T SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2007–08 - Attorney …Annual+Report+2007-08...Thirty-second annual report:...

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL THIRTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

2007–08

© Commonwealth of Australia 2008

This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission.

ISSN 0155-025X ISBN 1 921241 56 X

For information about this report, or more generally about the Council’s work, please contact:

The Executive Director Administrative Review Council Robert Garran Offices National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

Telephone: 02 6250 5800 Facsimile: 02 6250 5980 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.law.gov.au/arc

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.law.gov.au/arc

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

10 October 2008

The Hon Robert McClelland MP Attorney-General Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Attorney-General

On behalf of the members of the Administrative Review Council and in accordance with s. 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I am pleased to present to you this annual report on the operation of the Administrative Review Council for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.

Yours sincerely

Jillian Segal AM President

Jillian Segal AM Justice Garry Downes AM Professor John McMillan Professor David Weisbrot AM Peter Anderson Barbara Belcher Ian Carnell Robert Cornall AO Professor Robin Creyke Andrew Metcalfe Dr Melissa Perry QC Brigadier Bill Rolfe AO (rtd)

Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 Telephone: 02 6250 5800 Facsimile: 02 6250 5980 Email: [email protected]

Internet: law.gov.au/arc


The Administrative Review Council, 2008

Back: Ian Carnell, Brigadier Bill Rolfe AO (rtd), Robert Cornall AO,

Andrew Metcalfe, Dr Melissa Perry QC, Professor David Weisbrot AM

Front: Margaret Harrison-Smith (Executive Director), Professor John McMillan,

Jillian Segal AM (President), Professor Robin Creyke, Barbara Belcher

Absent: Justice Garry Downes AM, Peter Anderson

Thirty-second annual report: 2007–08 v

Contents

1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 1 Achievements in 2007–08..................................................................................... 1 Council members and membership changes.................................................... 2

2 The work and performance of the Council..................................................... 3 Work ....................................................................................................................... 3 Performance........................................................................................................... 8

3 Management and accountability .................................................................... 11 Enabling legislation ............................................................................................ 11 The responsible Minister ................................................................................... 11 The annual report ............................................................................................... 11 Functions and powers of the Council .............................................................. 11 Membership of the Council............................................................................... 11 The Council’s Secretariat ................................................................................... 13 Council expenditure ........................................................................................... 13 The Council’s meetings...................................................................................... 14 Consultancy services .......................................................................................... 14 Social justice and equity..................................................................................... 15 Equal employment opportunity ....................................................................... 16 Occupational health and safety ........................................................................ 16 Freedom of information..................................................................................... 16 Advertising and market research ..................................................................... 18 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance......................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A Section 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act ............... 21

Appendix B Reports and guidelines issued by the Administrative Review Council ..................................................................................... 23

Appendix C Letters of advice .................................................................................... 26

Appendix D Status of Council reports..................................................................... 27

Appendix E The Council’s expenditure, 2007–08.................................................. 35

Thirty-second annual report: 2007–08 1

1 Overview

Section 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 sets out the statutory functions of the Administrative Review Council (see Appendix A). The Council is required to review and inquire into the Commonwealth administrative law system and to recommend to the Attorney-General improvements that might be made to the system. It is also required to assess the adequacy of procedures used in exercising administrative discretions and review classes of decisions to determine if they should be subject to administrative review.

Additionally, the Council has an important educative role. It promotes knowledge about the Commonwealth administrative law system by publishing reports and guides designed to contribute to the discussion of administrative law matters, within government and more widely.

Achievements in 2007–08

The year 2007–08 was a rewarding one for the Council. A considerable amount of work was done in order to complete two projects, and work on two new projects began. The Council also developed a substantial work program for the year ahead.

In August 2007 the Council published five best-practice guides for government decision makers. The guides, which are ‘generic’ in nature, deal with five aspects of administrative decision making: lawfulness; natural justice; evidence, facts and findings; reasons; and accountability. These versatile and practical publications have been very popular, and the Council has worked closely with officers from a number of agencies to annotate them so that they reflect agency-specific legislation and practices.

