Association, Melbourne	Deputy President Stephanie Forgie	18 November 2014	
Considerations on an Application for a Telecommunications Interception Warrant 	State Crime Command Professional Development Day, New South Wales Police, Parramatta 	Deputy President James Constance	3 December 2014	
Welcome and Opening Address	Hot Topics in Commonwealth Compensation Seminar, Law Council of Australia, Sydney	Justice Duncan Kerr	12 December 2014	
The Role of the Mediator	Seminar, ACT Law Society, Canberra	Conference Registrar Kim Lackenby	19 February 2015	
The AAT: Practical Aspects 	Lecture, University of Canberra, Canberra 	Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain 	19 February 2015	
The Rise of Tribunals and Access to Justice	Law Summer School 2015, Law Society of Western Australia, Perth	Justice Duncan Kerr	20 February 2015	
The National Disability Insurance Scheme: A New Challenge in Administrative Decision‑Making	Summer Law Series, Legal Aid Western Australia, Perth	Senior Member Jill Toohey	27 February 2015	
Proceeds of Crime Examinations 	Australian Federal Police Conference, Canberra	Deputy President James Constance	3 February 2015	
Unpacking the Decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal	2015 National Disability Summit, Melbourne	Professor Ronald McCallum AO	18 March 2015	
Dispute Resolution in Civil Practice	Lecture, University of Technology, Sydney	Senior Member Geri Ettinger	20 March 2015	
Boundaries and Ethical Dilemmas	Understanding and Engaging People in Tribunals Program, National Judicial College of Australia, Melbourne and Sydney	Justice Duncan Kerr	9 & 14 April 2015	
GST: A Vignette from the Trenches of Merits Review	27th ATAX GST Conference, University of New South Wales, Brisbane	Deputy President Stephanie Forgie	20 April 2015	
Welcome and Opening Address	Hot Topics in Commonwealth Compensation Seminar, Law Council of Australia, Melbourne	Justice Duncan Kerr	22 May 2015	
The Role of a Tribunal Member	Training Day, Tasmanian Mental Health Tribunal, Campbell Town	Justice Duncan Kerr	25 May 2015	
Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Processes, Expectations, Issues	Ex‑Service Organisations Advocacy Conference, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Canberra	Conference Registrar
Kim Lackenby	26 May 2015	
Welcome and Opening Address		2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne	Justice Duncan Kerr	4 June 2015	
Panel Member, Civil and Administrative Tribunals Retrospective and Prospective	2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne	Justice Duncan Kerr	4 June 2015	
Panel Member, Role of Specialist Members on Tribunal Panels	2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne	Member Regina Perton	5 June 2015	
Freedom of Information	Lecture, Australian National University, Canberra	Senior Member James Popple 	21 June 2015	
Co‑Presenter, Tribunal Amalgamation	FOI and Litigation Branch Litigation Conference, Department of Human Services, Sydney	Christopher Matthies, Executive Director Information and Development	24 June 2015	
Table A8.2 Competition adjudication and training 
Title/role	Event/organisation	Participant(s)/presenter(s)	Date	
Mooting Competition Adjudicator	National Mooting Competition, Administrative Appeals Tribunal	Justice Duncan Kerr, President
Deputy Presidents Philip Hack, Robin Handley, Stanley Hotop and Brian Tamberlin
Former Deputy President Deane Jarvis
Senior Members Egon Fice, Gina Lazanas, Bernard McCabe, Frank O’Loughlin, Steven Penglis and Jill Toohey
Members Conrad Ermert and Sandra Taglieri	July – October 2014	
ADR Skills Development for Registrars	ACT Magistrates Court, Canberra	Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain	4 & 11 September 2014
30 April 2015	
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator	Advanced Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney	Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager	8 October 2014	
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator	Beginners Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney	Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager	13 October 2014	
Presiding Judge for Mock Trials	Tasmanian Advocacy Convention, Hobart	Justice Duncan Kerr	6 December 2014	
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator	Advanced Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney	Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager	16 March 2015	
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator	Negotiating Outcomes on Time Competition, Administrative Appeals Tribunal	Justice Duncan Kerr
Senior Members Geri Ettinger and Bernard McCabe
Conference Registrars Nicole Barker, Michelle East, Brian Leaver, Jennifer Lock, Siobhan Ni Fhaolain, Franca Petrone and Mersina Stratos
District Registrar Nicola Colbran
Justin Toohey, Director ADR
Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager	9, 10, 23, 24 & 30 May 2015	
Table A8.3 Publications
Title	Author 	Citation/Publisher	
Australian Tax Handbook 2015	Deputy President Professor Robert Deutsch (co‑author)	Thomson Reuters	
