Inaugural ceremonial sitting of the Administrative Review Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE EMILIOS KYROU AO, President
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE THAWLEY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MCEVOY
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HESPE
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BENNETT AO
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLAR
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BURFORD
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DORDEVIC
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAZANAS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROUSHAN
DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’DONOVAN
DEPUTY PRESIDENT THOMPSON SC
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BRITTEN-JONES
MELBOURNE
9.30 AM, MONDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2024
KYROU P: On behalf of the members and staff of the Tribunal, I would like to thank everyone for attending this inaugural ceremonial sitting, especially the large number of distinguished guests who are present. In particular, I am pleased to acknowledge two former presidents of the AAT, The Honourable Garry Downes and The Honourable Duncan Kerr. I was delighted that The Honourable Garry Downes was able to attend the final ceremonial sitting of the AAT in Sydney last Friday. That ceremony gave me the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous achievements of the AAT over the past 48 years and to thank the past Presidents and the many members and staff who contributed to those achievements.
I acknowledge the presence at the bar table of the Attorney-General, the Presidents of the Australian and Victorian Bar Associations, the Treasurer of the Law Council of Australia, the Commonwealth and Victorian Solicitors-General and the Australian Government Solicitor. I am very grateful to Chief Justice Mortimer for making the Federal Court facilities available to the Tribunal for this important ceremony, and for the invaluable assistance that the Court’s staff have provided. The Tribunal is honoured by the Chief Justice's presence and the presence of so many other Judges of this and other courts.
Joining me on the bench today are judicial and non-judicial Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal. They are Justices Thomas Thawley, Timothy McEvoy, Lisa Hespe and Victoria Bennett, and Deputy Presidents Kathryn Millar, Simone Burford, Kruna Dordevic, Gina Lazanas, Shahyar Roushan, Damien O’Donovan, Clare Thompson and Peter Britten-Jones. A very diverse group, as I think you would agree.
At the outset, I wish to place on record my deep respect for all of our First Nations people and to acknowledge the vital role of their Elders.
Attorney-General.
THE HON M. DREYFUS KC MP: Good morning. I begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of the ancestral lands on which we gather today, the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Bunurong/Boon Wurrung Peoples of the Kulin Nation. I pay my respects to their Elders past and present, and I extend that respect to any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons here with us. And I would also like to acknowledge The Honourable Debra Mortimer, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia; The Honourable William Alstergren, Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; The Honourable Anne Ferguson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria; your Honour, the President of the Administrative Review Tribunal, as well as Deputy Presidents and other members.
I would also like to acknowledge other Judges and former Judges who are here. I acknowledge former Presidents of the AAT, The Honourable Garry Downes KC and The Honourable Duncan Kerr Chev LC SC, along with Presidents of State Civil and Administrative Tribunals. I acknowledge representatives of the profession and members of the expert advisory group.
On 16 December 2022, I announced that the Albanese Government would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new administrative review body that better serves the interests of the Australian community. Today we gather to inaugurate that new body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, and deliver on our promise to restore trust and confidence in the review of government decisions. We also mark the most significant institutional reform to Australia's system of administrative review in almost half a century.
Today is a major milestone for the entire Australian community, for the tens of thousands of people who, every year, access independent merits review of government decisions. These decisions can affect any of us—our friends, colleagues and family members—and concern significant and life-changing matters like eligibility for an age pension, NDIS funding or whether someone can study, work or live permanently in Australia.
Gerard Brennan, inaugural President of the AAT, said that the AAT was, and I quote:
charged with the responsibility of blowing the winds of legal orthodoxy through the corridors of administrative power.
It was, he said:
intended not only to give better administrative justice in individual cases but also to secure an improvement in primary administrative decision-making.
This new Tribunal will build on these foundational principles. Like its predecessor, it will provide an independent mechanism of review—but the way it does so will be more efficient and accessible than ever before. Today, Australians are getting the Tribunal they deserve, one that is user-focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair.
