Ruddock atrophies AAT : Melbourne Indymedia

Fw: AAT to go the way of the RRT under Ruddock
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005

Tribunal being nobbled, say lawyers
By Misha Schubert
Political Correspondent Canberra
January 10, 2005
http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/09/1105205977461.html

Lawyers and welfare experts are alarmed at the Howard Government's plans
they say would nobble the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a vital forum
where citizens can now challenge government powers.

Under the proposals, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock is seeking more
control over the AAT, the powerful body that hears legal challenges to
government decisions.

Each year the tribunal decides whether government has erred in thousands of
disputes over social security payments, veterans' entitlements, child
support, anti-discrimination and workers' compensation.

It also rules on freedom of information cases, where journalists and others
can fight government attempts to withhold information from the public.

Other changes proposed to streamline the tribunal's processes are supported
by the legal profession.

But, controversially, Mr Ruddock plans to axe tenure for the tribunal's
president, deputy presidents and other senior members. Instead, they would
be hired for fixed terms, after which they would have to reapply for their
jobs.

In another key change, the government would no longer be forced to find a
former federal judge for the president's job - it could go to a lawyer with
only five years' experience.

Senior lawyers and welfare advocates fear the changes would cripple the
independence of the disputes body, making it more inclined to rule in
favour of the government.

The Law Council of Australia has warned that tenure is critical to securing
good appointments.

'The actual and perceived independence from the executive of the members of
the AAT would be diminished," it argued in a submission.

Labor legal affairs spokeswoman Nicola Roxon warned the move would damage
public confidence that ordinary people would get a fair hearing.

"All avenues that the public have to challenge government decisions seem to
be increasingly controlled by the government itself," she said.

"If the president has to reapply for their job every few years, they'll be
mindful that the government may appoint someone else if they rule in favour
of citizens and against the government too often."

Australian Council of Social Service president Andrew McCallum said
abolishing tenure would open appointments to political interference.

"Low-income and disadvantaged people may have their access to justice
denied if the political independence of the AAT is compromised," he said.

A spokesman for Mr Ruddock defended the changes.

"Judges have life terms or tenure - that's a fundamental part of the
separation of powers - but in terms of administrative bodies we see this as
a streamlining of the process to put it on par with other tribunals," he said.

"The vast majority of existing AAT members are on fixed terms already and
there's no suggestion this has had an adverse effect on their decision-making."