Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

Then, in terms of representatives—the lawyers and people representing people who go through the AAT—the user satisfaction rate was even higher. So amongst those people, the lawyers—the ones you'd expect to have more experience of dealing with the AAT, as part of their job—the satisfaction rate was even higher!

Then we get to this KPI with respect to fairness. I would have thought this was a key point. On fairness, on the courtesy and respect shown by members and registrars, on the opportunity given to parties to present their case and on overall perceptions of the fairness of the review and the independence of the AAT—on this key performance indicator—what were the results? The satisfaction rating of users was 77 per cent. So 77 per cent said they thought that it was fair, they were treated with respect and it was independent—77 per cent. And then, of their representatives—the lawyers and other people, advocates, who appear regularly—it was 82 per cent. Does that sound, on any objective basis, like an organisation that has lost the trust and confidence of all stakeholders? I don't need to answer that question. But the disturbing thing is that data is not even referred to in the majority report. They don't even try to deal with that issue. There's not even an attempt to deal with that issue.

I want to make a few points on a number of issues that weren't dealt with in the majority report. It's a shame that a number of these issues weren't dealt with. There wasn't time. One of these issues—I'll touch on a few of them—was in relation to constitutional issues. There were some very good submissions made in relation to whether the President of the Administrative Review Tribunal should be a justice of the Federal Court. To put it in simple terms, the concern is that that mixes a court with a tribunal, which is part of executive government. Should there be that mixing? Does it raise too many constitutional issues? There were some very good submissions made by Mr Graham Connolly of council, and there was quite a reasonable response to that from the Attorney-General's Department. But it is an open question, in my mind, as to whether it is best practice, having considered the matter, to have a judge of the Federal Court as the president or whether it might be better to have a retired Federal Court judge or a retired senior member of the AAT as president. I think that's a reasonable open question.

The next point I want to make is around costs. There were very good submissions made by a whole range of stakeholders that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should have the discretion in exceptional circumstances to award costs to an applicant. That is especially true, given that we're introducing this additional layer, which Senator Shoebridge referred to, in the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal. You might have a situation where someone applies to the AAT and wins their case, and it's thought, 'We're going to elevate this to the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal because we want the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal to look at this case; it could set precedent, and it might be usable for the broader public for it to be elevated.' I strongly believe, in that situation, the costs of the applicant should be, in some way, reimbursed, because their case has been used for a public good.

There are situations where Commonwealth departments, the bureaucracy, don't necessarily follow what we refer to as the model litigant rules.