Disbanding AAT a bad move

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The recently announced decision by the Federal Government to disband the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) should be something of concern to every citizen of the country.

The establishment of the AAT was one of the most significant legal steps in the past 50 years, because it gave everybody the right to appeal against an adverse bureaucratic decision on taxation, social support, disability services and a range of other matters, in a way that made it financially and legally feasible for ordinary citizens to take action.

It was by way of appeal to the AAT that the Robodebt schemozzle was brought to light, when the government was steadfastly insisting that it was perfectly legal and treated everybody in an equal and fair way.

Of course, nobody would claim that the present AAT system is perfect beyond improvement.

There are inconsistencies in its processes (easily corrected, if the government wanted to correct them), and some kinds of appeals take years to be heard and settled.

However, the delays in procedures are almost entirely a consequence of inadequate funding that could easily be remedied by an adjustment in budget allocations, whereas the government prefers to cover up this deficiency, by blaming the structure of the AAT and the competence of the staff, rather than admitting the real reason.

It could, also, be that the government is not happy with the independence of the AAT and would prefer an organization more easily influenced to political advantage.

It is highly unlikely that the government can get away with entirely abolishing any system of appeals, so the AAT will have to be replaced by another organisation to cover whatever new mandate the government gives it.

This means that the end costs will be close to the same, that there will be enormous taxpayer expenses incurred in paying out the existing staff, and that there will be substantial disruptions to appeals, while the new organisation is set up and reinvents the wheel.

It will not be surprising if the bulk of the (supposedly incompetent) staff is reappointed to the new organisation, because who else has years of experience to call on and can get the thing in more or less running order before it is overwhelmed by the backlog of work that will accrue?

Probably, most of us have never had to avail ourselves of the right of appeal to the AAT, but that doesn’t mean that any one of us couldn’t find himself needing that avenue of relief tomorrow.

Our rights are being curtailed for no reason but political pique, and we are being lied to about the results that the change will achieve.

Email, Dec 22
Bruce Hyland, Woy Woy