Private Life in a Digital World	Member Dr Gordon Hughes (co‑author)	Thomson Reuters	
Table A8.4 Other engagement activities
Title/role	Event/organisation	Participant/speaker(s)	Date	
Participant 	Stakeholder meeting for NDIS Barkly Region Trial Site, Darwin	District Registrar Catherine Cashen 	18 August 2014	
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters	Community Workers Forum, Adelaide 	District Registrar Catherine Cashen	10 October 2014	
Management of NDIS Matters in the AAT	External Merits Review Support Component Workshop, Melbourne	Senior Member Jill Toohey
Conference Registrar Tracy Sheedy
District Registrar Catherine Cashen 	20 & 21 October 2014	
Management of NDIS Matters in the AAT	National Disability Services Tennant Creek Regional Forum, Tennant Creek	District Registrar Catherine Cashen	30 October 2014	
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters	Community Workers Forum, Elizabeth	Conference Registrar Jennifer Lock	8 May 2015	
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters	Community Workers Forum, Brisbane	Justin Toohey, Director ADR	10 June 2015	

Appendix // 09 Other reporting requirements
Advertising and market research
The AAT did not undertake any advertising campaigns in 2014–15.
Non‑campaign advertising expenditure of $196.90 (incl. GST) was paid to Mitchell & Partners Australia for advertising employment vacancies in 2014–15. Amounts paid for non‑campaign advertising in the last three reporting periods is shown in Table A9.1.
Table A9.1 Trends in non‑campaign advertising
Year	Organisation	Cost (incl. GST)	
2012–13	Adcorp Australia	$38,524.29	
2013–14	Adcorp Australia	$1,041.18	
2014–15	Mitchell & Partners Australia	$196.90	
The AAT did not pay any amounts to market research, polling or direct mailing organisations during the reporting year.
Changes to disability reporting in annual reports
Since 1994, Commonwealth departments and agencies have reported on their performance as policy adviser, purchaser, employer, regulator and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies have no longer been required to report on these functions.
The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by the National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, which sets out a ten year national policy framework to improve the lives of people with disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. A high level two‑yearly report will track progress against each of the six outcome areas of the Strategy and present a picture of how people with disability are faring. The first of these reports will be available in late 2014, and can be found at www.dss.gov.au.
Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance
The AAT does not develop or administer legislation or policy relating to the environment but takes steps to ensure our operations are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable way.
When arranging new leases and refurbishments, we give consideration to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The AAT’s Long Term Accommodation Masterplan, adopted in May 2015, states a preference for leases in buildings with NABERS ratings of at least 4.5 and refers to compliance with a range of policies, including the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations Policy, ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–2015 and the National Waste Policy. The AAT signed a lease for new premises in Sydney on 30 June 2015 which includes the required Green Lease Schedule and is in a building with a NABERS rating of 5.
We also limit our impact on the environment in day‑to‑day operations by implementing simple measures such as ensuring lights are switched off when not required, ensuring any leased vehicles have a high Green Vehicle Guide rating and recycling office waste.
Table A9.2 Environmental performance reporting 
Theme 	Steps taken to reduce effect 	Measures to review and improve reducing the effect 	
Energy efficiency 	Install sensor‑controlled lighting in any updates to premises.
Consider energy ratings of office machines when replacement is necessary. 	General energy consumption fell by three per cent during the reporting year.	
Vehicles 	Ensure the average Green Vehicle Guide rating of the AAT’s leased vehicles is as high as possible. 	The AAT’s one leased vehicle as at 30 June 2015 has a rating of 14. 	
Waste 	Participate in office waste recycling schemes. 	All registries recycled paper during the reporting year.
Two registries also recycled glass, plastics and metals, and two other registries recycled toner cartridges.
The Adelaide Registry recycled paper, comingled, organic and battery materials.
As the AAT uses whole‑of‑building recycling schemes, separate data on recycling quantities is not currently available. 	
Water 	Install water saving devices such as dual‑flush cisterns and waterless urinals in any updates to premises. 	The AAT is not able to access data on water consumption in each of its tenancies. 	
GRANTS PROGRAMS
The AAT does not administer any grants programs.
