Appendix // 01 Members of the AAT
Table A1.1 sets out a list of the members of the AAT as at 30 June 2015. Lists of the members who were appointed and reappointed in 2014–15 and members whose terms of appointment ended during the reporting year follow the table.
The list of members in Table A1.1 is ordered by membership category and then alphabetically. For members who have been reappointed, the first appointment date reflects the date from which there have been continuous appointments to the AAT.
The President, other judges and Deputy Presidents can exercise the powers of the Tribunal in any of the AAT's divisions. Senior Members and Members may exercise the powers of the Tribunal only in the divisions to which they have been assigned. The divisions to which Senior Members and Members were assigned as at 30 June 2015 are indicated in the table as follows:
G General Administrative Division
N National Disability Insurance Scheme Division
S Security Appeals Division
T Taxation Appeals Division
V Veterans' Appeals Division
Table A1.1 Members of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Name
|
First appointed
|
Appointment expires
|
Location
|
Divisions
|
President |
The Hon Justice Duncan Kerr, Chev LH |
16/05/2012 |
15/05/2017 |
Hobart |
|
Presidential members – Judges of the Federal Court of Australia |
The Hon Justice Michael Barker |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Perth |
|
The Hon Justice Annabelle Bennett AO |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Sydney |
|
The Hon Justice Richard Edmonds |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Sydney |
|
The Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Brisbane |
|
The Hon Justice Jayne Jagot |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Sydney |
|
The Hon Justice Susan Kenny |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Melbourne |
|
The Hon Justice John Logan RFD |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Brisbane |
|
The Hon Justice John Mansfield AM |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Adelaide |
|
The Hon Justice John Middleton |
24/11/2010 |
23/11/2015 |
Melbourne |
|
The Hon Justice Tony Pagone |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Melbourne |
|
The Hon Justice Nye Perram |
16/05/2013 |
15/05/2018 |
Sydney |
|
The Hon Justice Antony Siopis |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Perth |
|
The Hon Justice Richard White |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Adelaide |
|
Presidential members – Judges of the Family Court of Australia |
The Hon Justice Robert Benjamin |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Hobart |
|
The Hon Justice Victoria Bennett |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Melbourne |
|
The Hon Justice David Berman |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Adelaide |
|
The Hon Justice Christine Dawe |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Adelaide |
|
The Hon Justice Mary Finn |
23/11/2005 |
23/11/2015 |
Canberra |
|
The Hon Justice Colin Forrest |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Brisbane |
|
The Hon Justice Janine Stevenson |
29/05/2015 |
28/05/2020 |
Sydney |
|
Presidential members – Deputy Presidents – Full-time |
Ms Katherine Bean |
7/12/2009 |
31 May 2018 |
Adelaide |
|
Mr James Constance |
9/12/2010 |
8/12/2015 |
Sydney |
|
Miss Stephanie Forgie |
8/09/1988 |
3/11/2021 |
Melbourne |
|
Mr Philip Hack SC |
9/01/2006 |
30/11/2015 |
Brisbane |
|
Mr Gary Humphries |
1/01/2015 |
31/12/2019 |
Canberra |
|
Dr Christopher Kendall |
5/09/2014 |
29/06/2020 |
Perth |
|
Presidential members – Deputy Presidents – Part-time |
Ms Fiona Alpins |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Melbourne |
|
Professor Robert Deutsch |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Sydney |
|
Mr Stephen Frost |
24/08/2006 |
4/04/2017 |
Sydney |
|
Major General Gregory Melick AO RFD SC |
5/09/2014 |
4/09/2019 |
Hobart |
|
Mr Ian Molloy |
11/04/2013 |
10/04/2018 |
Brisbane |
|
The Hon Robert Nicholson AO |
6/09/2007 |
26/10/2015 |
Perth |
|
The Hon Brian Tamberlin QC |
23/11/2005 |
29/09/2015 |
Sydney |
|
Senior Members – Full-time |
Dr Damien Cremean |
1/06/2015 |
31/05/2020 |
Melbourne |
G, S, V |
Mr Egon Fice |
12/06/2003 |
31/05/2018 |
Melbourne |
G, S, T, V |
Mr John Handley |
14/06/1989 |
3/05/2018 |
Melbourne |
G, N, T, V |
Mr Bernard McCabe |
1/07/2001 |
30/11/2016 |
Brisbane |
G, S, T ,V |
Dr Peter McDermott RFD |
15/11/2004 |
14/02/2018 |
Brisbane |
G, T, V |
Dr James Popple |
1/01/2015 |
31/12/2017 |
Canberra |
G, S, T, V |
Ms Jill Toohey |
17/08/2009 |
4/09/2017 |
Sydney |
G, N, S, T, V |
Senior Members – Part-time |
Mr Anthony Cotter |
5/09/2014 |
4/09/2019 |
Brisbane |
G, T, V |
Ms Ann Cunningham |
5/09/1995 |
30/11/2017 |
Hobart |
G, N, S, T, V |
Mr Rodney Dunne |
15/06/2005 |
31/05/2018 |
Adelaide |
G, T, V |
Ms Geri Ettinger |
19/06/1991 |
25/01/2016 |
Sydney |
G, S, T, V |
Ms Naida Isenberg |
1/07/2001 |
30/11/ 2017 |
Sydney |
G, S, V |
Ms Gina Lazanas |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Sydney |
G, T, V |
Dr Kenneth Levy RFD |
5/07/2004 |
30/11/2016 |
Brisbane |
G, T, V |
Dr Nicholas Manetta |
5/08/2013 |
4/08/2018 |
Adelaide |
G, V |
Dr Teresa Nicoletti |
24/08/2006 |
30/11/2017 |
Sydney |
G, V |
Mr Francis O'Loughlin |
23/09/2009 |
16/01/2017 |
Melbourne |
G, T, V |
Mr Peter Taylor SC |
24/08/2006 |
30/11/2017 |
Sydney |
G, T, V |
Ms Chelsea Walsh |
1/06/2010 |
31/05/2018 |
Perth |
G, T, V |
Members – Full-time |
Ms Regina Perton OAM |
9/08/2004 |
4/09/2017 |
Melbourne |
G, N, S, V |
Members – Part-time |
Dr Ion Alexander |
2/08/2004 |
25/01/2017 |
Sydney |
G, V |
Mr Ronald Bartsch |
11/04/2013 |
10/04/2018 |
Sydney |
G |
Professor David Ben-Tovim |
1/12/2010 |
30/11/2015 |
Adelaide |
G, N, V |
Dr Michael Couch |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Sydney |
G, V |
Ms Lynne Coulson Barr |
5/08/2013 |
4/04/2018 |
Melbourne |
G, N |
Air Vice Marshal Franklin Cox AO (ret'd) |
24/08/2006 |
30/11/2015 |
Canberra |
G, V |
Dr Marella Denovan |
15/12/2005 |
30/11/2015 |
Brisbane |
G, V |
Brigadier Conrad Ermert (ret'd) |
19/06/1991 |
31/05/ 2017 |
Melbourne |
G, T, V |
Mr Warren Evans |
21/09/2006 |
30/11/2016 |
Perth |
G, V |
Mr Nicholas Gaudion |
11/04/2013 |
10/04/2018 |
Sydney |
G, T |
Dr Gordon Hughes |
5/07/2004 |
16/01/2017 |
Melbourne |
G, T, V |
Dr Bernard Hughson |
1/12/2010 |
30/11/2015 |
Canberra |
G, N, V |
Dr William Isles |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Sydney |
G, N, V |
Professor Ronald McCallum AO |
5/08/2013 |
4/08/2018 |
Sydney |
G, N |
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Ormston (ret'd) |
1/09/2011 |
31/08/2016 |
Adelaide |
G, S, V |
Miss Anne Shanahan |
19/06/1991 |
16/04/2018 |
Melbourne |
G, V |
Dr Leslie Stephan |
26/06/2015 |
25/06/2020 |
Adelaide |
G, V |
Dr Marian Sullivan |
5/04/2012 |
4/04/2017 |
Brisbane |
G, V |
Ms Sandra Taglieri |
5/08/2013 |
4/08/2018 |
Hobart |
G, N |
Mr Ian Thompson |
5/08/2013 |
4/08/2018 |
Adelaide |
G, N |
Dr Hooi Toh |
24/08/2006 |
30/11/2017 |
Sydney |
G, N, V |
Dr Robert Walters RFD |
16/11/2006 |
30/11/2017 |
Hobart |
G, V |
Brigadier Gerard Warner AM LVO (ret'd) |
15/06/2005 |
31/05/2018 |
Perth |
G, N, S, V |
Mr Simon Webb |
16/07/2001 |
4/09/2017 |
Canberra |
G, V |
Dr Peter Wilkins MBE |
24/08/2006 |
30/11/2015 |
Canberra |
G, N, V |
Appointments and cessations, 2014–15
New appointments
The Hon Justice Victoria Bennett
The Hon Justice David Berman
The Hon Justice Colin Forrest
The Hon Justice Tony Pagone
The Hon Justice Janine Stevenson
The Hon Justice Richard White
Deputy President Gary Humphries
Deputy President Dr Christopher Kendall
Deputy President Major-General Gregory Melick AO RFD SC
Senior Member Anthony Cotter
Senior Member Dr Damien Cremean
Senior Member Dr James Popple
Member Dr Leslie Stephan
Re-appointments
Deputy President the Hon Brian Tamberlin QC
Senior Member Rodney Dunne
Senior Member Geri Ettinger
Senior Member Egon Fice
Senior Member Dr Peter McDermott RFD
Senior Member Francis O'Loughlin
Senior Member Jill Toohey
Senior Member Chelsea Walsh
Member Dr Ion Alexander
Member Brigadier Conrad Ermert (ret'd)
Member Dr Gordon Hughes
Member Regina Perton OAM
Member Anne Shanahan
Member Brigadier Gerard Warner AM LVO (ret'd)
Member Simon Webb
Cessations
Deputy President the Hon Raymond Groom AO
Deputy President Robin Handley
Deputy President Stanley Hotop
Senior Member Anne Britton
Senior Member Professor Robin Creyke
Senior Member Graham Friedman
Senior Member Graham Kenny
Senior Member Dean Letcher QC
Senior Member Steven Penglis
Senior Member Jan Redfern PSM
Member Dr Roslyn Blakley
Member Dr Janette Chaney
Member Dr Amanda Frazer
Member Dr Hadia Haikal-Mukhtar
Member Kathryn Hogan
Member Mark Hyman
Member Professor Graham Johnston AM
Member Brigadier Dr Graham Maynard (ret'd)
Member Dr Roderick McRae
Member Professor Peter Reilly AO
Member Professor Tania Sourdin
Member Peter Wulf
Appendix // 02 Staff of the AAT
Table A2.1 Employment by registry, 30 June 2015
Classification
|
Registries
|
Sydney
|
Melbourne
|
Brisbane
|
Adelaide
|
Perth
|
Hobart
|
Canberra
|
Principal Registry
|
Total
|
APS Level 2 |
–
|
–
|
6
|
–
|
4
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
10
|
AAT Broadband 3/4 |
19
|
14
|
15
|
9
|
6
|
2
|
8
|
5
|
78
|
APS Level 5 |
–
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
7
|
8
|
APS Level 6 |
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
1
|
14
|
22
|
Executive Level 1 |
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
12
|
12
|
Executive Level 2 |
5
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
–
|
3
|
4
|
25
|
SES Band 1 |
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
2
|
2
|
Total |
26
|
21
|
25
|
13
|
14
|
2
|
12
|
44
|
157
|
There were no staff at APS Level 1.