To understand the future of administrative review we must first look to the past. The 1960s and 70s in Australia saw rapid social change with the Commonwealth government expanding its role in education, healthcare and social security. Increasingly, government decision-makers were required to exercise discretionary authority over matters that would directly affect people's lives. Mounting expectations were placed on decision-makers and public servants to act with integrity and transparency and be accountable to the Australian public for their decisions. To quote the Kerr Committee, whose 1971 report formed the basis for the design of the AAT:
We accept that the administration must, in the modern community, bear the burden of power and duty thrust upon it by circumstances and the legislature. There must, however,… be a concomitant acceptance of responsibility to correct administrative error and the improper exercise of administrative power.
It was the Whitlam and Fraser governments who gave Australia its modern system of administrative law through their bipartisan commitment to a mechanism for review of government decisions. Until that time the only avenue to appeal government decisions was review by courts for error of law. As we know, the wheels of justice move slowly and sometimes at great expense. Merits review was the answer. Gerard Brennan described it as a “brilliant solution … to the problems of the rapid expansion of administrative decision-making in a complex society.”
Simply put, where courts judge a decision solely on a question of law administrative review permitted scrutiny on the basis of merit—was the decision correct and preferable? Importantly, merits review placed the means to challenge government decisions within the reach of all Australians and not just those with time and resources to go to court. It was a groundbreaking innovation, which has been copied and adapted across all states and territories.
These foundational principles of administrative review have not changed. The core objective of ensuring that government reaches decisions that are correct and preferable is, and remains, the goal.
A key challenge for the future of Australia will be public administration that meets the needs of its growing and diversifying population—now double what it was when the AAT was founded in 1976—and the increased scale and complexity of its work given the new Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider decisions made under more than 400 diverse Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Through the reform process we heard about the importance of accessibility for people with disability, people for whom English was not their first language, people experiencing hardship and people not versed in the intricacies of administrative law. While the creation of the AAT in 1976 was a significant step forward, in 2024, we must go further. We must ensure that all people can come to the Tribunal, tell their story and receive a just decision. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 establishes a unified, cohesive and accessible institution that, I believe, will meet the needs and expectations of current and future generations.
It has been said that tribunals are the “face of justice” which is why it is so important that accessibility is enshrined in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Act requires that, as far as practicable, the Tribunal must conduct each proceeding in a way that is accessible to those before it. This will require the Tribunal to consider each party, their circumstances and what support they need to meaningfully apply for and participate in a review, whether that be an interpreter, physical accessibility arrangements, a litigation supporter, virtual hearings or other adaptation to procedure.
The right of individuals to access review is at the core of this reform, but to truly realise those rights, the Tribunal must be nimble in form and in practice. To this end, the Tribunal has a sustainable, demand-driven funding arrangement to support timely decision-making across all Tribunal jurisdictions. This will guard against delays and help avoid increases to backlogs, which leave people waiting and frustrate staff and members. Member effort and other resources can now be allocated more flexibly, ensuring they are placed where the need is greatest.
The legislation provides enhancements to support timely, informal and inexpensive decision-making, such as by allowing the Tribunal to resolve certain matters without the participation of the original decision-maker and the opposite, ordering them to participate if considered necessary.
To support transparency and integrity in government decision-making, the Tribunal has several self-monitoring and self-improvement mechanisms that will also guide government agencies to improve their internal decision-making.
Time and again we've heard from those hurt by errors in government decision-making: “I don't want this to happen to anyone else.” Time and again, Tribunal members have said they want their decisions to contribute to systemic improvement. We now have the means to make it happen. Nearly a decade after it was dismantled by the former government, the Administrative Review Council is being reinstated to monitor the integrity of the system, inquire into and report on challenges, and support education for officials. This will give the Tribunal and the broader system a mechanism for expert independent oversight.
The Tribunal features a guidance and appeals panel to which the President can refer matters that raise significant issues, either on their own motion or by application. In addition, the powers and obligations of the President include informing relevant Ministers, entities and the Administrative Review Council of any systemic issues related to the making of reviewable decisions in the case load of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to publish decisions of the guidance and appeals panel and any other decisions that raise significant issues of law or have major implications for public administration. The findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission demonstrate why this matters.
All together, these mechanisms will work to identify issues in the system quickly and rectify them before they become entrenched. This is good policy. It allows government to fulfil its promise to the Australian people. When you make the effort to apply for review, and the Tribunal finds that a mistake has been made, we now have the means to extend the benefit to others just like you.