End matter
Glossary
Term	Definition	
AASB	Australian Accounting Standards Board	
AAT	Administrative Appeals Tribunal	
ADR	Alternative dispute resolution	
Affirm	If the Tribunal affirms a decision under review, the original decision stands (is unchanged).	
Alternative dispute resolution	A process for resolving a dispute, other than at a hearing. The AAT employs five processes: conference, conciliation, mediation, case appraisal and neutral evaluation.	
Applicant	The person, organisation, department or agency that has lodged an application with the AAT.	
Application for extension of time	An application for review of a decision must be lodged with the AAT within a certain time limit. However, an application may be made to extend the time for lodging an application.	
APRA	Australian Prudential Regulation Authority	
APS	Australian Public Service	
ASIC	Australian Securities and Investments Commission	
ASIO	Australian Security Intelligence Organisation	
AVS	Australian Valuation Solutions	
CASA	Civil Aviation Safety Authority	
Case appraisal	An alternative dispute resolution process conducted by an AAT member or other person, chosen on the basis of their knowledge of the subject matter, who assists the parties to resolve the dispute by providing a non-binding opinion on the facts in dispute and likely outcomes.	
COAT	Council of Australasian Tribunals	
Conciliation	An alternative dispute resolution process in which an AAT member or Conference Registrar assists the parties to identify the issues in dispute and endeavour to reach an agreement. The conciliator has no determinative role but may advise on or determine the conciliation process, make suggestions on terms of settlement and actively encourage the parties to reach an agreement. 	
Conference 	A meeting conducted by an AAT member or Conference Registrar with the parties and/or their representatives. Conferences provide an opportunity to discuss and define the issues in dispute, identify further evidence that may be gathered, explore whether the matter can be settled and discuss the future conduct of the matter. 	
Confidentiality order	The Tribunal may make an order directing that a hearing or part of a hearing be held in private. The Tribunal may also give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of a party or witness, evidence given before the Tribunal or matters contained in documents lodged with the AAT.	
CSS	Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme	
Directions hearing	A hearing to deal with procedural matters such as the exchange of statements or documents, to clarify issues relating to the conduct of a hearing or to progress a matter in which there has been delay by a party. Directions hearings are conducted by AAT members.	
Dismissal of application	The Tribunal may, in certain circumstances, dismiss an application without proceeding to review the decision. An application may be dismissed, for example, at the request of the parties, if the applicant fails to appear at an ADR process, directions hearing or hearing, or if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious. 	
GST	Goods and Services Tax	
Hearing	The occasion at which the parties may present to the Tribunal evidence and submissions in relation to the decision under review. Parties may call witnesses to give evidence. A hearing is conducted by one, two or three members.	
IASAJ	International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions	
Interlocutory application	Any application made by a party that relates to an application for review of a decision, including an application for an extension of time to lodge an application, to stay the operation of the decision under review or for a confidentiality order.	
Mediation	An alternative dispute resolution process during which an AAT member or Conference Registrar assists the parties to identify the issues in dispute, develop options, consider alternatives and endeavour to reach an agreement. The mediator has no advisory or determinative role in relation to the content of the dispute but may advise on or determine the mediation process.	
MRT	Migration Review Tribunal	
NAATI	National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters	
NDIA	National Disability Insurance Agency	
NDIS	National Disability Insurance Scheme	
Neutral evaluation	An alternative dispute resolution process in which an AAT member or other person, chosen on the basis of their knowledge of the subject matter, assists the parties to resolve the dispute by evaluating the facts and law at issue in the dispute and providing a non-binding opinion on the likely outcomes. 	
NOOT	Negotiating Outcomes on Time competition held by the AAT for university law students.	
OPA	Official Public Account	
Outreach	An AAT program that provides self-represented parties with information about AAT practices and procedures and other assistance in the review process.	
Party	A participant in the proceedings before the AAT. A party can be the person who makes the application, the decision-maker or other respondent to the application and any other person joined to the proceedings.	
Party joined	A person, department or agency whose interests are affected by a decision under review may be made a party to the proceeding by order of the Tribunal. This person, department, or agency is a party joined.	
PBS	Portfolio Budget Statements which are prepared to explain the Budget appropriations for agencies within a portfolio in terms of outcomes and programs.	
PSPF	Protective Security Policy Framework	
PSS	Public Sector Superannuation Scheme	
PSSap	Public Sector Superannuation accumulation plan 	
RRT	Refugee Review Tribunal	
Remit	The Tribunal may set aside a decision and remit it (send it back) to the original decision-maker to be reconsidered in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.	