These figures include all full-time and part-time ongoing and non-ongoing staff, including 25 staff employed for irregular or intermittent duties. Staff on long-term leave are not included. If they have been replaced, the replacement staff are included.
Principal Registry staff were based in Sydney (20), Melbourne (1), Brisbane (16), Adelaide (1), Perth (2), Hobart (3) and Canberra (1).
Table A2.2 Equal employment opportunity data, 30 June 2015
Classification
|
Total staff
|
Women
|
Men
|
A&TSI
|
NESB
|
PWD
|
APS Level 2 |
10
|
8
|
2
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
AAT Broadband 3/4 |
78
|
54
|
24
|
1
|
24
|
3
|
APS Level 5 |
8
|
5
|
3
|
–
|
2
|
–
|
APS Level 6 |
22
|
13
|
9
|
–
|
6
|
–
|
Executive Level 1 |
12
|
4
|
8
|
–
|
6
|
–
|
Executive Level 2 |
25
|
19
|
6
|
–
|
6
|
–
|
SES Band 1 |
2
|
1
|
1
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
Total |
157
|
104
|
53
|
1
|
44
|
3
|
A&TSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
NESB People of non-English-speaking background
PWD People with disability
The data in this table is based, in part, on information voluntarily provided by staff
Table A2.3 Employment status and arrangements, 30 June 2015
|
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
|
156a
|
5a
|
1
|
a Note: The three Executive Level 1 and two Executive Level 2 staff with Individual Flexibility Arrangements were covered by the AAT's enterprise agreement.
Figure A2.4 Administrative structure of the AAT, 30 June 2015
Appendix // 03 AAT jurisdiction
This appendix lists the laws — the Acts and legislative instruments — under which decisions could be made that were subject to review by the AAT as at 30 June 2015. The list does not include laws that were assented to or made in the reporting period but had not commenced at 30 June 2015.
The laws listed in bold conferred new jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under that enactment.
Commonwealth laws
A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005
Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976
Adult Disability Assessment Determination 1999
Age Discrimination Act 2004
Aged Care Act 1997
Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Regulations 1995
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995
Air Navigation Act 1920
Air Navigation (Aircraft Engine Emissions) Regulations
Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 1984
Air Navigation (Aviation Security Status Checking) Regulations 2004
Air Navigation (Coolangatta Airport Curfew) Regulations 1999
Air Navigation (Essendon Airport) Regulations 2001
Air Navigation (Fuel Spillage) Regulations 1999
Air Navigation Regulations 1947
Air Services Act 1995
Air Services Regulations 1995
Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995
Airports Act 1996
Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996
Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997
Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997
Airports (Ownership – Interests in Shares) Regulations 1996
Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996
Airports Regulations 1997
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Regulations 1994
Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006
Archives Act 1983
AusCheck Regulations 2007
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012
Australian Citizenship Act 2007
Australian Education Act 2013
Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013
Australia Grape and Wine Authority Regulations 1981
Australian Hearing Services Act 1991
Australian Jobs Act 2013
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Beef Export to the USA—Quota Years 2015–2021) Order 2014
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Regulations 1998
Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011
Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006
Australian Passports Act 2005
Australian Passports (Application Fees) Act 2005
Australian Passports Determination 2005
Australian Postal Corporation Regulations 1996
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 1999
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Act 2011
Automotive Transformation Scheme Regulations 2010
Aviation Transport Security Act 2004
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005
Banking Act 1959
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996
Biological Control Act 1984
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010
Business Names Registration Act 2011
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2011
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011
Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994
Child Care Benefit (Eligibility of Child Care Services for Approval and Continued Approval) Determination 2000
Child Disability Assessment Determination 2001
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
City Area Leases Ordinance 1936
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
Clean Energy Advances for Approved Care Organisations Administrative Scheme Determination 2012
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Act 2014
Clothing and Household Textile (Building Innovative Capability) Scheme 2010
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992
Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012
Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905
Commercial Television Conversion Scheme 1999
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Continence Aids Payment Scheme 2010
Copyright Act 1968
Copyright Regulations 1969
Corporations Act 2001
Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006
Criminal Code Act 1995
Cultural Bequests Program Guidelines (No. 1) 1997
Customs Act 1901
Customs (International Obligations) Regulation 2015
Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956
Customs Tariff Act 1995
Dairy Adjustment Levy Collection Regulations 2000
Dairy Produce Act 1986
Dairy Produce Regulations 1986
Defence Act 1903
Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989
Defence Determination 2005/15
Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990
Defence Force Regulations 1952
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) Determination 1988
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Regulations 2008
Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) Regulations 1957
Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001
Defence Service Homes Act 1918
Defence Trade Controls Act 2012
Defence Trade Controls Regulation 2013
Designs Act 2003
Designs Regulations 2004
Development Allowance Authority Act 1992
Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Disability Services Act 1986
Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002
Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000
Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981
ETR Payments Administrative Scheme (FaHCSIA) Determination 2012
Excise Act 1901
Excise Regulation 2015
Explosives Transport Regulations 2002
Export Charges (Collection) Act 2015
Export Control (Animals) Order 2004
Export Control (Eggs and Egg Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Fees) Orders 2001
Export Control (Fish and Fish Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) Regulations 1996
Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Milk and Milk Products) Orders 2005
Export Control (Organic Produce Certification) Orders
Export Control (Plants and Plant Products) Order 2011
Export Control (Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products) Orders 2010
Export Control (Prescribed Goods — General) Order 2005
Export Control (Rabbit and Ratite Meat) Orders 1985
Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations
Export Control (Wild Game Meat and Wild Game Meat Products) Orders 2010
Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act 1985
Export Market Development Grants Act 1997
Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012
Fair Work (Building Industry – Accreditation Scheme) Regulations 2005
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget and Other Measures) Act 2008
Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008
Family Law (Fees) Regulation 2012
Farm Household Support Act 2014
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999
Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Regulation 2012
Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Act 1998
Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001
First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008
Fisheries Management Act 1991
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991
Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986
Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000
Fuel Quality Standards Regulations 2001
Fuel Tax Act 2006
Gene Technology Act 2000
Gene Technology Regulations 2001
Governor-General Act 1974
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983
Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) (OECD Decision) Regulations 1996
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Regulations 1996
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995
Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010
Health Insurance Act 1973
Health Insurance (Eligible Collection Centres) Approval Principles 2010
Hearing Service Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997
Hearing Services Administration Act 1997
Hearing Services Rules of Conduct 2012
Hearing Services Voucher Rules 1997
High Court of Australia (Fees) Regulation 2012
Higher Education Funding Act 1988
Higher Education Support Act 2003
Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Act 2011
Horticultural Export Charge Regulations
Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Export Efficiency) Regulations 2002
Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946
Imported Food Charges (Collection) Act 2015
Imported Food Control Act 1992
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Income Tax Regulations 1936
Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Regulations 1990
Industry Research and Development Act 1986
Insurance Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1991
Insurance Act 1973
Interactive Gambling Act 2001
Interstate Road Transport Act 1985
Interstate Road Transport Regulations 1986
Jervis Bay Territory Emergency Management Ordinance 2015
Judges' Pensions Act 1968
Lands Acquisition Act 1989
Lakes Ordinance 1976
Law Officers Act 1964
Leases Ordinance 1918
Leases (Special Purposes) Ordinance 1925
Life Insurance Act 1995
Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014
Marine Orders Parts 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 91, 93, 96, 97, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506 and 507
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Regulation 2013
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003
Marriage Act 1961
Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984
Medibank Private Sale Act 2006
Medical Indemnity Act 2002
Medical Indemnity (Prudential Supervision and Product Standards) Act 2003
Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010
Migration Act 1958
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme 2004
Motor Vehicle Compensation Scheme 2004
Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989
Motor Vehicle Standards Regulations 1989
Mutual Recognition Act 1992
Narcotic Drugs Act 1967
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Act 1998
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008
National Health Act 1953
National Health (Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines – Cost Recovery) Regulations 2009
National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960
National Health Security Act 2007
National Library Regulations 1994
National Measurement Act 1960
National Measurement Regulations 1999
National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008
National Television Conversion Scheme 1999
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Act 2011
Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999
Native Title (Tribunal) Regulations 1993
Navigation Act 2012
Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995
Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987
Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) (National Standards) Regulations 2003
Offshore Minerals Act 1994
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011
Ombudsman Act 1976
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations 1995
Paid Parental Leave Act 2010
Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Regulations 1961
Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948
Patents Act 1990
Patents Regulations 1991
Personal Property Securities Act 2009
Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012
Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Regulations 2005
Pig Industry Act 2001
Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994
Plant Breeder's Rights Regulations 1994
Pooled Development Funds Act 1992
Premium Support (Medical Indemnity Provider) Scheme 2006
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999
Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991
Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Regulations 1991
Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998
Privacy Act 1988
Private Health Insurance Act 2007
Product Grants and Benefits Administration Act 2000
Product Stewardship Act 2011
Product Stewardship (Voluntary Arrangements) Instrument 2012
Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act 2013
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986
Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981
Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008
Public Lending Right Act 1985
Quality Agency Principles 2013
Radiocommunications Act 1992
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation) Determination 2000
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation – 2 GHz Band) Determination 2000
Radiocommunications Taxes Collection (Penalties on Unpaid Tax) Determination 2015
Radiocommunications (Trading Rules for Spectrum Licences) Determination 2012
Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Transitional Provision) Regulations 2010
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001
Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009
Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002
Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997
Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations 1997
Roads and Public Places Ordinance 1937
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Sanctions Principles 2014
Sea Installations Act 1987
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Act 2012
Shipping Registration Act 1981
Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (One-Off Payments and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Act 2007
Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999
Social Security (Pension Valuation Factor) Determination 1998
Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan 1995
Southern Squid Jig Fishery Management Plan 2005
Space Activities Act 1998
Space Activities Regulations 2001
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012
Student Assistance Act 1973
Student Identifiers Act 2014
Superannuation Act 1922
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994
Superannuation (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Taxation Act 1987
Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999
Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Regulations 2001
Tax Agent Services Act 2009
Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009
Taxation Administration Act 1953
Taxation Administration Regulations 1976
Telecommunications Act 1997
Telecommunications (Annual Numbering Charge – Late Payment Penalty) Determination 2000
Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999
Telecommunications (Eligible Revenue) Determination 2015
Telecommunications (Freephone and Local Rate Numbers) Allocation Determination 2007 (No. 1)
Telecommunications Integrated Public Number Database Scheme 2007
Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997
Telecommunications (Service Provider – Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2013
Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination 2010 (No. 1)
Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination 2010 (No. 2)
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Act 2012
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency (Eligible Revenue) Determination 2013
Television Licence Fees Regulations 1990
Telstra Corporation Act 1991
Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2011
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Post–2005 Strategic Investment Program Scheme 2005
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Scheme 1999
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations 2002
Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
Trade Marks Act 1995
Trade Marks Regulations 1995
Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetics) Regulations 1991
Trade Support Loans Act 2014
Tradespersons' Rights Regulation Act 1946
Tradex Scheme Act 1999
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997
Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Act 1985
Venture Capital Act 2002
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
Veterans' Entitlements (Clarke Review) Act 2004
Veterans' Entitlements Regulations 1986
Veterans' Entitlements (Rehabilitation Allowance) Regulations
Veterans' Entitlements (Special Assistance — Motorcycle Purchase) Regulations 2001
Veterans' Entitlements (Special Assistance) Regulations 1999
Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme
Water Act 2007
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (ACT)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cth)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Qld)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Tas)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Vic)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2006 (NT)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2006 (WA)
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Determination 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (New South Wales) Act 2006 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011
Norfolk Island laws
Absentee Landowners Levy Act 1976
Animals (Importation) Act 1983
Apiaries Act 1935
Associations Incorporation Act 2005
Birds Protection Act 1913
Bookmakers and Betting Exchange Act 1998
Brands and Marks Act 1949
Building Act 2002
Business Names Act 1976
Business Transactions (Administration) Act 2006
Business Transactions (Levy Imposition) Act 2006
Companies Act 1985
Crown Lands Act 1996
Customs Act 1913
Electricity (Licensing and Registration) Act 1985
Environment Act 1990
Financial Institutions Levy Act 1985
Fuel Levy Act 1987
Goods and Services Tax Act 2007
Healthcare Levy Act 1990
Land Administration Fees Act 1996
Land Titles Act 1996
Land Valuation Act 2012
Liquor Act 2005
Lotteries and Fundraising Act 1987
Medical Practitioners Registration Act 1983
Migratory Birds Act 1980
Norfolk Island Broadcasting Act 2001
Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island Botanic Garden Act 1984
Planning Act 2002
Public Health Act 1996
Public Reserves Act 1997
Roads Act 2002
Social Services Act 1980
Subdivision Act 2002
Telecommunications Act 1992
Tourist Accommodation Act 1984
Tourist Accommodation (Ownership) Act 1989
Trees Act 1997
Appendix // 04 Applications, outcomes, listings and appeals statistics
Table or Chart
|
Title
|
A4.1 |
Applications lodged and applications finalised in 2014–15 |
A4.2 |
Applications lodged – By state and territory |
A4.3 |
Applications finalised – By state and territory |
A4.4 |
Percentage of applications finalised without a hearing |
A4.5 |
Outcomes of applications for review of a decision finalised in 2014–15 |
A4.6 |
Applications current at 30 June 2015 – By state and territory |
A4.7 |
Alternative dispute resolution processes, interlocutory hearings and hearings conducted by the AAT |
A4.8 |
Constitution of tribunals for hearings |
A4.9 |
Appeals against decisions of the AAT by jurisdiction |
A4.10 |
Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions – By jurisdiction |
Table A4.1 Applications lodged and applications finalised, 2014–15
|
Applications lodged
|
Applications finalised
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
Applications for review of decisions — major jurisdictions |
National Disability Insurance Scheme |
Eligibility to access scheme |
8
|
|
10
|
|
Review of supports in participant plan |
10
|
|
8
|
|
Subtotal |
18
|
< 1
|
18
|
< 1
|
Social Security |
Age pension/Pension bonus scheme |
176
|
|
146
|
|
Austudy payment |
12
|
|
11
|
|
Carer allowance and carer payment |
74
|
|
61
|
|
Compensation preclusion period |
64
|
|
68
|
|
Disability support pension |
1,253
|
|
1,108
|
|
Family tax benefit |
94
|
|
62
|
|
Newstart allowance |
104
|
|
100
|
|
Overpayments and debt recovery |
440
|
|
454
|
|
Parenting payment |
18
|
|
27
|
|
Rent assistance |
12
|
|
11
|
|
Special benefit |
11
|
|
11
|
|
Youth allowance |
18
|
|
17
|
|
Other |
44
|
|
53
|
|
Subtotal |
2,320
|
35
|
2,129
|
32
|
Veterans' Affairs |
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 |
72
|
|
61
|
|
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 |
|
|
|
|
Disability pension |
229
|
|
225
|
|
Service pension/Income support supplement/ Pension bonus |
38
|
|
30
|
|
Widows pension |
44
|
|
57
|
|
Other |
8
|
|
6
|
|
Subtotal |
391
|
6
|
379
|
6
|
Workers' Compensation |
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, by decision-maker |
|
Asciano Services |
7
|
|
15
|
|
Australian Air Express Pty Limited |
11
|
|
7
|
|
Australian Postal Corporation |
294
|
|
302
|
|
BIS Industries Limited |
12
|
|
7
|
|
Comcare |
569
|
|
485
|
|
Commonwealth Bank of Australia and related companies |
27
|
|
27
|
|
John Holland Group Pty Limited and related companies |
21
|
|
16
|
|
K & S Freighters Pty Limited |
26
|
|
33
|
|
Linfox Armaguard Pty Limited/Linfox Australia Pty Limited |
94
|
|
88
|
|
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission |
105
|
|
113
|
|
National Australia Bank Limited/National Wealth Management Services Limited |
28
|
|
32
|
|
Optus Administration Pty Limited |
9
|
|
12
|
|
Prosegur Australia Pty Limited |
19
|
|
7
|
|
Telstra Corporation Limited |
81
|
|
97
|
|
TNT Australia Pty Limited |
38
|
|
23
|
|
Transpacific Industries Pty Limited |
49
|
|
34
|
|
Other decision-makers |
25
|
|
31
|
|
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 |
83
|
|
89
|
|
Subtotal |
1,498
|
23
|
1,418
|
21
|
Taxation |
Taxation Appeals Division |
Excess contributions tax |
8
|
|
15
|
|
Fringe benefits tax |
13
|
|
13
|
|
Goods and services tax |
97
|
|
112
|
|
Income tax (other than tax schemes) |
727
|
|
1,153
|
|
Income tax (tax schemes) |
1
|
|
1
|
|
Private rulings |
8
|
|
31
|
|
Superannuation guarantee charge |
12
|
|
32
|
|
Taxation administration |
5
|
|
8
|
|
Other |
25
|
|
20
|
|
Subtotal |
896
|
14
|
1,385
|
21
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal |
|
|
|
|
Goods and services tax |
2
|
|
4
|
|
Income tax |
62
|
|
80
|
|
Refusal of extension of time to lodge objection |
23
|
|
21
|
|
Release from taxation liabilities |
67
|
|
71
|
|
Superannuation contributions surcharge |
0
|
|
16
|
|
Other |
5
|
|
5
|
|
Subtotal |
159
|
2
|
197
|
3
|
Subtotal |
1,055
|
16
|
1,582
|
23
|
SUBTOTAL FOR MAJOR JURISDICTIONS |
5,282
|
81
|
5,526
|
82
|
|
Applications for review of decisions — by portfolio |
Agriculture |
Agricultural and veterinary chemicals |
3
|
|
8
|
|
Fisheries |
1
|
|
0
|
|
Research participation certificates for Conservation Tillage Refundable Tax Offset |
2
|
|
2
|
|
Subtotal |
6
|
< 1
|
10
|
< 1
|
Attorney-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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totala |
6,581
|
100
|
6,748
|
100
|
a Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.
Chart A4.2 Applications lodged – By state and territory
Chart A4.3 Applications finalised – By state and territory
Table A4.4 Percentage of applications finalised without a hearinga
Jurisdiction
|
2012–13
%
|
2013–14
%
|
2014–15
%
|
All |
79
|
82
|
80
|
Social security |
76
|
77
|
77
|
Veterans' affairs |
71
|
72
|
67
|
Workers' compensation |
87
|
86
|
86
|
Taxation |
|
|
|
Taxation Appeals Division |
85
|
87
|
82
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal |
63b
|
86
|
83
|
a Applications finalised by the AAT without it completing the review and giving a decision on the merits under section 43 of the Administration Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Includes applications finalised in accordance with terms of agreement lodged by the parties (sections 34D and 42C), applications withdrawn by the applicant (section 42A(1A)) and applications dismissed by the Tribunal (sections 42A and 42B).
b The figure for the percentage of applications finalised without a hearing in the STCT in 2012–13 differs from the figure that appeared in the 2012–13 and 2013–14 annual reports as a result of a clerical error.