At the heart of the Tribunal is its membership. As Deputy President Britten-Jones distilled in 2021, Tribunal members have three essential roles: to make decisions; to provide access to justice for those affected by administrative decisions; and to improve the quality of, and instil greater public confidence in, public administration.
The reputation of Australia's administrative review system relies on the quality and conduct of the Tribunal's members. Each member makes decisions in the knowledge that each one affects the life of someone in our community. Public confidence relies on that role being carried out independently and impartially. Appointment of non-judicial members through a transparent and merit-based selection process is a central feature of the new Tribunal. The Tribunal starts today with more than 360 foundational members. The President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar and every non-judicial member have been assessed as suitable for appointment following a thorough and publicly advertised process where any appropriately qualified person could apply. This undertaking represents one of the largest statutory appointment processes ever conducted in Australia.
A great responsibility rests on members, but it is also the Government's responsibility to ensure the very best, the brightest, the most qualified and most committed of our community are appointed. The quality of the foundational membership bears out the success of our reform in this regard. I congratulate you all, both new members and those continuing from the AAT, on your appointment to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Development of this reform would not have been possible without the guidance provided by the Administrative Review Expert Advisory Group, chaired by former High Court Judge, The Honourable Patrick Keane AC KC. I thank the Advisory Group for dedicating its wisdom and expertise to this process. I also thank staff in the Attorney-General's Department, and in particular, the Administrative Review Taskforce, led by Sara Samios, for their hard work delivering this reform.
The reform benefited enormously from insights of AAT users, AAT staff and members, peak bodies, legal professional bodies, legal assistance providers, academics, Commonwealth departments and other justice institutions. In particular, I thank the Law Council of Australia for its contribution. The reform implements several recommendations from recent reports and inquiries, including all three recommendations from the Senate inquiry into the performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system, and four recommendations from the Robodebt Royal Commission. The legislation establishing the Tribunal received parliamentary scrutiny from no less than four committees. Like the consultation before it, the parliamentary process shaped the Tribunal that we see before us today.
I thank the inaugural ART President, The Honourable Justice Emilios Kyrou AO, for his leadership during the transition period. His Honour is a remarkable jurist and leader, and I can think of no better person to be taking on this momentous role. Just as the AAT was soundly served by its first President, Gerard Brennan, the ART will be wonderfully well-served by Justice Kyrou.
I also thank Inaugural Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the ART, Mr Michael Hawkins AM, for his dedication in ensuring Tribunal members and staff have been supported during the transition period. And finally, I recognise the enormous, ongoing contribution made by staff of the AAT. As I said before, the
abolition of the AAT does not reflect, in any way, on the quality and commitment of its staff. I've met with many of you during my visits to registries as part of this reform, and I look forward to continuing to hear from you as the Tribunal begins its work.
I wish you, President, Principal Registrar, the foundational membership and the staff of the Tribunal the very best on your first day in your new roles and for the future.
Before I leave you with some concluding remarks, I want to emphasise that the work of reform is never finished. The Tribunal, the Administrative Review Council, my department, the broader public service and the Government must remain committed to ensuring the promise of the reform is delivered.
As I've said, over the course of this reform, a strong, user-focused administrative review body is critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals, particularly the most vulnerable members of our community. The new ART will have a visible impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people every year. It will deliver merits review fit for the 21st century and, together with the Administrative Review Council, will have a systemic effect on the quality and efficiency of government decision-making for the benefit of the whole community.
I'm proud of the road that we've travelled together to deliver what I hope will be acknowledged as one of the most important institutional reforms to both justice and public administration in decades.
Today, we bid farewell to the AAT, but not to the core principles it was founded on nearly half a century ago. We enter a new era of administrative review that is fit to serve us for decades to come. When it comes to the quality of administrative decisions, we owe the Australian community not the bare minimum, but our very best. That is the legacy of the administrative law reforms of the 1970s, and it is the vision for the new Administrative Review Tribunal—one that is user-focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair.
Thank you.
KYROU P: Mr Dunning.
MR P. DUNNING KC: President, Deputy Presidents, Tribunal Members, Judges, present and retired, ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and pleasure in equal measure to stand on behalf of Australia's more than 7000 barristers on this watershed day in the administrative law in Australia as we have the inaugural sitting of the Administrative Review Tribunal. At the outset, may I extend the Bar's congratulations to each and every member of the Tribunal from the President right through to all of its administrative staff on this momentous appointment for each of them and to thank them for the commitment to public service that accepting such an appointment recognises.