Respondent	The party who responds to or answers an application; usually the department, agency or organisation that made the original decision.	
Section 37 Documents	The statement and documents that a decision-maker must provide to the AAT and the other party under section 37 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. They are generally known as the ‘T Documents’ and include the reasons for the decision under review and all other relevant documents.	
Set aside	The Tribunal may set aside a decision under review. The effect is that the Tribunal disagrees with the original decision and may make a new decision or remit the matter (send it back) to the original decision-maker.	
SSAT	Social Security Appeals Tribunal	
Stay order	An order of the AAT to suspend the operation or implementation of the decision under review until the matter is determined or resolved.	
Summons	A notice issued by the AAT calling a person to appear before it to give evidence or to produce documents to it.	
STCT	Small Taxation Claims Tribunal	
TRACS	The AAT’s electronic case management system.	
Vary	The Tribunal may vary a decision under review. This means that the Tribunal changes or alters the original decision.	
VRB	Veterans’ Review Board	

List of requirements

DESCRIPTION	PAGE	
Letter of transmittal	iii	
Table of contents	iv	
Index	191	
Glossary	184	
Contact officer(s)	ii	
Internet home page address and Internet address for report	ii	
Review by Agency Head		
Review by the President	2	
Review by the Registrar	6	
Summary of significant issues and developments*	2–9	
Overview of performance and financial results*	2–7	
Outlook for the following year*	2–7	
Significant issues and developments – portfolio*	Not applicable	
Agency Overview		
Role and functions	12	
Organisational structure	13–15, 128	
Outcome and programme structure	25	
Where outcome and programme structures differ from Portfolio Budget Statements/Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements or other portfolio statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change	Not applicable	
Portfolio structure	Not applicable	
Report on Performance		
Review of performance during the year in relation to programmes and contribution to outcomes	20–28	
Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in Portfolio Budget Statements/Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements or other portfolio statements	25–26	
Where performance targets differ from the Portfolio Budget Statements/Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements, details of both former and new targets, and reasons for the change	Not applicable	
Narrative discussion and analysis of performance	20–28	
Trend information	20–28	
Significant changes in nature of principal functions/services*	Not applicable	
Performance of purchaser/provider arrangements	Not applicable	
Factors, events or trends influencing agency performance*	20–28	
Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives*	52–53	
Performance against service charter customer service standards, complaints data, and the agency’s response to complaints	30–33	
Discussion and analysis of the agency’s financial performance	51	
Discussion of any significant changes in financial results from the prior year, from budget or anticipated to have a significant impact on future operations	Not applicable	
Agency resource statement and summary resource tables by outcomes	158–159	
Management and Accountability		
Corporate Governance		
Agency heads are required to certify their agency’s actions in dealing with fraud	53	
Statement of the main corporate governance practices in place	13–15, 50–53	
Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities*	13, 14, 50, 128	
Senior management committees and their roles*	51	
Corporate and operational plans and associated performance reporting and review*	7, 51	
Internal audit arrangements including approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk and arrangements to manage those risks*	52–53	
Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards*	54	
How nature and amount of remuneration for Senior Executive Service officers is determined*	56–57	
External Scrutiny		
Significant developments in external scrutiny	Not applicable	
Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals and by the Australian Information Commissioner	29–30	
Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or an agency capability review	30	
Management of Human Resources		
Assessment of effectiveness in managing and developing human resources to achieve agency objectives	55–61	
Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention*	56	
Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, individual flexibility arrangements (IFAs), determinations, common law contracts and Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)*	56–57	
Training and development undertaken and its impact*	58–59	
Work health and safety performance*	59–60	
Productivity gains*	61	
Statistics on staffing	55–56, 126–127	
Statistics on employees who identify as Indigenous	61, 126	
Enterprise or collective agreements, IFAs, determinations, common law contracts and AWAs	56	
Performance pay	57	
Assets Management		
Assessment of effectiveness of assets management 	Not applicable	
Purchasing		
Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles	51–52	
Consultants		
The annual report must include a summary statement detailing the number of new consultancy services contracts let during the year; the total actual expenditure on all new consultancy contracts let during the year (inclusive of GST); the number of ongoing consultancy contracts that were active in the reporting year; and the total actual expenditure in the reporting year on the ongoing consultancy contracts (inclusive of GST). The annual report must include a statement noting that information on contracts and consultancies is available through the AusTender website.	52	
Australian National Audit Office Access Clauses		
Absence of provisions in contracts allowing access by the Auditor-General	52	
Exempt Contracts		
Contracts exempted from publication in AusTender	52	
Small Business		
Procurement initiatives to support small business	52	
Financial Statements	66–118	
Other Mandatory Information 		
Work health and safety (Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011)	59–60	
Advertising and Market Research (Section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) and statement on advertising campaigns	180	
Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance (Section 516A of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)	180–181	
Compliance with the agency’s obligations under the Carer Recognition Act 2010	Not applicable	
Grant programmes	181	
Disability reporting – explicit and transparent reference to agency level information available through other reporting mechanisms	180	
Information Publication Scheme statement	30	
Correction of material errors in previous annual report	151, 154, 155, 156, 157	
Agency Resource Statements and Resources for Outcomes	158–159	
List of Requirements	187	
* Items marked with an asterisk are suggested rather than mandatory items for inclusion in the annual report.