During the year the Council also released its report on government agencies’ coercive information-gathering powers. The report identifies 20 best-practice principles for the exercise of these powers, the principles being consistent with the administrative law values of fairness, lawfulness, rationality, transparency and efficiency. As the Attorney-General noted, the report highlights the significance of coercive information-gathering powers as administrative and regulatory tools for government.

By the close of 2007–08 the Council had made substantial progress on a report discussing the administrative review mechanisms in areas of complex and specific business regulation—the report of the Complex Business Review. Work had also begun on the Council’s annual administrative law bulletin, Admin Review.

2 Thirty-second annual report: 2007–08

Throughout the reporting year the Council continued to provide advice to decision makers, government and individuals on the practical application of administrative law values and principles.

Council members and membership changes

At the end of 2007–08 there were nine appointed Council members (including the President) and three ex officio members—the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission. For more information on Council members see Chapter 3.

Brigadier Bill Rolfe AO (rtd), Repatriation Commissioner, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, was appointed to the Council on 4 October 2007 for a three-year term.

Ms Sue Vardon AO, Chief Executive Officer of the South Australian Department for Families and Communities, resigned from the Council in January 2008 because of competing work commitments. The Council records its thanks to Ms Vardon for her contributions to the Council’s work.


2 The work and performance of the Council

The Council carries out its functions under s. 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 through a work program that includes the preparation of reports, consultation papers and other publications dealing with aspects of the administrative law system, through advising government about the application of administrative law principles to particular policy developments, and through education and training initiatives.

The Council’s performance is measured largely in terms of the impact of and demand for its publications, the quality of the advice it provides and the submissions it makes to government, and the success of its educational initiatives.

Work

The reporting year was a productive one for the Council. Among other things, the Council published five best-practice guides for administrative decision makers, as well as its report entitled The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies.

Reports, consultation papers and other publications

The Council was established in 1976. Since that time it has published 48 reports, discussing many aspects of the Commonwealth’s administrative law and decision-making system (see Appendix B). Publication of these reports has often been preceded by distribution of one or more consultation papers. Many of the Council’s publications have been the catalyst for important changes to administrative rules and procedures; for example, Rule Making by Commonwealth Agencies (1992) gave rise to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, which requires legislative instruments to be registered and made publicly available through the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.

The Council’s reports invariably contribute to debate and discussion in the area of administrative law. The Council places considerable emphasis on engaging with relevant departments and agencies in this regard. During 2007–08, for example, it participated in a meeting with and provided advice to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as part of the department’s examination of merits review in fisheries legislation.

The Council also produces guidelines for agencies, decision makers, tribunals and legislators. For example, its Practical Guidelines for Preparing Statements of Reasons, which was revised in 2002, provides assistance for decision makers when they are


preparing their reasons for a decision. Another of the Council’s guideline publications—the 1999 What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review?—can be used when assessing whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be given statutory jurisdiction to review a particular type of decision.

The best-practice guides for administrative decision makers

Recognising that the number of decisions made by primary decision makers in government departments and agencies has greatly increased, in August 2007 the Council published a series of five guides that provide practical advice on best practice in administrative decision making. The guides deal with lawfulness; natural justice; evidence, facts and findings; reasons; and accountability. Their purpose is to help primary decision makers understand the legal and administrative framework in which they operate.

The guides are a valuable tool for government departments and agencies seeking quality, effectiveness and efficiency in administrative decision making. There has been strong demand for them from departments, agencies, other bodies and individuals, and by the end of 2007–08 over 2300 sets had been distributed.

Through its publications the Council has increasingly sought to communicate directly with government officers involved in the practice and policy of administrative law. For this reason the best-practice guides are designed as a training resource and reference for Commonwealth agencies. Although the guides are valuable in their own right, their generic quality allows them to be tailored to the needs of particular departments and agencies; that is, they can be supplemented with references to agency policies, practices and legislative frameworks. A number of agencies have now taken the opportunity to adapt the guides in this way.

The Council is grateful to Andrew Metcalfe, Council member and Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, for agreeing to provide funds and personnel from his department for use on the project. The financial contribution allowed the Council to engage a consultant, Associate Professor Pam O’Connor from Monash University, to help prepare the guides.

The report on coercive information-gathering powers

In 2007–08 the Council completed its work on a project dealing with the coercive information-gathering powers of government agencies. On 4 June 2008 the Attorney-General tabled the final report, which provides guidance on the use of these important powers and has been very well received by government.

