The creation and functions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
🔹 Creation and Historical Background
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was established under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). It began operations on 1 July 1976 as part of a broader reform agenda aimed at improving transparency, accountability, and review mechanisms in Australian public administration.
It was the first generalist merits review tribunal in Australia, and it was influenced by both domestic needs and international models, particularly those in the UK and Canada. Its creation followed recommendations from the Kerr Committee (1971) and Ellicott Committee (1973) reports, which emphasized the importance of a fair and independent tribunal system to review administrative decisions.
🔹 Key Objectives
Provide independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws.
Promote fairness, legality, and accountability in government decision-making.
Ensure that individuals affected by administrative decisions have access to justice without the formality or expense of court proceedings.
⚖️ Functions and Jurisdiction of the AAT
✅ Merits Review
The AAT conducts a merits review, not a judicial review.
This means the Tribunal can "step into the shoes" of the original decision-maker and reconsider all facts, law, and policy.
It can affirm, vary, set aside, or substitute decisions.
✅ Areas of Jurisdiction
The AAT has jurisdiction over decisions in areas including:
Migration and citizenship
Social security and child support
Taxation
Veterans' affairs
Freedom of information
National disability insurance
Workplace compensation
Regulatory and professional licensing
The AAT does not have jurisdiction unless a specific statute confers it.
✅ Structure
The AAT is organized into several divisions, such as:
Migration and Refugee Division
Social Services and Child Support Division
General Division
Taxation and Commercial Division
National Disability Insurance Scheme Division
Veterans' Appeals Division
🧑⚖️ Important Case Laws Explaining AAT’s Functions and Impact
✅ 1. Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Facts: Drake, a US citizen, was ordered to be deported for a criminal offence. He appealed to the AAT.
Issue: What is the nature of the AAT’s review powers?
Held: The Federal Court clarified that the AAT is not limited to reviewing the legality of decisions—it can exercise full merits review.
Significance: Landmark case confirming the AAT's role as a de novo decision-maker and not merely a reviewer of legal errors.
Also clarified the use of government policy—the AAT can consider policy but is not bound to apply it rigidly.
✅ 2. Re Becker and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158
Facts: Becker, a German national, was ordered to be deported. He challenged the decision at the AAT.
Held: The AAT ruled in his favour, emphasizing its duty to consider both legal and humanitarian aspects.
Significance: One of the first cases that showcased the AAT’s flexibility in applying justice and fairness beyond strict legal rules.
✅ 3. Re Control Investments Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88
Facts: Concerned media ownership regulations and a decision by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
Held: The AAT must examine not only the facts and law but also the policy objectives of the statute.
Significance: Established that the AAT should consider broader public interest when reviewing certain decisions.
✅ 4. Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Facts: Shi’s registration as a migration agent was cancelled. He sought merits review before the AAT.
Held: The High Court reaffirmed that the AAT conducts a fresh decision-making process, not a supervisory one.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that the AAT is not confined by the reasoning of the original decision-maker, supporting its broad merits review powers.
✅ 5. Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33
Facts: Pochi, a permanent resident, was to be deported for a criminal conviction.
Held: The AAT found that the decision was unreasonable and not in the public interest, and overturned it.
Significance: Emphasized that the AAT has the ability to depart from departmental policy where it is not in the public interest.
🔍 Comparison Table: AAT Case Law Impact
| Case Name | Key Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Drake v Minister for Immigration | AAT can reconsider the entire merits of a decision |
| Re Becker | AAT must consider humanitarian and fairness elements |
| Re Control Investments | AAT must factor in public interest and statutory policy |
| Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority | AAT conducts independent decision-making |
| Re Pochi | AAT can depart from policy if justice or fairness requires it |
🧾 Summary
📌 Creation of the AAT:
Established in 1975 to provide fair, independent, and accessible review of administrative decisions.
📌 Core Functions:
Merits review of government decisions.
Authority to affirm, vary, set aside, or substitute decisions.
Applies both legal rules and policy flexibly.
📌 Case Law Demonstrates:
The AAT’s unique role in merits-based reconsideration.
Flexibility in applying fairness and public interest.
Influence of policy and discretion in administrative review.
Judicial support for the Tribunal's independent adjudicatory role.
RELATED Blog
0 comments