Index
A
accessibility of AAT, 17, 31
Agency Multicultural Plan, 41
Indigenous access, 41
interpreting services, 17
Outreach program, 31
people with disability, 17
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
committees, see committees
divisions, 14
establishment, 12
functions and powers, 12
legislation, amendments to, 36–37 
members, see Members
organisational structure, 13–15, 128
relationships, 42–47
strategic plan, 7, 36, 42, 50, 51
advertising, 180
agency agreement, 56, 57
alternative dispute resolution, 15, 25, 39–40 
duration of, 39
guidelines, 16
number of processes, 154
timeliness of, 39
amalgamation of tribunals, 2–3, 6–7, 36, 42, 43–44, 51, 56, 58, 62, 63
appeals against decisions of AAT, 29, 155–157
applications, 
lodged and finalised, 8, 20, 144–151
management of, see practice and procedure
National Disability Insurance Scheme, 7, 24, 25, 144
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
social security, 21–22, 144
taxation, 23–24, 145–146
timeliness, 3, 8, 25–28
veterans’ affairs, 22, 144
workers’ compensation, 23, 145
audit, 52–53 
see also committees, Audit Committee
Auditor-General, reports by, 30
Australian Workplace Agreements, 56
B
Benevolent trust, 61–62
C
case appraisal, 15, 16, 184
number of, 154
committees, 51
Agency Bargaining Committee, 56
Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, 51
Audit Committee, 52–53 
Business Continuity Management Committee, 51
Executive Committee, 51
Executive Deputy Presidents Committee, 51
Health and Safety Committee, 60
Library Committee, 51, 63
National Consultative Committee, 61
National Disability Insurance Scheme Monitoring Committee, 51
Practice and Procedure Committee, 51
Practice and Procedure Consultative Group, 51
Professional Development Committee, 51, 58
Warrants Committee, 51
Commonwealth Ombudsman, 30
communication, 14, 62
AAT Alerts, 42
awareness raising activities, 39, 41, 45, 175–179
consultation and liaison, 9, 38, 39, 40, 43–44
information about the AAT, 17, 42
internal, 6, 62
media, 62
website, 7, 8, 17, 42, 62, 63
competitions,
mooting competition, 46
negotiation competition, 47
complaints, 18
Australian Human Rights Commission, to, 30
Commonwealth Ombudsman, to, 30
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, to, 30
AAT, to, 32–33
conciliation, 15, 16, 184
number of, 154
Conference Registrars, 4, 15, 38, 40, 41, 58, 59
conferences (ADR), 15, 16, 38, 184
complaints about, 32, 40
number of, 154
timeliness of first, 26, 27, 31
consultancies, 52
Council of Australasian Tribunals, 9, 44, 59
D
decisions, 12, 15, 16, 25
decisions of interest, 163–174
timeliness of delivery, 26, 27, 32
Deputy Presidents, 13, 14, 121–122 
additional functions, 33–34
Executive Deputy Presidents, 50, 51
number of, 13
disability reporting, 180
District Registrars, 50, 128
E
electronic service delivery/eServices, 40
environmental performance, 180–181
equal employment opportunity statistics, 61, 126
ethical standards, 54
external scrutiny of AAT, 29–30
expert evidence, 16, 28
guideline, 38
F
Family Court of Australia, 54
judges of, 13, 121
Federal Court of Australia, 9, 14, 44, 45, 54
appeals to, 29, 155–157
judges of, 13, 120–121
Federal Circuit Court of Australia, 29, 157
fees, 160–162
financial management, 7, 51
fraud control, 52–53
freedom of information, 12, 29–30
applications relating to, 24, 149
decision of interest, 164–165 
Information Publication Scheme, 30
merits review of decisions, transfer to the AAT, 43 
requests to the AAT, 29–30, 63
G
guides, see practice and procedure
guidelines, see practice and procedure
H
hearings, 15, 16, 25, 38, 58, 185
constitution of tribunals for, 155
number of, 154
timeliness of, 26, 27, 28
human resource management, 6, 9, 14, 55–62
I
information and records management, 9, 59, 62
information technology, see technology 
services