The focus of the report is the coercive powers granted government agencies for the purpose of compelling the provision of information, the production of documents, and the answering of questions by way of oral examination without the issuing of a warrant or other external authorisation being necessary. The


Council considers it important that these powers be exercised effectively and efficiently and in a manner consistent with administrative law principles. It also recognises the need to seek a balance between agency objectives in obtaining information and the rights of individuals.

The Council thanks all who contributed to this project, particularly the six agencies whose powers were the subject of the report—Medicare Australia, Centrelink, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The Complex Business Review

On 9 August 2006 the former Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, presented to the Council terms of reference relating to ‘the most efficient and effective administrative accountability mechanisms for decisions in areas of complex and specific business regulation’. The terms of reference invited the Council to have regard to ‘the circumstances in which administrative review mechanisms should be available’ and ‘the adaptations, if any, that may be desirable to merits review processes to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of such processes in areas of complex and specific business regulation’. The Council was also invited ‘to consider the potential for the development of a framework of guideline principles for administrative review, including merits review, in areas of complex business regulation’.

Ms Claire Grose was engaged as a consultant to assist in the development of the Council’s response to the terms of reference. Ms Grose has extensive experience of financial and corporate business regulation.

In September 2007 the Council presented to the former Attorney-General an interim report on the project. In February 2008 the Council finalised an issues paper, ‘Administrative accountability in areas where business activities are subject to complex regulation’, which was used as the basis for three stakeholder forums and a number of follow-up meetings with agencies and other interested parties.

In July 2008 the Council publicly released a working draft of its report on its website and circulated the draft to stakeholders for comment. At the time of printing this annual report, submissions in response to the working draft were being compiled and considered.

In its analysis of the accountability mechanisms associated with non-legislative ‘soft law’ business rules, the final report on the project will deal with an area of increasing interest to business and regulators. The Council expects to present its final report to the Attorney-General towards the end of 2008.


Advice and submissions to government

The Council regularly provides to government departments and agencies advice on a range of administrative law and policy questions and responds to public inquiries into matters that affect the Commonwealth administrative law system. It continues to emphasise this role—and particularly its early involvement in the process—because it considers that better policy outcomes are achievable in this way.

In 2007–08 the Council provided six formal letters of advice or submissions to Ministers, agencies and review bodies. On a number of occasions the Council also supplied to government agencies advice of a less formal nature.

The Council’s early involvement in the development of administrative law policy means that both Council and Secretariat members are more likely to be involved in follow-up discussions.

Appendix C lists three of the letters of advice provided in 2007–08; their full text is published on the Council’s website <www.law.gov.au/arc>, through the ‘Publications’ link on the home page. The other three letters of advice provided during the year are not listed in Appendix C in view of their proximity to the deliberations of government. The Council hopes to list these letters in its annual report for 2008–09.

Education and training

The Council is placing increasing emphasis on its educative role. Illustrative of this is its series of best-practice guides for administrative decision makers. As noted, the purpose of the guides is to provide a training resource and a reference for primary decision makers in Commonwealth agencies.

The Council continues its practice of providing free copies of its reports and other publications to educational institutions, libraries, academics and students in Australia and elsewhere. It sees this as one way of participating in academic debate associated with administrative law. Distribution of publications is an important aspect of the Council’s educational role, both within government and in the broader community.

Publications

At the time of reporting the Council was preparing the 59th edition of its administrative law bulletin, Admin Review. The edition will focus on the health of the administrative law system in Australia and will present views of the administrative law system from the perspective of a range of people, among them academics, legal practitioners, administrators and business users.



The website

Since 1995 complete copies or summaries of the Council’s reports and other substantial publications have been published on the Council’s website. During 2007–08 the Secretariat continued to revise and update the website; this included making preparations for placing there a number of older Council reports that until recently could be obtained only in hard copy. The website is a very important window for the Council because it also provides information about the Council, details of Council membership and the text of letters of advice and other submissions.

There were 90 214 visits to the Council’s website in 2007–08.