The Tribunal is charged with undertaking an independent review of decisions made by the Australian Government. As such, as a Tribunal it will touch the lives of more Australians than any other court we have. Its special role is important, is enduring and must be efficient. It is at the coalface of the ordinary Australian's entitlement to be treated justly and fairly by the Australian Government. The Tribunal members, literally, stand between the subject and the state. That that is so is the hallmark of a civil society so that justice is real, so that fairness is apparent and so that efficient government is a lived experience.
In doing so, I recognise the special place the Tribunal will play in coming to peace with our First Nations people and, in particular, their interaction with the Commonwealth Government and making sure that it is, for them, fair in a way that it had not always been.
The Australian Bar and judiciary have played an important role in the development of administrative review in Australia in the half century since the watershed Kerr Report in 1971. In that regard, it is appropriate that I note the contribution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal since that time and to express the Bar's appreciation for the service of all of the personnel of that institution from top to bottom.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will always have a special place in the development of administrative law in Australia but no efficient system is static and we have, as we've heard from the Commonwealth Attorney, a new system to take us into a new century. The Bar will continue to play an important role in administrative law in Australia by its membership of the Tribunal and by its advocacy before it. The Bar gives a commitment to do what it can to advance the development of administrative law in Australia and the fair and just decision-making of the Australian Government and it being held accountable to that.
It is, therefore, my pleasant task to congratulate again each of the President, the Deputy Presidents and the Tribunal members on their appointment and to acknowledge the vast work that goes into reconstituting a Tribunal such as this. The Bar wishes the Tribunal well and for many years to come. The Bar remains at your service. May it please the Tribunal.
KYROU P: Ms Wolff.
MS T. WOLFF: I echo the acknowledgement of the Traditional Owners and custodians of the lands on which we meet, the peoples of the Kulin nation and pay my deep respects to Elders past and present. I would also like to acknowledge the Attorney-General, your Honour, Justice Kyrou, the inaugural President of the Administrative Review Tribunal, distinguished guests, members, colleagues.
Australia's administrative law system is intended to provide a web of accountability which protects individuals against unfair and arbitrary use of public power, ensures public confidence in government and enables informed and accessible participation in legal processes. The Administrative Review Tribunal's role will be paramount, as was its predecessors, in providing our community with independent merits review of Commonwealth decision-making.
The ART will be a place people can turn to seek assistance with government decisions that have major, if not life-altering, impacts. These can range from decisions about workers' compensation, child support, social security payments, veterans' entitlements and visa status.
In announcing the transition to the ART, the Attorney-General said the Australian Government was committed to establishing a new, accessible, sustainable and trusted Administrative Review Tribunal that serves the interests of the Australian people. Though an ambitious goal, the Law Council has clearly expressed its confidence in the potential for a reformed administrative body to do just that and to improve outcomes importantly for all those who come before it.
We believe that the establishment of the ART will promote greater integrity, accessibility, consistency, flexibility and transparency in Australia's administrative framework. Today has been described as possibly the biggest day in administrative law in Australia since 1976. Modifying the structure of a Federal Court or Tribunal or replacing it, as in the present case, is a significant undertaking. At the Law Council, we welcomed the many opportunities and junctions at which we were consulted and our input sought. As recently as last month, we provided feedback on the ART's guidance and appeals panel practice direction. In our submission on the bills that would establish the ART, we expressed support for many features of the legislation, particularly those aimed at ensuring the ART can fairly and justly manage its case load and has a simple and merit-based membership structure.
We've been positive about many aspects of the reform measures, including the focus on transparent and merit-based appointments for members, the strengthened role of the President, greater flexibility to respond to changing demands upon the Tribunal, and the reinstatement of the Administrative Review Council. We are not alone in our optimism. In a speech in April, your Honour said that the ART provides an opportunity to move away from the historical silos and establish a national Tribunal in which processes are as uniform as possible, cases are allocated to jurisdictional areas on a functional basis and members are allocated cases flexibly to meet the changing operational needs of the Tribunal. The Law Council believes that this flexibility along with appropriate resourcing is vital to ensuring matters are heard in a timely manner and backlogs are addressed.