Table A4.5 Outcomes of applications for review of a decision finalised in 2014–15
|
All applications
|
Social security
|
Veterans' affairs
|
Workers' compensation
|
Taxation
|
Taxation Appeals Division
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
By consent or withdrawn |
Decision affirmeda |
458
|
7
|
10
|
< 1
|
2
|
< 1
|
432
|
30
|
8
|
< 1
|
1
|
< 1
|
Decision varieda |
492
|
7
|
26
|
1
|
34
|
9
|
64
|
5
|
324
|
23
|
39
|
20
|
Decision set asidea |
1,165
|
18
|
273
|
13
|
79
|
21
|
324
|
23
|
299
|
22
|
37
|
19
|
Dismissed by consentb |
90
|
1
|
30
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
< 1
|
36
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
Dismissed by operation of lawc |
282
|
4
|
282
|
13
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Withdrawn by applicant |
2,015
|
30
|
734
|
34
|
126
|
33
|
344
|
24
|
384
|
28
|
65
|
33
|
Subtotal |
4,502
|
68
|
1,355
|
64
|
244
|
64
|
1,171
|
83
|
1,051
|
76
|
145
|
74
|
By decision |
Decision affirmedd |
1,017
|
15
|
420
|
20
|
74
|
20
|
138
|
10
|
189
|
14
|
29
|
15
|
Decision variedd |
51
|
< 1
|
9
|
< 1
|
8
|
2
|
9
|
< 1
|
18
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Decision set asided |
274
|
4
|
54
|
3
|
43
|
11
|
58
|
4
|
46
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
Subtotal |
1,342
|
20
|
483
|
23
|
125
|
33
|
205
|
14
|
253
|
18
|
33
|
17
|
Other |
Dismissed by Tribunale |
228
|
3
|
117
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
20
|
1
|
39
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
No jurisdictionf |
271
|
4
|
42
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
18
|
1
|
19
|
1
|
6
|
3
|
Extension of time refused |
147
|
2
|
116
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
< 1
|
3
|
< 1
|
1
|
< 1
|
No application fee paid |
84
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
17
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Otherg |
35
|
< 1
|
16
|
< 1
|
1
|
< 1
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
< 1
|
7
|
4
|
Subtotal |
765
|
12
|
291
|
14
|
10
|
3
|
42
|
3
|
81
|
6
|
19
|
10
|
Totalh |
6,609
|
100
|
2,129
|
100
|
379
|
100
|
1,418
|
100
|
1,385
|
100
|
197
|
100
|
a Applications finalised by the AAT in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties either in the course of an alternative dispute resolution process (section 34D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975) or at any stage of review proceedings (section 42C).
b Applications dismissed by consent under section 42A(1).
c If an application in the family assistance and social security area relates to the recovery of a debt, the parties may agree in writing to settle the proceedings. On receipt of the agreement, the application is taken to have been dismissed.
d Applications finalised by a decision of the AAT under section 43.
e Applications dismissed under section 42A(2) (non-appearance at a case event), section 42A(5) (failure to proceed with an application or to comply with a direction of the AAT) and section 42B(1) (application is frivolous or vexatious).
f Applications in relation to which the AAT determined it does not have jurisdiction or that were dismissed under section 42A(4) on the basis the applicant failed to demonstrate that a decision was reviewable.
g Includes applications for review of a decision that were lodged out of time and in relation to which no extension of time application was subsequently received.
h Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.
Chart A4.6 Applications current at 30 June 2015 – By state and territory
Table A4.7 Alternative dispute resolution processes, interlocutory hearings and hearings conducted by the AAT
Event type
|
2012–13
|
2013–14
|
2014–15
|
Conferences |
7,606
|
7,636
|
7,775
|
Case appraisals |
3
|
3
|
1
|
Conciliations |
485
|
555
|
523
|
Mediations |
42
|
39
|
13
|
Neutral evaluations |
32
|
22
|
9
|
Interlocutory hearingsa |
437
|
524
|
625
|
Hearings |
1,063b
|
1,083
|
1,183
|
a Includes hearings relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hearings relating to applications for orders of the following kind:
– to extend the time to lodge an application for review
– to be joined as a party to a proceeding
– to make a confidentiality order under section 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
– to stay the operation or implementation of a reviewable decision
– to dismiss an application
– to reinstate an application.
b The figure for the number of hearings conducted by the AAT in 2012–13 differs from the figure that appeared in the annual report for that year. A technical issue with the operation of the AAT's electronic case management system led to some hearings not being counted in the report for that year.
Table A4.8 Constitution of tribunals for hearings
Tribunal type
|
2012–13a
|
2013–14
|
2014–15
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
No
|
%
|
Judge alone |
0
|
0
|
3
|
< 1
|
16
|
1
|
Judge with 1 other member |
8
|
< 1
|
4
|
< 1
|
2
|
< 1
|
Judge with 2 other members |
1
|
< 1
|
3
|
< 1
|
0
|
0
|
Deputy President alone |
187
|
18
|
242
|
22
|
283
|
24
|
Deputy President with 1 other member |
51
|
5
|
29
|
3
|
25
|
2
|
Deputy President with 2 other members |
2
|
< 1
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
< 1
|
Senior Member alone |
469
|
44
|
491
|
45
|
544
|
46
|
Senior Member with 1 other member |
93
|
9
|
56
|
5
|
35
|
3
|
Senior Member with 2 other members |
2
|
< 1
|
1
|
< 1
|
1
|
< 1
|
Member alone |
239
|
22
|
243
|
22
|
269
|
23
|
Two Members |
11
|
1
|
11
|
1
|
3
|
< 1
|
Three Members |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Totalb |
1,063
|
100
|
1,083
|
100
|
1,183
|
100
|
Total multi-member tribunals |
168
|
16
|
104
|
10
|
71
|
6
|
a The figures for the number of hearings conducted by the AAT in 2012–13 differ from those that appeared in the annual report for that year. A technical issue with the operation of the Tribunal's electronic case management system led to some hearings not being counted in the report for that year.
b Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.
Table A4.9 Appeals against decisions of the AAT – By jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
|
2012–13
|
2013–14
|
2014–15
|
Section 44a
|
Otherb
|
Section 44a
|
Otherb
|
Section 44a
|
Otherb
|
Social security |
8
|
0
|
19
|
1
|
22
|
0
|
Veterans' affairs |
8
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
Workers' compensation |
17
|
2
|
24
|
2
|
21
|
0
|
Taxation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxation Appeals Division |
22
|
4
|
18
|
0
|
17
|
2
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Immigration and citizenship |
4
|
21
|
6
|
7
|
7
|
2
|
Other |
13
|
2
|
18
|
1
|
18
|
2
|
Total |
72
|
30
|
96
|
11
|
91
|
6
|
a Appeals lodged in the Federal Court under section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. In some circumstances, a party may lodge an application seeking relief under section 44 and under another enactment. These applications are treated as section 44 appeals for statistical purposes.
b Applications for judicial review made under other enactments, including the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Judiciary Act 1903, Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 and section 75(v) of the Constitution.
Table A4.10 Outcomes of appeals against AAT decisions — By jurisdictiona
Outcome
|
2012–13
|
2013–14
|
2014–15
|
|
Section 44
|
Other
|
Section 44
|
Other
|
Section 44
|
Other
|
Social Security |
Allowed/Remitted |
4
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Dismissed |
6
|
0
|
13
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
Discontinued |
1
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
8
|
0
|
Subtotal |
11
|
0
|
20
|
0
|
18
|
0
|
Veterans' Affairs |
Allowed/Remitted |
5
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
8
|
0
|
Dismissed |
3
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
Discontinued |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Subtotal |
8
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
14
|
0
|
Workers' Compensation |
Allowed/Remitted |
9
|
0
|
11
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
Dismissed |
9
|
1
|
14
|
1
|
10
|
2
|
Discontinued |
1
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
Subtotal |
19
|
1
|
28
|
2
|
20
|
2
|
Taxation |
Taxation Appeals Division |
Allowed/Remitted |
7
|
1
|
6
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
Dismissed |
11
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
13
|
1
|
Discontinued |
3
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
Subtotal |
21
|
2
|
21
|
1
|
22
|
1
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal |
Allowed/Remitted |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Dismissed |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Discontinued |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Subtotal |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Subtotal |
21
|
2
|
21
|
1
|
22
|
1
|
Immigration and Citizenship |
Allowed/Remitted |
1
|
9
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
Dismissed |
2
|
12
|
3
|
11
|
4
|
9
|
Discontinued |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
Subtotal |
5
|
22
|
4
|
15
|
8
|
12
|
Other |
Allowed/Remitted |
2
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
Dismissed |
7
|
2
|
14
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
Discontinued |
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
5
|
1
|
Subtotal |
9
|
2
|
19
|
2
|
22
|
1
|
Total |
73
|
28
|
103b |
20
|
104
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All |
Allowed/Remitted |
28
|
10
|
29
|
6
|
26
|
3
|
Dismissed |
38
|
17
|
66
|
13
|
53
|
12
|
Discontinued |
7
|
1
|
8
|
1
|
25
|
1
|
Total |
73
|
28
|
103b
|
20
|
104
|
16
|
a Where a decision of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court, a single judge of the Federal Court or the Full Court of the Federal Court has been appealed, only the ultimate result is counted for the purpose of these statistics.
b The figures for the number of section 44 appeals from AAT decisions that were finalised in 2013–14 differ from those that appeared in the annual report for that year. The AAT did not become aware of the result of some appeals until after the publication of the report.
Appendix // 05 Resourcing tables
The AAT had one outcome specified in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements:
Access to a fair, just, economical, informal and quick review mechanism for applicants through reviews of government administrative decisions, including dispute resolution processes and independent formal hearings.
The AAT is a single-program agency. The primary deliverables were completed reviews of decisions, and there were two paths to achieving them:
- applications finalised without a hearing
- applications finalised with a hearing.
Resource statements
Table A5.1 shows the AAT's various sources of funding.
Table A5.1 AAT resource statement, 2014–15
|
Actual
available
appropriation
for 2014–15
$'000
|
Payments
made
2014–15
$'000
|
Balance
remaining
2014–15
$'000
|
(a)
|
(b)
|
(a) – (b)
|
Ordinary Annual Services1 |
Departmental appropriation2 |
52,672
|
35,203
|
17,469
|
Total Available Annual Appropriations and payments |
52,672
|
35,203
|
|
Special appropriations |
Special appropriations limited by criteria/entitlement |
|
|
|
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 – s77 |
|
328
|
|
Total special appropriations |
|
328
|
|
Total net resourcing and payments for Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
52,672
|
35,531
|
|
1 Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2014–15 and Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2014–15. This includes $13.551m from prior periods and $2.680m in section 74 Retained Revenue Receipts.
2 Includes an amount of $1.525m in 2014–15 for the Departmental Capital Budget. For accounting purposes this amount has been designated as ‘contributions by owners'.
Expenses by outcome
Table A5.2 shows how the 2014–15 budget appropriations for the AAT translated to total resourcing for the AAT's outcome, including administered expenses, revenue from the government (appropriation), revenue from other sources and the total price of the programs.
Table A5.2 Expenses for outcome
Outcome 1: Access to a fair, just, economical, informal and quick review mechanism for applicants through reviews of government administrative decisions, including dispute resolution processes and independent formal hearings.
|
Budget1
2014–15
$'000
|
Actual
Expenses
2014–15
$'000
|
Variation
2014–15
$'000
|
(a)
|
(b)
|
(a) – (b)
|
Program 1.1: Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
|
|
|
Administered expenses |
|
|
|
Special appropriations |
700
|
328
|
372
|
Departmental expenses |
|
|
|
Departmental appropriation2 |
36,001
|
34,348
|
1,653
|
Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year |
3,224
|
3,378
|
(154)
|
Total expenses for Outcome2 |
39,925
|
38,054
|
1,871
|
|
|
2013–14
|
2014–15
|
Average Staffing Level (number) |
|
160
|
157
|
1 Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2014–15 Budget at Additional Estimates.
