Did you know the major tribunals in this country hear nearly 300,000 claims a year under some 1,300 pieces of legislation?
That makes them a key avenue for Australians to challenge decisions. And in the states, over 90 per cent of their caseload involves minor civil, not administrative matters, a change to have a major impact on their operations.
Warnings from the combination of civil and administrative jurisdictions means greater care is needed by governments when adding new caseloads or restructuring. Adding jurisdictions can be problematic for all tribunals, as indicated in the recent Senate report on the AAT.
Despite their output tribunals’ roles face threats. Constitutional barriers to their jurisdiction in recent years have inhibited state tribunals hearing many residential tenancy and guardianship claims. Equally, the Citta case held they cannot hear matters, such as discrimination, colorably arising under the Constitution (s 76(i)), or under Commonwealth concurrent laws (s 76(ii)).
The good news is their well-known procedural flexibility expedited use of communication technology during COVID. These included document lodgment, online hearings of interlocutory and other matters and saw technology hubs established in regional areas. These steps have reduced burdens on parties and practitioners and are likely to continue.
Appointments have also been newsworthy. Greater transparency and more independent processes have been promised by the national government. Trust in these important institutions is eroded by political appointments. Schemes to minimise/avoid such practices would do much to restore confidence in this important element of the adjudicative process.