For two decades the Law Council has had a specialist AAT liaison committee in our Federal Dispute Resolution Section. Speaking at the ceremonial sitting that was held last Friday to mark the final sitting of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Chair of the Law Council of Australia's Federal Dispute Resolution Section and Federal Administrative Law Working Group, Mr Peter Woulfe, highlighted the positive impact the open and constructive dialogue between the Tribunal and the AAT liaison committee has had. We are confident that this committee, which will now become the ART Liaison Committee, will continue to provide an important link between the new tribunal and the legal profession, and we look forward to continuing the productive dialogue that has been established.
I congratulate the Australian Government on the establishment of the ART, the Attorney-General for his commitment to ensuring Australia has an effective administrative review system, and I congratulate each member of the new ART and commend each member for your service to the community. On behalf of the legal profession, I wish you well as you carry out your very important work
KYROU P: I would like to thank the Attorney-General, Mr Dunning and Ms Wolff, for their addresses.
The establishment of the ART has been described as a once-in-a-lifetime accomplishment. Many people have worked with incredible diligence and commitment over the past two years to make this day possible. They include staff within the Attorney-General's Office, the members of the Administrative Review Taskforce and other staff of the Attorney-General's Department, staff within various agencies and members and staff of the AAT. They are too numerous to acknowledge individually. I will simply thank them collectively for their contribution to making this momentous day a reality.
The ART will build on the strong foundations established by the AAT in the provision of merits review redress for the community. Merits review of government decisions is now accepted as a fundamental component of our democratic system. Its role extends beyond providing justice for individuals by overturning inappropriate decisions. It also contributes to improvements in administrative decision-making more generally and fosters good government.
This morning, I will focus on three themes relating to the ART: independence, accountability and excellence.
In my opinion, there are unique features of the ART’s independence which warrant consideration by the courts of whether two concepts that are associated with the AAT should be associated with the ART. They are the concepts that the AAT is part of the administrative continuum in the process of executive decision-making and that the AAT stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker when it performs its functions.
These concepts have been used by the courts since the 1980s. A variant of the expression "administrative continuum" was used by Davies J in 1988 in a case of Jebb v Repatriation Commission. His Honour did so in rejecting the proposition that the AAT was required to consider an applicant's claim on the basis of the circumstances existing at the time the claim was lodged with the department or agency. A variant of the metaphor "stands in the shoes of" was used by Smithers J in 1980 in dissent in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi. His Honour did so in support of the proposition that the AAT should consider itself as though it was performing the relevant function of the original decision-maker. Over time, the metaphor was used to convey that, in reviewing a decision, the AAT had the same powers and discretions as the department or agency which made the decision and was subject to the same legislative constraints.
Whilst use of the expressions "administrative continuum" and "stands in the shoes of" was motivated by a desire to clarify the scope of the AAT’s functions and powers, it has not assisted in promoting the perception of the AAT’s independence.
The fact that these expressions gained currency in relation to the AAT is not surprising when one has regard to the fact that, at the time the AAT was established, there was less concern about the need for it to be seen as independent from the rest of the executive branch than there is today. The Kerr Committee in its 1971 report stated that it did not agree with the UK Committee on Tribunals and Inquiries that "complete independence" was necessary for tribunals or "as to the importance of complete physical separation from the premises of the administration". The Bland Committee in its 1973 final report described review tribunals as "an extension of administration".
The AAT Act has never referred to independence. It did not include a statutory objective until 2015, when section 2A was inserted to require the AAT to pursue the objective of providing "a mechanism of review". Section 2A did not describe that mechanism as “independent”. An oath of office was not mandated for AAT members until 1982. That oath focused on allegiance to the monarch and required members to "faithfully and impartially perform the duties of their office".
By way of contrast, independence from administrative decision-makers has been a primary consideration in the policy documents that have underpinned the establishment of the ART. It is also reflected in the statutory objective of the ART in section 9 of the ART Act. That section requires the ART to pursue the objective of providing an independent mechanism of review. Section 213 of the ART Act provides that members must take an oath of office to:
well and truly serve in the office [of member] and do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
This wording is, relevantly, identical to the oath taken by Federal Court judges and is universally associated with judicial independence.