2 Departmental appropriation combines Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Acts Nos. 1 and 3) and Retained Revenue Receipts under section 74 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Appendix // 06 Application fees
Application fees and refunds
The rules relating to fees that were payable to lodge applications with the AAT during 2014–15 were in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976. The primary rules for the payment and refund of fees were in regulations 19 and 19AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976. Subject to the exceptions described below, an application fee was payable for lodging an application:
- for review of a decision
- for a decision on whether a person was entitled to be given a statement of reasons for a decision, and
- for a declaration, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, that a statement of reasons for a decision is not adequate.
If an application was not accompanied by an applicable fee, the AAT was not required to deal with the application unless and until the fee was paid. If the fee was not paid within six weeks after an application was lodged, the Tribunal could dismiss the application under section 69C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Application fee amounts
The standard application fee in 2014–15 was $861, and the fee to lodge an application in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal was $85.
Application fee not payable
Applications for review of the following types of decisions did not attract a fee:
- any decision specified in Schedule 3 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976
- any decision under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 made in relation to a document that related to a decision specified in Schedule 3 to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations 1976.
Schedule 3 decisions included those in the areas of family assistance and social security, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, veterans' affairs and workers' compensation.
Reduced application fee payable
A reduced application fee of $100 was payable instead of the standard application fee if the person liable to pay the fee was:
- granted legal aid for the matter to which the application related
- the holder of a health care card, a health benefit card, a pensioner concession card, a Commonwealth seniors health card or any other card that certified entitlement to Commonwealth health concessions
- an inmate of a prison, in immigration detention or otherwise lawfully detained in a public institution
- a child under 18 years
- in receipt of youth allowance, Austudy payment or benefits under the ABSTUDY Scheme.
The AAT could also order that a $100 fee was payable rather than the standard application fee if it considered that payment of the full fee would cause financial hardship to the person.
The fee payable to lodge an application in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal had to be paid in all circumstances.
One fee payable
If two or more applications related to the same applicant and could be conveniently heard before the Tribunal at the same time, the AAT could order that only one fee was payable for those applications.
Refunds
A person was entitled to a:
- full refund if they had paid an application fee that was not payable
- partial refund if they had paid the standard application fee but were entitled to pay the $100 fee.
A person was also entitled to a partial refund if the person had paid the standard application fee or the equivalent of a standard application fee and the AAT certified that the proceedings terminated in a manner favourable to the applicant. The refund amount was the difference between the application fee paid and $100. There was no refund if the person had paid the reduced application fee or if the application was dealt with in the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal.
Fee statistics for 2014–15
In 2014–15, the AAT received $730,485 and refunded $328,355 in application fees.
Total revenue forgone on the basis that a person was eligible to pay a reduced fee or only one fee was payable for multiple applications lodged by the same person was $595,937 (see Tables A6.1, 6.2, 6.3).
The AAT received one application for review of a decision not to reduce an application fee on financial hardship grounds. The decision was affirmed.
Table A6.1 Fee revenue summary: total received, refunded and forgone
Fees and applications
|
Amount and number
|
Total fee revenue |
$730,485
|
Total refunded |
$328,355
|
Total revenue forgone (fees reduced or single fee for multiple applications) |
$595,937
|
Number of applications: fees reduced |
339
|
Number of applications: fees not paid |
429
|
Table A6.2 Reduced fees paid
Reason
|
Number of applications affected
|
Applicant eligible to pay reduced fee |
227
|
Fee reduced by AAT on financial hardship grounds |
112
|
Total |
339
|
Table A6.3 Applications for which no fee paid where one fee payable for two or more applications lodged by the same applicant
Category
|
Number of additional applications for which fee was not payable
|
Standard application fee |
388
|
Reduced fee |
27
|
Small Taxation Claims Tribunal fee |
14
|
Total |
429
|
Appendix // 07 Decisions of interest
Archives and Freedom of Information
Pemberton and Director General, National Archives of Australia
[2015] AATA 115; 27 February 2015
Senior Member Dr James Popple
Whether access should be granted under the Archives Act 1983 to the personnel files of military college cadets
Mr Pemberton applied under the Archives Act 1983 (the Act) for access to the personal files of 11 staff cadets who attended the Royal Military College, Duntroon in the 1970s. The National Archives of Australia (the Archives) refused access to parts of the files. On internal reconsideration, the Archives decided to release further pages from each of the files, but otherwise affirmed its original decisions. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of those decisions.
The main issue for the Tribunal was whether any parts of the requested files were exempt under section 33(1)(g) of the Act on the basis that their release would involve unreasonable disclosure of information relating to personal affairs. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal also had to consider what, if any, weight it should give to the Archives' policy on the application of the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the policy had to be taken into account even though it was finalised after the decisions under review were made and even if it represented a more restrictive approach to the release of information. The policy could be given some weight as it was consistent with the Act and successfully struck a balance between the interests of good government and consistent decision-making on the one hand and the ideal of justice in the individual case on the other.
In interpreting section 33(1)(g) of the Act, the Tribunal had regard to Federal Court decisions relating to an analogous provision previously in the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Tribunal examined the files, noting that they included applications for admission to the College, reports of progress and correspondence about medical conditions and financial affairs. Each of the files was found to contain information relating to the personal affairs of the cadets and, in some cases, other persons.
The Tribunal held that, whether disclosure would be unreasonable is a question of fact and degree that requires balancing all legitimate interests and consideration of the public interest, including the public interest in the protection of personal privacy. Evidence before the Tribunal included affidavits from some of the cadets, from the Chief of Army and from office holders of the Australian Defence Force Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and Defence Families Australia about their concerns regarding the release of information of the kind in the files. The Tribunal considered the nature and perceived sensitivity of the information, the age and current relevance of the information, the age of the subjects, the fact that none of the information was in the public domain, the scholarly interest in the files, the ease with which disclosed information could be disseminated and the increased level of community concern about information privacy. The Tribunal concluded that disclosure of the information would be unreasonable.
The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Sweeney and Australian Information Commissioner and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
[2014] AATA 531; 4 August 2014
[2014] AATA 539; 6 August 2014
Deputy President James Constance
Whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
Mr Sweeney has been seeking to expose what he believes is fraudulent conduct involving the administration of a superannuation fund of which he was a member. From 2009, Mr Sweeney made numerous requests to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act). Between 1 November 2010 and 9 August 2013 Mr Sweeney made at least 143 requests to ASIC and 118 requests to APRA.
Following applications by ASIC and APRA, the Australian Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) made two separate declarations under section 89K(1) of the Act that Mr Sweeney was a vexatious applicant. The Commissioner declared that, until 9 August 2014, ASIC and APRA were not required to consider any request or application made by Mr Sweeney unless the Commissioner granted permission for the request or application to be made. Mr Sweeney applied to the Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's decisions to make the declarations.
The Tribunal identified the issues for determination as whether Mr Sweeney had repeatedly engaged in access actions involving an abuse of process and, if so, whether a vexatious applicant declaration should be made. ASIC and APRA contended the declarations should be extended to 1 January 2016.
Evidence before the Tribunal was that, in addition to the requests made prior to the making of the declarations, Mr Sweeney had continued to make requests to ASIC and APRA under various pseudonyms without the permission of the Commissioner. He made one application to the Commissioner for permission to apply to APRA, but permission was denied.
The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Sweeney had repeatedly engaged in access actions and found this repeated engagement involved an abuse of process in two respects. Firstly, Mr Sweeney's conduct involved harassment of at least one ASIC employee. Secondly, his conduct unreasonably interfered with the operations of ASIC and APRA. In making this finding, the Tribunal had regard to a range of matters, including the volume and frequency of Mr Sweeney's requests, the time taken to process the requests, the number of requests that were for access to documents he had already provided to ASIC and the number of repeat requests for documents previously sought.
In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to make a declaration, the Tribunal considered the objects of the Act and whether Mr Sweeney's actions indicated that his exercise of the rights the Act provides had gone beyond achieving those objects. Having regard to the number and nature of access actions, the Tribunal determined it was reasonable to make declarations to restrict his use of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that, notwithstanding Mr Sweeney's actions, his legitimate concerns about the administration of the superannuation fund should not be underestimated. It would not be reasonable to extend the declarations to 1 January 2016 and restrict Mr Sweeney's rights for such a lengthy period. The Tribunal also considered that the terms of the declarations made by the Commissioner were unduly harsh in the circumstances. The right to seek information under the Act is of such importance that a requirement to seek the Commissioner's permission before making a request should only be imposed in the most compelling circumstances.
In relation to ASIC, the Tribunal determined that the preferable decision would be to set aside the Commissioner's declaration and substitute a revised declaration which would remain in force until 1 January 2015. The declaration set out a number of terms and conditions, including limiting the number and frequency of access requests Mr Sweeney could make and the scope of what could be requested as well as preventing him from using pseudonyms or using an agent.
In relation to APRA, the Tribunal did not consider Mr Sweeney should be further restrained from exercising his rights under the Act after 9 August 2014. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
Aviation
Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority
[2014] AATA 820; 31 October 2014
Senior Member Bernard McCabe
Whether the applicant's pilot licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled because of incidents that occurred during the filming of a television series
Mr Jones held flight crew licences that included a private helicopter pilot licence. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reviewed footage shot in the course of a reality television series based on the life of Mr Jones, his family and employees on the Coolibah Station in the Northern Territory. The television series featured a number of incidents that CASA found to be in breach of the rules and regulations applicable to helicopter pilots. CASA decided to cancel Mr Jones's licences and Mr Jones applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision.
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 allow CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence on a number of grounds, including where the holder:
- has failed in his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe navigation or operation of an aircraft, or
- is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of such a licence.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether any of the incidents and matters raised by CASA contravened the laws regulating civil aviation and, if so, whether Mr Jones's licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled.
The Tribunal found that a number of the incidents and matters did involve contraventions of the applicable rules by Mr Jones. These included engaging in aerial photography without holding a commercial pilot's licence, leaving a helicopter unattended while the engine was running, staging a race in a helicopter against his brother-in-law on a jet ski, towing his son on a wave board, attempting to snare and tow a crocodile, failing to wear seat belts correctly and allowing his son to start a helicopter engine.
While he was not involved in as many contraventions as CASA contended, the Tribunal found that Mr Jones had engaged in a pattern of conduct that demonstrated a poor knowledge of both the law and applicable flight manuals and safety notices as well as an unhealthy attitude towards risk and flawed judgment and decision-making skills. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Jones had failed in his duty with respect to the safe navigation and operation of aircraft. It also found that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a pilot's licence.