Participation in seminars, conferences and other gatherings

On 8 August 2007 Council member Dr Melissa Perry QC spoke about the relevance and application of the Council’s best-practice guides at a seminar for members of the New South Wales Motor Accidents Assessment Scheme. In October 2007 the Executive Director gave a presentation on the guides to the Family Pathways Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department.

In September and November 2007 the Executive Director conducted information sessions for two visiting Chinese delegations, explaining the role of the Council in Australia’s administrative law system.

Other initiatives

The Council works to maintain links with others with an interest and involvement in administrative law, both overseas and at the state and territory level. It maintains a close association with the Council of Australasian Tribunals.

On 6 June 2008, at the 11th Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Tribunals Conference, the Attorney-General spoke about the role of tribunals in providing access to justice. He referred to the Council’s best-practice guides as providing to people practical advice about their rights to review or appeal when they feel they are adversely affected by an administrative decision.

Following the release of the best-practice guides in August 2007 the Council’s Executive Director wrote a number of articles, for publications such as PS News (a public service newsletter), Audit Focus (an Australian National Audit Office publication) and the UK Council on Tribunals online publication Adjust, which has a wide readership in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In addition, articles about the guides were published in AIAL Forum and the Australian Journal of Administrative Law.

The Council also granted permission for the material in its best-practice guides to be included in other administrative law publications.


The Council regularly contributes to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s journal Reform and to a background paper prepared for the Attorney-General’s annual meeting with non-government organisations. It also seeks to maintain contact with government agencies on matters relevant to its remit.

Performance

As noted, 2007–08 was a productive year for the Council. The following is an assessment of the Council’s performance in the context of its statutory functions under s. 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

Reports and other Council publications

The impact of the Council’s reports and other publications extends much further than the Commonwealth administrative law system. Information and recommendations presented in these publications are often turned to by other bodies.

Following the launch of its best-practice guides, the Council wrote to Commonwealth departments and agencies, encouraging them to work with the Council for the purpose of annotating the guides to meet their own decision-making needs. The Council’s letter generated much interest, and a number of departments and agencies—among them the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Medicare Australia, and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—have now finalised annotated versions of the guides.

Appendix D provides a detailed update on the impact of Council reports.

Demand for Council publications

As noted, there was strong demand for the Council’s best-practice guides during the reporting period. The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies, published in May 2008, was also highly sought after: the Council circulated about 1000 copies of the report to interested parties.

The Council also received a steady stream of requests for other popular publications, including The Scope of Judicial Review (2006) and Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making (2004).

There is continuing demand for the Council’s 2001 publication A Guide to Standards of Conduct for Tribunal Members and for earlier reports, most notably Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals and What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review?


Advice and submissions to government and the Parliament

Preparing advice and submissions has been a growing area of activity for the Council in recent years. The three advices listed in Appendix C were provided in 2007–08, their main focus being administrative review mechanisms in a broad range of subject areas.

As noted, during the reporting year the Council continued to emphasise the need for its early involvement in the development of administrative policy. It is firmly of the view that early involvement fosters positive outcomes—from the perspectives of both government and the Council—and leads to improved understanding and implementation of best practice in the application of administrative law.

One consequence of early involvement in the development of policy proposals is the likelihood that advice proffered by the Council will not be able to be published in the annual report because of its proximity to the deliberations of government. It is for this reason that three Council advices are not listed in Appendix C.


3 Management and accountability

Enabling legislation

The Administrative Review Council is established under s. 48 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The responsible Minister

The responsible Minister is the Attorney-General, who may give directions to the Council in relation to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers (s. 51A of the Act) and may refer matters to the Council for inquiry and report (s. 51B of the Act). The Council reports to the Attorney-General (s. 51C).

The annual report

The Council is required to furnish an annual report to the Attorney-General for presentation to the Parliament as soon as practicable after 30 June each year. The report is required to be tabled within 15 sitting days of its receipt by the Attorney-General (s. 58 of the Act).

Functions and powers of the Council

The functions and powers of the Administrative Review Council are set out in s. 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—see Appendix A.

Membership of the Council

Membership of the Council comprises a President, three ex officio members and up to 10 appointed members (s. 49 of the Act).1

The President

The President of the Council is appointed by the Governor-General (s. 49 of the Act). On 15 September 2005 Jillian Segal AM was appointed President of the Council for three years.