integrated dispute resolution, 4, 8, 38–39, 61
international relationships, 9, 45
interpreting services, 17
J
judicial review of decisions, 29, 155–157
jurisdiction
AAT, of, 12, 129–142
changes to, 12, 36
L
learning and development, 3, 9, 40, 54, 58–59
legal advice schemes, 17
legal and policy services, 63
library and information services, 63
M
market research, 180
mediation, 15, 16, 184
accreditation of mediators, 40 
number of, 154
Members, 13, 120–125
additional functions, 33–34
appointment of, 13 
changes to membership, 4–5, 124–125
number of, 13
professional development, 3, 58–59
N
National Disability Insurance Scheme
applications, 7, 24, 25, 144
decision of interest, 166–167
engagement activities, 40, 41, 175, 176, 179
neutral evaluation, 15, 16, 184
number of, 154
Norfolk Island
applications, 14, 150
jurisdiction of AAT, 12, 141–142
management of applications, 14, 44
O
occupational health and safety, see work health and safety
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, 30, 43
outcome and performance information, 25–26
resourcing tables, 158–59
Outreach program, 31
P
Parliamentary committees, 30
performance
deliverables, 25
highlights and achievements, 8–9
key performance indicators, 25
results, 25–26
practice and procedure
changes to, 8, 36–39
guides to, 16, 38
guidelines, 16, 17, 38
management of applications, 4, 15–16, 38
practice directions, 8, 16, 38–39 
President, 13, 14, 50, 120
additional functions, 33–34
overview by, 2–5
presidential members, 13, 120–122 
additional functions, 33–34
number of, 13
Principal Registry, 14
staff, 126
proceeds of crime examinations, 34
productivity gains, 61
professional development, see learning and development
property, 7, 9, 54
purchasing, 51–52
R
Registrar, 13, 14, 50
review by, 6–7
registries, 14–15
energy consumption, 181
staff, 126
risk management, 52–53
S
security, 54
self-represented parties, 17, 31
Senior Executive Service officers, 50, 128 
number of, 55, 126–127
remuneration, 56
Senior Members, 13, 14, 122
additional functions, 33–34
number of, 13	
Service Charter, 18, 30–33
service standards, 31–32 
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, 14
abolition of, 36
appeals against decisions of, 155
applications, 21, 23–24, 146
fees, 160–162
outcomes of appeals finalised, 156
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
timeliness, 27–28
social security
appeals against decisions of AAT, 155
applications, 20, 21–22, 144
outcomes of appeals finalised, 156
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
timeliness, 27–28
speeches and presentations, 175–177
staff, 13, 14–15
administrative structure, 128
changes to staff, 7
learning and development, 58–59
number of, 55–56, 126–127
performance management, 57
salary and remuneration, 57, 127
studies assistance, 57
T
taxation, see also Small Taxation Claims Tribunal and Taxation Appeals Division
applications, 20, 21, 23–24, 145–146
Taxation Appeals Division
appeals against decisions of AAT, 155
applications, 21, 23–24, 145–146 
outcomes of appeals finalised, 156
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
timeliness, 27–28
technology services, 63
time standards, 26–28
tribunals,
amalgamation, see amalgamation
resource-sharing arrangements, 44–45
U
users of the AAT, 36–42
see also accessibility of AAT and communication 
V
veterans’ affairs
appeals against decisions of AAT, 155
applications, 20, 21, 22, 144
outcomes of appeals finalised, 156
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
timeliness, 27–28
W
warrants, 33–34
work experience placements, 47
work health and safety, 59–60
workers’ compensation
appeals against decisions of AAT, 155
applications, 20, 21, 23, 145
outcomes of appeals finalised, 156
outcomes of applications finalised, 152–153
timeliness, 27–28
workplace diversity, 61

www.aat.gov.au