In relation to whether Mr Jones's licences should be varied, suspended or cancelled, the Tribunal considered regulatory action was required but it was not satisfied that cancellation was necessary or appropriate. It concluded that Mr Jones's identified shortcomings, while serious, could be addressed through appropriate training and testing.
The Tribunal set aside CASA's decision and ordered that Mr Jones's licences be suspended until he is able to demonstrate by seeking and receiving an appropriate certification that he has attended to the gaps in his knowledge and has the decision-making skills required for the flight crew licences he holds.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
ZNDV and National Disability Insurance Agency
[2014] AATA 921; 25 November 2014
Deputy President Katherine Bean and Member Ian Thompson
Whether the National Disability Insurance Scheme should fund an occupational therapy room and equipment
The applicant, a five-year old child with Asperger's syndrome, was accepted as a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) approved a plan setting out a range of supports that would be funded under the NDIS. Additional supports requested by the applicant's family were not approved, including funding for equipment which would allow them to set up an occupational therapy room for use in the family home. The NDIA was not satisfied that funding for a sensory room and associated equipment was a reasonable and necessary support under section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
The applicant's mother applied for an internal review of the NDIA's decision. The original decision was varied in certain respects. However, the part of the decision denying the request for the occupational therapy equipment was not changed. The applicant's mother applied to the Tribunal for review of the internal review decision.
The primary issue for the Tribunal to determine was whether the applicant's plan should be varied to include funding of approximately $10,000 for the occupational therapy equipment. The Tribunal noted that, in deciding whether a support is reasonable and necessary, each of a number of criteria must be satisfied, including:
- the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative supports, and
- the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice.
It was contended for the applicant that he would be likely to derive the following benefits from having an occupational therapy room at home: the development of gross and fine motor skills, body awareness, physical development and confidence, strength, muscle tone and postural control, motor coordination, modulation of arousal, and self-regulation and management of anxiety/reduction of stress levels. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the applicant was progressing well in each of the areas relating to physical development compared with other children his age and the Tribunal was not persuaded that he required the room to assist in these areas.
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant required assistance in the areas of anxiety and arousal management and self-regulation. However, it also accepted expert evidence that an occupational therapy room has not been shown to be effective in assisting with these issues. The expert evidence was that cognitive behaviour therapy and movement breaks have been shown to be effective.
The Tribunal concluded that, given the significant cost, the provision of the equipment would not represent value for money. For the same reasons, the Tribunal would not have been satisfied that the room would be, or be likely to be, effective and beneficial for the applicant having regard to current good practice.
During the course of the review, the parties agreed that certain other additional supports should be included in the plan. The Tribunal varied the decision under review to give effect to the agreement.
National Security And Passports
MYVC and Director-General of Security
MYVC and Minister for Foreign Affairs
[2014] AATA 511; 28 July 2014
Deputy President Robin Handley, Senior Member Geri Ettinger and Senior Member Jill Toohey
Whether ASIO had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia – whether the applicant's passport should be cancelled
MYVC arrived in Australia in 2002 and became a citizen in 2006. He subsequently spent significant time outside Australia. In 2012, he was interviewed by officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) about alleged involvement in people smuggling activities which he denied. In 2013, the Director-General of Security made an adverse security assessment and requested that the Minister for Foreign Affairs cancel MYVC's passport and refuse to issue him a new passport should he reapply. The Minister accepted the recommendation and decided to cancel MYVC's passport. MYVC applied to the Tribunal for a review of the adverse security assessment and the Minister's decision to cancel his passport.
The functions of ASIO include advising Ministers and Commonwealth authorities in respect of matters relating to security. The term "security" is defined in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 which was amended in 2010 to include the protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats. Section 14 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 provides that ASIO can request the refusal or cancellation of an Australian passport if it suspects on reasonable grounds that the person would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country and that the person should be refused a passport in order to prevent the person from engaging in that conduct.
In accordance with the procedure for reviews of this kind set out in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the material before the Tribunal included both open and closed evidence and submissions. The closed evidence and submissions were the subject of Ministerial certificates and could not be disclosed to MYVC. The Tribunal undertook to put any questions identified by MYVC's representative to ASIO's witness in the part of the hearing conducted in the absence of MYVC or his representative.
MYVC's evidence to the Tribunal was that he had had no involvement in people smuggling activities, nor earned any money from such activities. His travel to different countries was for the purposes of his business or to visit his family. However, the Tribunal was satisfied from the evidence subject to the Ministerial certificates that MYVC had been involved in people smuggling activities for a number of years, facilitating the arrival in Australia of a significant number of people. He had derived substantial earnings from these activities.
The Tribunal held that organised people smuggling could pose a serious threat to Australia's border integrity and therefore falls within the definition of "security". While not satisfied on the open evidence alone, the Tribunal was satisfied from the closed evidence that the Director-General could suspect on reasonable grounds that, if MYVC holds an Australian passport, he would be likely to engage in conduct which might prejudice the security of Australia and that denying him a passport would have an important preventative effect on his ability to engage in people smuggling activities. The Tribunal was also satisfied there were strong grounds supporting the exercise of the Minister's powers to cancel MYVC's passport.
The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
Social Security
Hananeia and Secretary, Attorney-General's Department
[2015] AATA 319; 14 May 2015
Deputy President Stanley Hotop
Whether the applicant was entitled to an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment
Mr Hananeia was an Australian resident who was holidaying in Bali in October 2002. When the bombing at the Sari Club occurred, he was at his hotel which was located approximately 600 metres in a straight line from the Sari Club or 1.9 kilometres by road. Mr Hananeia went to the bomb site, arriving about 10 to 15 minutes later. He said he tried to help people when he first arrived but left after a certain amount of time. He returned later that night and again the next morning to do some filming before leaving Bali later that day. Following his return to Australia, Mr Hananeia was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In December 2013, Mr Hananeia applied for an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment (AVTOP) but his claim was refused. The decision was affirmed on internal review and by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). Mr Hananeia applied to the Tribunal for review of the SSAT's decision.
To qualify for an AVTOP under section 1061PAA of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act), a person must, among other criteria, be a primary victim or a secondary victim of a declared overseas terrorist act. A primary victim is a person who was in the place where the terrorist act occurred and was harmed as a direct result of the terrorist act. The Prime Minster has made a declaration that the Bali bombings are a declared overseas terrorist act.
The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Hananeia was in the place where the terrorist act occurred. The Tribunal held that the Prime Minister's declaration specifies for the purposes of the Act the place or location where the relevant terrorist act occurred. In this case, the requirements of the Act could only be satisfied if Mr Hananeia was "at the Sari Club, Kuta". The Tribunal also held that, while the Act does not expressly include a temporal element, such a temporal requirement is necessarily to be implied. The person must be in the place where the terrorist act occurred at the time when it occurred.
The Tribunal concluded that, as Mr Hananeia was neither in the place where the declared overseas terrorist act occurred nor in close proximity to that place, he did not qualify for the AVTOP. The Tribunal also found that the harm to Mr Hananeia's mental health was not as a direct result of the terrorist act but suffered as a result of his voluntarily and unnecessarily attending the site of the terrorist act after it occurred.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Rus and Secretary, Attorney-General's Department
[2015] AATA 367; 28 May 2015
Senior Member John Handley
Whether the Tribunal should extend the time for an applicant to lodge an application for review of a decision about entitlement to an Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment
Ms Rus is an Australian resident who was travelling to her workplace in London when terrorist acts took place on 7 July 2005. The Tube train on which she was travelling was stopped and all passengers were asked to alight. Ms Rus then boarded a No. 18 bus in Tavistock Square. She considered boarding a No. 30 bus but decided to stay where she was. After the bus was redirected, Ms Rus alighted and started walking towards her office. When she was 142 metres from Tavistock Square, she heard an explosion and felt a tremor. She did not have direct line of sight to Tavistock Square. She became aware that a No. 30 bus had been blown up in Tavistock Square after looking at the news online when she got to work. A few weeks after the bombings, Ms Rus suffered a stroke. She was also later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In September 2014, Ms Rus applied for an AVTOP but her claim was refused. This primary decision was affirmed on internal review and by the SSAT. Ms Rus applied to the Tribunal for review of the SSAT's decision. As the application was lodged outside the 28-day time limit, Ms Rus applied to the Tribunal to extend the time to lodge her application. The Secretary opposed the application. In deciding whether to grant the extension of time, the Tribunal was required to determine whether her application had some prospect of success if the time was extended.
The Prime Minister has made a declaration that the bus bombing at Tavistock Square on 7 July 2005 is a declared overseas terrorist act. The primary issue for the Tribunal was whether Ms Rus was in the place where the terrorist act occurred.
The Tribunal held that the words "in the place" are intended to mean within the immediate vicinity of or close proximity to the location of the terrorist act. In this case, the place where the terrorist attack occurred was in Tavistock Square. The Tribunal found that Ms Rus was not in the immediate vicinity of or in close proximity to that place. Although she was aware that something was happening within her vicinity, she did not know that the bombing had occurred until she arrived at her workplace and saw photographs on the Internet.
The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Rus would have no prospect of success and that granting an extension of time to commence the proceedings would be futile. The Tribunal refused the application.
Sharp and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2015] AATA 127; 6 March 2015
Member Regina Perton
Whether the applicant was entitled to receive parenting payment – use of material from Facebook as evidence in deciding whether the applicant was a member of a couple
Ms Sharp and Mr O'Brien had an intermittent relationship which ended in mid-2009 when she was pregnant with their first child. In 2012, they bought a three-storey, four-bedroom house which they owned as joint tenants so their son had a better environment and to enable Mr O'Brien to spend time with him. Ms Sharp and Mr O'Brien had separate bedrooms on different floors of the property. In January 2014, Ms Sharp announced on Facebook that she and Mr O'Brien were "expecting a little girl". She responded to congratulatory posts from friends and family with comments including "it's been a long road" and "we are over the moon".
In May 2014, Centrelink cancelled Ms Sharp's parenting payment on the basis that she and Mr O'Brien were members of a couple. This primary decision was affirmed on internal review and by the SSAT. Ms Sharp applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.
In deciding whether Ms Sharp was a member of a couple as defined in section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991, the Tribunal was required to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship at May 2014, including the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of their household, the social aspects of the relationship, any sexual relationship between them and the nature of their commitment to each other. In relation to the social aspects of their relationship, there was evidence that Ms Sharp and Mr O'Brien had started holidaying at a particular camping ground when they were first together and this had continued despite the change in their relationship. A Facebook entry showed they had stayed there from Boxing Day in 2013.