1 A higher number of members can be prescribed by regulation.


Ex officio members

At the end of the reporting period the three ex officio Council members were:

• the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Hon Justice Garry Downes AM

• the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan

• the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Professor David Weisbrot AM.

Appointed members

Council members are appointed by the Governor-General (s. 49 of the Act). Appointments are for up to three years, and members are eligible for reappointment (s. 52 of the Act). To qualify for appointment to the Council, members must satisfy one or more of the following criteria:

• extensive experience at a high level in industry, commerce, public administration, industrial relations, the practice of a profession or the service of a government or an authority of government

• extensive knowledge of administrative law or public administration

• direct experience and direct knowledge of the needs of people or groups of people significantly affected by government decisions (s. 50 of the Act).

In addition to the President of the Council, at the end of the reporting period there were eight appointed Council members (shown here with their full terms of appointment):

• Peter Anderson, Chief Executive, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (11 July 2005 – 10 July 2008)

• Barbara Belcher, First Assistant Secretary, Government Division, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (17 March 2006 – 16 March 2009)

• Ian Carnell, Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (11 July 2005 – 22 March 2007 and 26 April 2007 – 25 April 2010)

• Robert Cornall AO, Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (7 June 2000 – 6 June 2003, 25 June 2003 – 24 June 2006 and 25 June 2006 – 24 June 2009)

• Professor Robin Creyke, Professor of Law, Australian National University (8 December 1999 – 7 December 2002, 8 December 2002 – 7 December 2005 and 15 February 2006 – 14 February 2009)


• Andrew Metcalfe, Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (17 July 2003 – 16 July 2006 and 17 July 2006 – 16 July 2009)

• Dr Melissa Perry QC, barrister (13 April 2006 – 12 April 2009)

• Brigadier Bill Rolfe AO (rtd), Repatriation Commissioner, Department of Veterans’ Affairs (4 October 2007 – 3 October 2010)

The Council’s Secretariat

The Council is assisted in its work by a small Secretariat, the members of which are employed in the Attorney-General’s Department under the Public Service Act 1999. Information about the Department’s management and human resources policies and practices—including certified agreements and Australian workplace agreements, training and development strategies and outcomes, occupational health and safety, and productivity gains—can be found in the Department’s annual report.

At 30 June 2008 the following officers made up the Council’s Secretariat:

• Margaret Harrison-Smith—Executive Director

• Kerrin Stewart—Senior Legal Officer

• Farhana Masih—Administrative Assistant (part time).

Council expenditure

The Council is funded from the budget of the Attorney-General’s Department, which publishes its audited financial statements in its annual report. The Council’s own statement of expenditure for 2007–08 is presented here in Appendix E.

The Council’s budget for 2007–08 included $15 000 carried over from a once-off sum of $50 000 received from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in 2006–07 to assist with the development and publication of the Council’s best-practice guides. From this carryover amount, $3862 was unspent and was returned to the department.

The 2007–08 budget also included a carryover amount of $20 000 from the previous year. The Attorney-General’s Department provided this sum to the Council as a once-off payment for consultancy services in connection with the Council’s Complex Business Review project. Of the $20 000, $3225 remained unspent at the end of 2007–08.

The Council was allocated $449 147 during 2007–08, which compares with $418 000 allocated in 2006–07. During the reporting period the Council spent


$488 670, of which $394 159 was paid in salaries and allowances and $94 511 in supplier costs; the corresponding expenditures for 2006–07 were $444 000, of which $405 000 was paid in salaries and allowances and $39 000 in supplier costs.

The increase in the total budget allocation for the current reporting period reflects the increase of 4.5 per cent in salary levels.

The budget overspend of $39 523 was in part due to a miscalculation of $14 000 in the amount allowed for long service leave entitlements. There were also unbudgeted payments:

• to a Senior Legal Officer during periods of long service leave and extended annual leave

• to two summer clerks who worked with the Council Secretariat, one from 26 November 2007 to 11 January 2008 and the other from 14 January to 22 February 2008.

There was a small overspend in supplier expenses arising from an underestimation of the printing costs for Council publications.

The Council’s meetings

Much of the Council’s business is conducted at its regular meetings. During 2007–08 Council meetings were held on 10 August 2007, 16 November 2007, 29 February 2008 and 2 May 2008.

