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
Classification	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

		Employment status				Employment arrangements
Classification	Salary range	Full-time	Part-time	Irregular/ Intermittent	Total	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	156^a	5^a	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-Generals'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
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

Total^a	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 hearing^a

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	63^b	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
	All applications		Social security		Veterans' affairs		Workers' compensation		Taxation Appeals Division		Small Taxation Claims Tribunal
	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%
By consent or withdrawn
Decision affirmed^a	458	7	10	< 1	2	< 1	432	30	8	< 1	1	< 1
Decision varied^a	492	7	26	1	34	9	64	5	324	23	39	20
Decision set aside^a	1,165	18	273	13	79	21	324	23	299	22	37	19
Dismissed by consent^b	90	1	30	1	3	1	7	< 1	36	3	3	2
Dismissed by operation of law^c	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 affirmed^d	1,017	15	420	20	74	20	138	10	189	14	29	15
Decision varied^d	51	< 1	9	< 1	8	2	9	< 1	18	1	0	0
Decision set aside^d	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 Tribunal^e	228	3	117	5	5	1	20	1	39	3	5	3
No jurisdiction^f	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
Other^g	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
Total^h	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 hearings^a	437	524	625
Hearings	1,063^b	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	2012–13^a		2013–14		2014–15
Tribunal type	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
Total^b	1,063	100	1,083	100	1,183	100
Total multi-member tribunals	168	16	104	10	71	6

^aThe 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.

^bPercentages 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
Jurisdiction	Section 44^a	Other^b	Section 44^a	Other^b	Section 44^a	Other^b
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 jurisdiction^a

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
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	103^b	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	103^b	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.

^bThe 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

¹Appropriation 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.

²Includes 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.

²Departmental 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.