The Tribunal noted that Ms Sharp and Mr O'Brien did not consider themselves to be in a de facto relationship. However, the nature of their property ownership as joint tenants was an objective indicator of the way a couple would purchase a property and also indicated a pooling of financial resources. The announcement of the pregnancy on Facebook seemed to point to a desired baby that both Ms Sharp and Mr O'Brien were excited about. Taking into account the criteria as a whole, the Tribunal found that Ms Sharp was a member of a couple in May 2014.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Ms Sharp's parenting payment.
Sports Anti-Doping
Kennedy and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and Chief Executive Officer, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Earl and Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and Chief Executive Officer, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
[2014] AATA 967; 31 December 2014
[2014] AATA 968; 31 December 2014
Deputy President Stephen Frost
Whether entries made on the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel's Register of Findings relating to "possible non-presence anti-doping rule violations" by two professional sportsmen should be upheld
The applicants were professional sportsmen playing in the National Rugby League (NRL) competition. The Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel formed a view that it was possible that each of the applicants had contravened the National Anti-Doping Scheme (NAD Scheme) set out in the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006. Neither of the applicants was the subject of an "adverse analytical finding" (such as the presence of a prohibited substance in their blood or urine sample), but the Panel considered that it was possible that they had attempted to use, or possessed (or in Mr Earl's case, actually used) a prohibited substance. Whether the applicants actually committed a non-presence anti-doping rule violation would be considered by the NRL's Anti-Doping Tribunal.
The information relied on by the Panel to make its findings had been provided to it by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). ASADA had obtained the information from the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), which in turn had obtained it from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs Service).
The applicants claimed that the information in the possession of the Customs Service, which it had sourced from another individual known to the applicants, had been obtained unlawfully. The information was held on a mobile phone carried by that individual when he arrived at Sydney airport on a flight from overseas. The applicants accepted that the Customs officers were entitled to read the contents of the mobile phone, but they were not empowered to make a copy of those contents, which they did. The applicants claimed that the Customs Service should not have provided the copied material to the ACC and that the ACC should not have made the material available to ASADA. The applicants claimed that the Panel should not have had regard to the information sourced in that way, and submitted that the Tribunal should set aside the findings of the Panel because the information had been obtained and used improperly.
The Tribunal found that the copying of the material by the Customs officers was authorised by the Customs Act 1901. The Customs Service was under an obligation to provide the material to the ACC in response to the ACC's formal notice requiring its production, and the ACC was authorised to disseminate the material to ASADA. Accordingly, the Panel was entitled to take the material into account in deciding whether to make the entries on the Register of Findings.
The Tribunal then considered whether the findings made by the Panel in relation to the possible non-presence anti-doping rule violations should be affirmed or set aside. The Tribunal held that the NAD Scheme contemplates that a relevant finding would only be made if there were material available which, rationally analysed, could support a finding that it is possible that an athlete has committed a violation. In respect of Mr Kennedy, the Tribunal concluded that all the findings were justified, and the Panel's decision to make the relevant entries on the Register was affirmed. In respect of Mr Earl, the Tribunal concluded that most, but not all, of the Panel's findings were justified. The Tribunal set aside those findings that were not justified, and substituted a decision that the entries should not be made. The remaining entries were affirmed.
Taxation
GHP 104 160 689 Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation
[2014] AATA 515; 29 July 2014
[2014] AATA 869; 24 November 2014
President Justice Duncan Kerr
Whether the applicant was entitled to deductions for research and development expenditure at a premium rate
The applicant was carrying out mining operations at a number of sites in Australia. Over several income tax years, related companies undertook research and development activities directed to developing knowledge and increasing the effectiveness of their copper and lead-zinc concentrators and a copper smelter. Plant trials were conducted to test changes under ordinary operational conditions and to assess the impacts of the changes.
The company claimed that it was entitled to deductions at the premium rate of 125 per cent for a considerable part of the expenditure incurred during the plant trials in accordance with section 73B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the Act). For each of the relevant income tax years, the Commissioner of Taxation disallowed many of the items of expenditure. The company applied to the Tribunal for review of these decisions.
There were two main issues for the Tribunal to decide:
- whether the disputed expenditure was feedstock expenditure which is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of research and development expenditure, and
- whether overlap between the company's research and development activities in respect of its Mt Isa copper concentrator and smelter meant that certain expenditure became feedstock expenditure.
Feedstock expenditure was defined in the Act to mean "expenditure incurred by the company in acquiring or producing materials or goods to be the subject of processing or transformation by the company in research and development activities". The Commissioner contended that all of the disputed expenditure was feedstock expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the feedstock expenditure exclusion only applies to expenditure on such goods or materials as are acquired or produced in order that they will be subjected to processing or transformation in the research and development activity. Contrary to the Commissioner's arguments, the exclusion does not extend to what a company spends to subject those goods or materials to processing or transformation.
The Tribunal found that the company's feedstock expenditure consisted only of the following types of expenditure: expenditure incurred in acquiring or producing ores for the plant trials in its concentrator plants; expenditure incurred in acquiring or producing copper concentrate to be fed into the company's Mt Isa smelter process for the plant trials; and expenditure incurred on the oxygen inserted into the smelter process. None of the other disputed expenditure items was feedstock expenditure and could therefore be deducted at the premium rate.
In relation to the overlap issue, the evidence was that, when the company's research and development activities were being undertaken concurrently in the Mt Isa copper concentrator and smelter, all of the concentrate produced was sent to the smelter. The Tribunal considered whether the definition of feedstock expenditure could be interpreted so as to exclude expenditure incurred in producing products in other research and development activities but held that the statutory language was clear. The Tribunal found that the expenditure incurred in producing copper concentrates to be used in the smelter plant trials was feedstock expenditure.
The Tribunal varied the Commissioner's decisions, allowing the company to claim deductions at the premium rate for some of the expenditure incurred during the plant trials. It also varied the amounts of shortfall interest charge imposed on the company.
Veterans' Affairs
Hoang and Repatriation Commission
[2015] AATA 470; 30 June 2015
Deputy President James Constance
Whether the applicant is entitled to benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as a result of service with the South Vietnam Air Force
Mr Hoang claimed he was a member of the South Vietnam Air Force during the Vietnam War. In 2013, Mr Hoang applied to the Repatriation Commission to have his service recognised as qualifying service for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) on the basis that he was an allied veteran. The Commission decided that he did not render qualifying service. Mr Hoang applied to the Tribunal for review of the Commission's decision.
There were three issues for the Tribunal to determine:
- whether Mr Hoang enlisted as a member of the South Vietnam Air Force and rendered continuous full-time service during the relevant period of hostilities (31 July 1962 to 11 January 1973)
- whether he incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy during that service, and
- if so, whether the service was rendered in connection with a war in which the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia were engaged.
In relation to his enlistment and period of service, the Tribunal considered evidence from Mr Hoang and from two other men who said they first met him in 1972. The Tribunal also took into account a photograph of Mr Hoang wearing the uniform of the South Vietnam Air Force cadets and a German travel document issued to him in 1982 which noted his occupation as a pilot. While there were some inconsistencies in Mr Hoang's evidence as to when he joined the Air Force, the Tribunal was satisfied that he had enlisted as a trainee helicopter pilot sometime in 1972 and continued as a member of the Air Force until the fall of Saigon.
Mr Hoang gave evidence that he had been present during Vietcong attacks on two different Air Force bases in 1972. He claimed that, in both attacks, rockets had exploded close to him. While there were discrepancies in his evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied Mr Hoang was an honest witness and it took into account the effects of the passage of time on his memory in accordance with section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal was satisfied that the first attack had occurred in 1972, that Mr Hoang was exposed to the risk of death or injury and therefore incurred danger from hostile forces. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Mr Hoang's service was rendered in connection with a war in which Australian forces were engaged.
The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commission and substituted it with a decision that Mr Hoang had rendered qualifying service within the meaning of the Act.
Workers' Compensation
Ripper and Australian Postal Corporation
[2015] AATA 15; 14 January 2015
Senior Member Graham Friedman
Whether a return to work program was a suitable rehabilitation program – whether the applicant refused or failed to undertake the rehabilitation program
Ms Ripper suffered an injury to her left knee in a work-related motor vehicle accident in 2001. The Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) accepted liability to pay compensation in respect of the injury under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). Aggravations to the injury caused her to reduce her working hours from 2008.
In September 2011, Australia Post met with Ms Ripper and Ms Ripper's general practitioner to discuss a return to work program. Ms Ripper was subsequently referred for a rehabilitation pain management assessment which led to her participation in a pain management program. Ms Ripper's doctor certified that Ms Ripper could only work 1.5 hours per day. However, the multidisciplinary rehabilitation pain management team concluded she had a work capacity of two hours per day.
In June 2012, Australia Post determined that Ms Ripper should commence a rehabilitation upgrade program starting with two hours' work one day a week and increasing the number of hours and days over time. Ms Ripper commenced the program but managed to work only 1.5 hours per day. In July 2012, Ms Ripper's compensation payments were suspended on the basis that she had failed to undertake or continue to participate in the program. Ms Ripper requested reconsideration of the decision that she undertake the rehabilitation program and the decision to suspend her compensation payments. Both decisions were affirmed and she applied to the Tribunal for review.
The issues before the Tribunal were:
- whether the rehabilitation program was valid and, if so, whether it was suitable; and
- whether Ms Ripper had failed to undertake the program and, if so, without reasonable excuse.
It was argued for Ms Ripper that the program was invalid because Australia Post had failed to have regard to two matters as required by section 37(3) of the Act. Firstly, it was contended that Australia Post had failed to have regard to her attitude to the program. While the Tribunal noted that communication with Ms Ripper was not optimal, it found Australia Post did have regard to her attitude to the program. Secondly, it was submitted that Australia Post had failed to consult Ms Ripper and her doctor in developing the program in accordance with Comcare's Guidelines for Rehabilitation Authorities 2005. However, the Tribunal found that Australia Post did consult Ms Ripper and made reasonable attempts to consult the doctor, including by sending her the proposed program and attempting to contact her on two occasions.
In considering whether the rehabilitation program was suitable, the Tribunal took into account a range of matters, including that there was only a 30 minute difference between the view of Ms Ripper's doctor and the multidisciplinary team as to her capacity and that the program provided for ongoing reviews as to her fitness for work. The Tribunal found that the program was flexible enough to accommodate Ms Ripper's situation and was a suitable program.
The Tribunal held that, for the purposes of the Act, the requirement to undertake a rehabilitation program means more than to begin or to commence the program, but less than completing it. It is synonymous with "to participate in" or "to engage in" and by inference requires a real or genuine level of commitment. The Tribunal found that Ms Ripper made a genuine and reasonable effort within her physical capability to fulfil her obligations under the program. She complied substantially with the program and, as a result, did not fail to undertake the program.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision that she should undertake the rehabilitation program but set aside the decision to suspend her compensation payments.