Specific Council projects are dealt with at sub-committee level, and during the reporting year the following sub-committee meetings were held:

• The Complex Business Review Sub-committee met on 3 July 2007, 9 April 2008 and 25 June 2008 and reported to and received feedback from the full Council on four occasions. The members of the sub-committee are Jillian Segal AM, Professor Robin Creyke, Professor John McMillan, Justice Garry Downes AM, Dr Melissa Perry QC and Peter Anderson.

• The Coercive Information-gathering Powers Sub-committee met on 20 August and 29 November 2007. The members of the sub-committee are Jillian Segal AM, Justice Garry Downes AM, Professor John McMillan, Ian Carnell and Dr Melissa Perry QC.

Consultancy services

There was one consultancy during the reporting period. Ms Claire Grose was retained by the Council to work on the Complex Business Review project.


Social justice and equity

Because the Council is primarily a law reform and advisory body, it does not offer programs to the public and does not have a service charter. Nevertheless, in recent years it has released a number of publications that have important implications for social justice and equity:

• Report no. 48, The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies, was tabled on 4 June 2008 and seeks to balance the rights of agencies to obtain information with the rights of individuals against whom coercive powers are used.

• Report no. 47, The Scope of Judicial Review, includes a list of indicative principles agencies should consult when considering whether to exclude access to judicial review.

• Report no. 46, Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making, sets out best-practice guidelines for the use of expert computer systems by government agencies involved in administrative decision making.

• Report no. 42, The Contracting Out of Government Services, and the discussion paper that preceded it discuss the difficulties some recipients of contracted-out services can have in seeking remedies for defects in those services—for example, because they are ill or frail, have language difficulties, or have limited mobility.2

• Report no. 40, Open Government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, which was prepared in collaboration with the Australian Law Reform Commission, makes recommendations designed to improve the public’s access to government-held information.

• Report no. 39, Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals, makes recommendations for improving people’s awareness of their review rights and establishing simple and accessible review tribunal processes, including access to interpretation services.

• Report no. 37, Administrative Review and Funding Decisions: a case study of community services programs, makes recommendations in relation to improving access to review of decisions made by Commonwealth-funded service providers.

• Report no. 34, Access to Administrative Review by Members of Australia’s Ethnic Communities, makes recommendations aimed at ensuring that people—particularly people of non–English speaking background—have more effective access to review of decisions made by Commonwealth agencies.

2 See paragraph 4.25 of that report.


• Legal Training for Primary Decision Makers, a curriculum guideline, is designed to focus government agencies’ attention on the importance of good primary decision making and the need to understand the legal and administrative framework in which decisions are made.

• What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review? provides guidance to agencies and their advisers on the types of decisions that affect individual rights and liabilities and that the Council considers should be subject to merits review.

• Practical Guidelines for Preparing Statements of Reasons and the associated Commentary emphasise that well-prepared statements afford a person affected by a decision an opportunity to have the decision properly explained. That person can then decide whether to exercise their rights of review or appeal and, if they decide to, do so in an informed manner.

Equal employment opportunity

In view of the Council’s small Secretariat, many of its personnel and administrative functions are performed by the Attorney-General’s Department. Information about the department’s equal employment opportunity program is provided in the department’s annual report, at <www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/PublicationsAnnual_Reports>.

Occupational health and safety

The Council’s Secretariat uses the policy and resources of the Attorney-General’s Department in relation to occupational health and safety. Information about the department’s policy is available in its annual report.

Freedom of information

The Council is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. It received no requests for access to documents during the reporting year.

Section 8 of the FOI Act requires that agencies publish specific information. The Council’s statutory functions are set out in Appendix A of this annual report; the other information required by s. 8 follows.

Arrangements for outside participation in the work of the Council

The Council’s issues papers and discussion papers, which precede some of its reports, are distributed for comment and are generally available on the Council’s website. Final reports are made available to the public after they have been tabled in Parliament. The papers and reports are also circulated to people and groups who might have a particular interest in the subject matter, as well as to members


of Parliament, the Law Council of Australia, and all state and territory bar associations and law societies.

From time to time the Council is also called on to make submissions to public inquiries.