The independence of members of the ART is fortified by the requirement in the ART Act that members can only be appointed if they have been assessed as suitable through a publicly advertised merit-based appointment process. There was never an equivalent requirement in the AAT Act. This requirement will assist in fostering public confidence in the ability of ART members to exercise their significant powers to alter government decisions competently, responsibly and independently of government.
There is now a symmetry between merit-based appointees of the ART making merit based administrative review decisions.
Another important difference between the AAT Act and the ART Act is that the ART Act expressly requires the ART to perform a normative role in its decision-making. No such requirement was expressly included in the AAT Act.
Apart from these differences between the AAT Act and the ART Act, there are other important factors which warrant consideration by the courts of whether the "administrative continuum" and "stands in the shoes of" concepts should be associated with the ART.
Unlike ART members, the majority of federal administrative decision-makers are not statutory officeholders and they do not take any form of oath. Most of them do not make decisions as part of an independent statutory mechanism, but as part of the ordinary business of government, and they are subject to government policies and public service rules. Although administrative decision-makers are required to afford procedural fairness to persons affected by their decisions, the manner in which that obligation is discharged is very different to the manner in which the ART is required to discharge it.
At the time an administrative decision is made, there are usually only two participants in the process: the department or agency which makes the decision and the person affected by that decision. When an application for review is lodged with the ART, a new process is commenced in which the department or agency and the applicant are the parties to a dispute, and the ART is the independent adjudicator of that dispute.
The statutory objective in section 9 of the ART Act provides that one of the elements of the independent mechanism of review is the promotion of public trust and confidence in the Tribunal. By definition, people who invoke that mechanism feel aggrieved by the decision made by the relevant department or agency. Many of them are vulnerable individuals without legal representation. From their perspective, any notion that the ART is part of a continuum of decision-making by the relevant department or agency might exacerbate their sense of grievance and thus not promote public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.
The ART will take its independence very seriously. A tangible indication of our commitment to independence is our adoption of a new logo. Unlike the AAT’s logo, the ART logo does not include the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. This should not be seen as tokenistic. Rather, it embodies our desire to convey to applicants who seek a review of a government decision that the review will not be conducted by another part of the government by way of internal review, but by an independent statutory body that is at arm's length from the original decision-maker.
The second theme of accountability flows from the first theme of independence. The Tribunal will have power to review decisions made under approximately 400 statutory instruments and is likely to make over 50,000 finalisations in its first full year. Those decisions will have profound impacts on the lives of the individuals who seek review. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to be accountable to the public for its operations.
If public commentators believe that the reasoning of a Tribunal decision is unpersuasive, or the outcome is incorrect, they will be able to critique the reasoning and the outcome. If a party to the decision is not happy with it, they will be able to appeal against it or seek judicial review in the courts.
The Tribunal will welcome public and judicial scrutiny. Informed public commentary can assist the public in understanding the important work of the Tribunal. Court decisions resulting from appeals against, or judicial review of, decisions of the Tribunal will provide invaluable guidance to the Tribunal. Both forms of feedback will assist the Tribunal in enhancing its programs for the education training and professional development of its members.
In my opinion, whilst public scrutiny through informed public commentary and judicial oversight of the Tribunal's decisions will be in the public interest, personal criticism of the Tribunal members who made those decisions will not be in the public interest. Indeed, it could harm the public interest by undermining public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.
Members of the Tribunal have been appointed under an independent merit-based selection process. They will take the oath to which I have already referred. They are obliged to make the decision which they consider to be the correct or preferable decision in all the circumstances.
The final theme is excellence. My ambition as President of the ART is for the Tribunal to develop a reputation for excellence in everything that it does. I want it to be known as a tribunal which has efficient, transparent and user-friendly processes. A tribunal with empathetic staff who are committed to assisting parties who need help in using the ART services. A tribunal consisting of experienced and dedicated members who conduct fair and inclusive hearings promptly after applications for review are lodged, and who make high-quality and easy-to-understand decisions within a short time after a hearing concludes.
As President of the ART, I will work very hard to meet the public's justifiably high expectations in the quality and speed of the Tribunal's decisions and the accessibility and responsiveness of its processes to the diverse needs of its users. I am confident that all members and staff of the Tribunal will do the same and that, collectively, we will succeed in meeting those expectations and earn the public's trust and confidence.
The Tribunal is now adjourned.