Appendix // 08 Speeches, publications and other activities
AAT members and staff undertake a wide range of activities that assist to raise awareness of the AAT's role, procedures and activities. Members and staff give speeches at conferences and seminars, participate in training and education activities, publish books and articles and undertake other engagement activities. The record of activities for 2014–15 is in four lists: speeches and presentations; competition adjudication and training; publications; and other engagement activities. The lists in Tables A8.1, A8.2 and A8.4 are arranged by date and the list in Table A8.3 is in alphabetical order.
Table A8.1 Speeches and presentations
Title/role
|
Event/organisation
|
Participant/speaker(s)
|
Date
|
Federal Administrative Review and its Accessibility |
Administrative Law Conference, Federal Court of Australia, Melbourne |
Senior Member Jill Toohey |
29 August 2014 |
Integrated Dispute Resolution at the AAT |
National Mediation Conference, Melbourne |
Justin Toohey, Director ADR |
11 September 2014 |
Administrative Law Challenges and the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
Seminar, Australian Institute of Administrative Law, Canberra |
Senior Member Jill Toohey |
14 October 2014 |
Merits Review through the Prism of National Disability Insurance Agency Decisions |
Government and Public Law Update, University of New South Wales, Sydney |
Senior Member Jill Toohey |
15 October 2014 |
Engaging with State and Federal Policy Makers to Increase Australia's Long-Term Economic and Social Prosperity |
Launch of A Federation for the 21st Century, Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Sydney |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
27 October 2014 |
The AAT: Practical Aspects |
Lecture, University of Canberra, Canberra |
Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain |
6 November 2014 |
Observations and Insights regarding Licensee AAT Cases |
Seminar, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Licensees Association, Melbourne |
Deputy President Stephanie Forgie |
18 November 2014 |
Considerations on an Application for a Telecommunications Interception Warrant |
State Crime Command Professional Development Day, New South Wales Police, Parramatta |
Deputy President James Constance |
3 December 2014 |
Welcome and Opening Address |
Hot Topics in Commonwealth Compensation Seminar, Law Council of Australia, Sydney |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
12 December 2014 |
The Role of the Mediator |
Seminar, ACT Law Society, Canberra |
Conference Registrar Kim Lackenby |
19 February 2015 |
The AAT: Practical Aspects |
Lecture, University of Canberra, Canberra |
Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain |
19 February 2015 |
The Rise of Tribunals and Access to Justice |
Law Summer School 2015, Law Society of Western Australia, Perth |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
20 February 2015 |
The National Disability Insurance Scheme: A New Challenge in Administrative Decision-Making |
Summer Law Series, Legal Aid Western Australia, Perth |
Senior Member Jill Toohey |
27 February 2015 |
Proceeds of Crime Examinations |
Australian Federal Police Conference, Canberra |
Deputy President James Constance |
3 February 2015 |
Unpacking the Decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
2015 National Disability Summit, Melbourne |
Professor Ronald McCallum AO |
18 March 2015 |
Dispute Resolution in Civil Practice |
Lecture, University of Technology, Sydney |
Senior Member Geri Ettinger |
20 March 2015 |
Boundaries and Ethical Dilemmas |
Understanding and Engaging People in Tribunals Program, National Judicial College of Australia, Melbourne and Sydney |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
9 & 14 April 2015 |
GST: A Vignette from the Trenches of Merits Review |
27th ATAX GST Conference, University of New South Wales, Brisbane |
Deputy President Stephanie Forgie |
20 April 2015 |
Welcome and Opening Address |
Hot Topics in Commonwealth Compensation Seminar, Law Council of Australia, Melbourne |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
22 May 2015 |
The Role of a Tribunal Member |
Training Day, Tasmanian Mental Health Tribunal, Campbell Town |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
25 May 2015 |
Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Processes, Expectations, Issues |
Ex-Service Organisations Advocacy Conference, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Canberra |
Conference Registrar
Kim Lackenby |
26 May 2015 |
Welcome and Opening Address |
2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
4 June 2015 |
Panel Member, Civil and Administrative Tribunals Retrospective and Prospective |
2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
4 June 2015 |
Panel Member, Role of Specialist Members on Tribunal Panels |
2015 COAT National Conference, Melbourne |
Member Regina Perton |
5 June 2015 |
Freedom of Information |
Lecture, Australian National University, Canberra |
Senior Member James Popple |
21 June 2015 |
Co-Presenter, Tribunal Amalgamation |
FOI and Litigation Branch Litigation Conference, Department of Human Services, Sydney |
Christopher Matthies, Executive Director Information and Development |
24 June 2015 |
Table A8.2 Competition adjudication and training
Title/role
|
Event/organisation
|
Participant(s)/presenter(s)
|
Date
|
Mooting Competition Adjudicator |
National Mooting Competition, Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
Justice Duncan Kerr, President
Deputy Presidents Philip Hack, Robin Handley, Stanley Hotop and Brian Tamberlin
Former Deputy President Deane Jarvis
Senior Members Egon Fice, Gina Lazanas, Bernard McCabe, Frank O'Loughlin, Steven Penglis and Jill Toohey
Members Conrad Ermert and Sandra Taglieri |
July – October 2014 |
ADR Skills Development for Registrars |
ACT Magistrates Court, Canberra |
Conference Registrar Siobhan Ni Fhaolain |
4 & 11 September 2014
30 April 2015 |
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator |
Advanced Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney |
Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager |
8 October 2014 |
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator |
Beginners Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney |
Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager |
13 October 2014 |
Presiding Judge for Mock Trials |
Tasmanian Advocacy Convention, Hobart |
Justice Duncan Kerr |
6 December 2014 |
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator |
Advanced Negotiation Competition, University of New South Wales, Sydney |
Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager |
16 March 2015 |
Negotiation Competition Adjudicator |
Negotiating Outcomes on Time Competition, Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
Justice Duncan Kerr
Senior Members Geri Ettinger and Bernard McCabe
Conference Registrars Nicole Barker, Michelle East, Brian Leaver, Jennifer Lock, Siobhan Ni Fhaolain, Franca Petrone and Mersina Stratos
District Registrar Nicola Colbran
Justin Toohey, Director ADR
Athena Harris Ingall, Learning and Development Manager |
9, 10, 23, 24 & 30 May 2015 |
Table A8.3 Publications
Title
|
Author
|
Citation/Publisher
|
Australian Tax Handbook 2015 |
Deputy President Professor Robert Deutsch (co-author) |
Thomson Reuters |
Private Life in a Digital World |
Member Dr Gordon Hughes (co-author) |
Thomson Reuters |
Table A8.4 Other engagement activities
Title/role
|
Event/organisation
|
Participant/speaker(s)
|
Date
|
Participant |
Stakeholder meeting for NDIS Barkly Region Trial Site, Darwin |
District Registrar Catherine Cashen |
18 August 2014 |
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters |
Community Workers Forum, Adelaide |
District Registrar Catherine Cashen |
10 October 2014 |
Management of NDIS Matters in the AAT |
External Merits Review Support Component Workshop, Melbourne |
Senior Member Jill Toohey
Conference Registrar Tracy Sheedy
District Registrar Catherine Cashen |
20 & 21 October 2014 |
Management of NDIS Matters in the AAT |
National Disability Services Tennant Creek Regional Forum, Tennant Creek |
District Registrar Catherine Cashen |
30 October 2014 |
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters |
Community Workers Forum, Elizabeth |
Conference Registrar Jennifer Lock |
8 May 2015 |
The Appeal Process at the AAT in Centrelink Matters |
Community Workers Forum, Brisbane |
Justin Toohey, Director ADR |
10 June 2015 |
Appendix // 09 Other reporting requirements
Advertising and market research
The AAT did not undertake any advertising campaigns in 2014–15.
Non-campaign advertising expenditure of $196.90 (incl. GST) was paid to Mitchell & Partners Australia for advertising employment vacancies in 2014–15. Amounts paid for non-campaign advertising in the last three reporting periods is shown in Table A9.1.
Table A9.1 Trends in non-campaign advertising
Year
|
Organisation
|
Cost (incl. GST)
|
2012–13 |
Adcorp Australia |
$38,524.29
|
2013–14 |
Adcorp Australia |
$1,041.18
|
2014–15 |
Mitchell & Partners Australia |
$196.90
|
The AAT did not pay any amounts to market research, polling or direct mailing organisations during the reporting year.
Changes to disability reporting in annual reports
Since 1994, Commonwealth departments and agencies have reported on their performance as policy adviser, purchaser, employer, regulator and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public Service Commission's State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies have no longer been required to report on these functions.
The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by the National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, which sets out a ten year national policy framework to improve the lives of people with disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. A high level two-yearly report will track progress against each of the six outcome areas of the Strategy and present a picture of how people with disability are faring. The first of these reports will be available in late 2014, and can be found at www.dss.gov.au.
Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance
The AAT does not develop or administer legislation or policy relating to the environment but takes steps to ensure our operations are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable way.
When arranging new leases and refurbishments, we give consideration to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The AAT's Long Term Accommodation Masterplan, adopted in May 2015, states a preference for leases in buildings with NABERS ratings of at least 4.5 and refers to compliance with a range of policies, including the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations Policy, ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–2015 and the National Waste Policy. The AAT signed a lease for new premises in Sydney on 30 June 2015 which includes the required Green Lease Schedule and is in a building with a NABERS rating of 5.
We also limit our impact on the environment in day-to-day operations by implementing simple measures such as ensuring lights are switched off when not required, ensuring any leased vehicles have a high Green Vehicle Guide rating and recycling office waste.
Table A9.2 Environmental performance reporting
Theme
|
Steps taken to reduce effect
|
Measures to review and improve reducing the effect
|
Energy efficiency |
Install sensor-controlled lighting in any updates to premises.
Consider energy ratings of office machines when replacement is necessary. |
General energy consumption fell by three per cent during the reporting year. |
Vehicles |
Ensure the average Green Vehicle Guide rating of the AAT's leased vehicles is as high as possible. |
The AAT's one leased vehicle as at 30 June 2015 has a rating of 14. |
Waste |
Participate in office waste recycling schemes. |
All registries recycled paper during the reporting year.
Two registries also recycled glass, plastics and metals, and two other registries recycled toner cartridges.
The Adelaide Registry recycled paper, comingled, organic and battery materials.
As the AAT uses whole-of-building recycling schemes, separate data on recycling quantities is not currently available. |
Water |
Install water saving devices such as dual-flush cisterns and waterless urinals in any updates to premises. |
The AAT is not able to access data on water consumption in each of its tenancies. |
GRANTS PROGRAMS
The AAT does not administer any grants programs.