October 2019 The Review includes news about the AAT and summaries of a selection of our published decisions. Previous issues of The Review are available on our website. Reporting on our performance The AAT’s 2018-19 Annual Report was tabled in Parliament on 21 October 2019 and is now available to download from our website. The report sets out a range of information about our operations and performance during the last financial year. We finalised more than 44,000 applications and achieved our targets in relation to judicial review outcomes, user experience and the number of decisions we published throughout the reporting year. Our 2018–19 annual report also outlines some of the continued challenges we face as the number of new applications received by the AAT continues to increase. During the reporting year, we received more than 60,000 applications, which is the highest ever number of lodgements in a single year. The majority of applications were lodged in the Migration and Refugee Division, which has also seen the largest increases of all AAT Divisions over time. These types of applications have doubled since 2015–16 to more than 36,000 in 2018–19. Through the concerted efforts of our members and staff, and despite the challenges, we finalised 11 per cent more applications than in the previous reporting year. As well as the full report, we have produced 2018–19 At a glance, a summary that shares key statistics and commentary about the reporting period.
Outcome of the annual mooting competition (from left) AAT Senior Member Lisa Hespe; AAT President, the Hon Justice David Thomas; first place team members, Emily Goodfellow and Samuel Kassirer; Chris Merritt, Legal Affairs Editor of The Australian. The AAT has run an annual mooting competition for law students across the country since 2004. Our moot is a unique national competition where students participate in mock hearings based on the types of matters that come before the AAT. The competition has five rounds in total and runs over four months with scenarios increasing in complexity as competitors’ progress through each round. The objective of the competition is to enable our next generation of lawyers to develop their professional skills by engaging with realistic administrative law scenarios. Congratulations to all 26 law schools that participated this year! The finalist teams, Bond University and the University of New South Wales, were provided with a challenging scenario to test their advocacy skills. The teams were asked to consider customs law when arguing whether a carbon fibre drone kit should be classified as a toy (which attracts no customs duty) or an article of graphite or other carbon (which attracts a five per cent customs duty). Our eminent panel of three adjudicators – AAT President, the Hon Justice David Thomas, Senior Member Lisa Hespe and Chris Merritt, Legal Affairs Editor for The Australian – was tasked with the challenge of deciding the winning team. We would also like to extend our thanks and appreciation to the adjudicators who provided their valuable time and expertise through the five rounds of the competition. While both teams showed impressive advocacy skills, Bond University was awarded the winning title this year. The AAT is also grateful to Thomson Reuters and the Australian Institute of Administrative law for their continued support of the competition as sponsors of the competition prizes. For more information, visit the 2019 National Mooting Competition page on our website. Access to information and documents at the AATIn the September edition, we discussed AAT reviews of government decisions made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). This month, we are building on the same theme to focus on how people can access case-related information and documents held by the AAT. The AAT makes a range of case-related information available to the wider community. The type of information available varies depending on the legislation and procedures relevant to each area of our work. Everyone can access information via: · our daily listing notices (details about all hearings that are open to the public) · eCase search (online access to publically available records on select applications lodged in the AAT) · AustLII (where all published AAT decisions can be found). Parties to an AAT review can request and be given access to information about their own case without making an FOI request. However, people who are not parties to a case can only access limited additional information about individual cases outside of the FOI Act. The type of information which can be provided to non-parties depends on the circumstances of the case, including whether: · the law applying to the review allows the information to be made public · a public hearing has been held · any confidentiality orders have been made. Usually, a person who is not a party to a case will need to make a formal FOI request in order for information held by the AAT about a case to be released. The AAT is required to comply with the FOI Act in facilitating access to information held by us and also with the Privacy Act 1988 in relation to personal information. Further details about how information can be accessed at the AAT, including how to lodge an FOI request, are available on our website.
Our staff produce decision summaries for a selection of AAT decisions that have been published in full on the AustLII website. We use these summaries to offer an insight into our decision-making processes and to demonstrate the diversity of our work. For the complete facts and reasons, please view the full written decisions on AustLII. View our recent decision summaries below. Child SupportBrigham and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2019] AATA 1688The applicant objected to a decision made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) however lodged his objection after the deadline. The CSA decided not to provide the applicant with an extension of time to lodge his application. The key question for the AAT was whether or not an extension of time should be granted to the applicant for a review of this child support decision. In doing this the AAT had to determine whether the applicant’s reasons for lodging his objection out of time were reasonable, and if so, whether an extension of time would likely support a successful outcome to the original objection. Walton and Cannon (Child support) [2019] AATA 2529In this case, the applicant made direct payments to the mother for one of their children’s orthodontic treatment, a cello and school books. He made payments after she sent him invoices for the items. The issue which arises is whether or not any of the four payments made by the father can be credited against his child support liability because they relate to specific types of payments made on behalf of the children. CompensationLord and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 2965The applicant, who is employed by the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) as a hair and makeup artist, applied to the AAT for review of a workers compensation decision made by Comcare. The applicant lodged a claim for workers’ compensation as she suffered from an adjustment disorder due to incidents in the workplace. The AAT considered the actions and decisions made by SBS and determined the injury was suffered due to the employer’s reasonable administrative action and that the administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner. Migration and Refugee1907863 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1407The applicant applied to the AAT for review of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to grant her a protection visa. The AAT found that the applicant did not claim to fear serious or significant harm in Bulgaria and admitted that she applied for the protection visa so that she can remain in Australia with her Australian citizen children. Hans (Migration) [2019] AATA 3234The Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas because the primary visa applicant was not subject of an approved nomination. The AAT found that the approved position was the same as the one in the applicants’ original visa application. Therefore the business sponsor who would employ the applicant was the same person who nominated the position for approval. Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 3490The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s visa because he breached his visa conditions by not being enrolled in a registered course. The Department relied on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) database to find that the applicant had 'not completed any registered course for which he had been enrolled in' since his arrival in Australia in 2015. However, due to an error in the system the applicant’s full study history was not recorded on PRISMS. The AAT found that the applicant was enrolled in a registered course and complied with the conditions of his student visa. Social Services (second review)Upjohn and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 2963The applicant claimed and received youth allowance whilst studying at university. He was also granted a student start up scholarship as an ancillary benefit of his youth allowance. In order to qualify for youth allowance and the student start up scholarship, a person must prove they are ‘undertaking full-time study’ or carrying an equivalent full-time study load of at least 0.375. The Department of Social Services claimed that the applicant was not enrolled in full-time study and was therefore required to repay Centrelink for overpayments. The AAT had to decide whether the applicant met full time study requirements during the period in question. The AAT Bulletin is a weekly publication containing information about recently published decisions and appeals against decisions in the AAT’s General, Freedom of Information, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Security, Taxation & Commercial and Veterans’ Appeals Divisions. The Bulletin also regularly includes a sample of decisions recently published in the AAT’s Migration & Refugee Division and Social Services & Child Support Division. What do you think? Write to us at Communications@aat.gov.au to provide editorial suggestions and feedback. |