Categories of documents held by the Council

The Council maintains the following categories of documents:

• annual reports, project reports, issues and discussion papers, guidelines documents, and the administrative law bulletin Admin Review

• letters of advice prepared by the Council

• minutes of Council meetings and documents placed before meetings

• research notes and papers compiled by the Council’s Secretariat and other people

• submissions received from interested parties

• correspondence and documents relating to internal administration and management.

Access to documents

All project reports, issues and discussion papers and guidelines documents, as well as Admin Review, are available on request from the Council’s Secretariat and can be inspected at the Council’s office. When large numbers of a particular publication are requested, a small charge is imposed to cover the cost of publication and distribution. Copies of recent reports are on the Council’s website <www.law.gov.au/arc>. The Council is in the process of publishing all its older reports online.

From 1985–86 to 2002–03 the Council’s letters of advice were published in its annual reports. Since 2003–04 the letters of advice have been listed in the annual report and published on the Council’s website. Minutes of Council meetings and documents placed before the meetings are held at the Council’s office.

It is the Council’s policy to make available copies of submissions received as part of its consultation processes in all but two circumstances:

• The person making a submission specifically requests that the confidentiality provisions of the FOI Act apply to their submission.

• There are strong reasons for not disclosing the information in a submission—for example, if the submission contains personal information about an individual.



All other documents are kept on the files of the Council’s Secretariat. Access to them can be sought under the FOI Act. If it is possible to release such information, it is the Council’s policy to do so.

Facilities for access

Documents can be inspected at the Council’s office. Information about the facilities available to help people gain access to documents can be obtained from the Council’s Executive Director. If necessary, special arrangements can be made to overcome difficulties with physical access.

Freedom of information procedures and initial contact points

The Council’s Executive Director will help people seeking access to information to identify the documents in question.

The Executive Director is the only officer authorised to refuse access to documents. If a request is to be refused on grounds appearing in ss 15(2) or 24(1) of the FOI Act—that is, because of insufficient information or an unreasonable diversion of resources—applicants will be notified and offered an opportunity for consultation.

Information officer

Inquiries concerning access to documents or any other information about the Council can be directed to:

The Executive Director Administrative Review Council Robert Garran Offices National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

Telephone: 02 6250 5800 Facsimile: 02 6250 5980 Email: [email protected]

Advertising and market research

The Council was not involved in any advertising or market research activity during 2007–08.



Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance

As noted, the Council’s Secretariat is based in the Attorney-General’s Department. Information about the department’s actions and performance in relation to environmental matters is available in the department’s annual report.


Appendix A Section 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act

Section 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 describes the functions and powers of the Administrative Review Council:

51(1) The functions of the Council are:

(aa) to keep the Commonwealth administrative law system under review, monitor developments in administrative law and recommend to the Minister improvements that might be made to the system; and

(ab) to inquire into the adequacy of the procedures used by authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons who exercise administrative discretions or make administrative decisions, and consult with and advise them about those procedures, for the purpose of ensuring that the discretions are exercised, or the decisions are made, in a just and equitable manner; and

(a) to ascertain, and keep under review, the classes of administrative decisions that are not the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body;

(b) to make recommendations to the Minister as to whether any of those classes of decisions should be the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body and, if so, as to the appropriate court, tribunal or other body to make that review;

(c) to inquire into the adequacy of the law and practice relating to the review by the courts of administrative decisions and to make recommendations to the Minister as to any improvements that might be made in that law or practice;

(d) to inquire into:

(i) the qualification required for membership of authorities of the Commonwealth, and the qualifications required by other persons, engaged in the review of administrative decisions; and

(ii) the extent of the jurisdiction to review administrative decisions that is conferred on those authorities and other persons; and


(iii) the adequacy of the procedures used by those authorities and other persons in the exercise of that jurisdiction;

and to consult with and advise those authorities and other persons about the procedures used by them as mentioned in subparagraph (iii) and recommend to the Minister any improvements that might be made in respect of any of the matters referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii); and

(e) to make recommendations to the Minister as to the manner in which tribunals engaged in the review of administrative decisions should be constituted;

(f) to make recommendations to the Minister as to the desirability of administrative decisions that are the subject of review by tribunals other than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being made the subject of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and

(g) to facilitate the training of members of authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons in exercising administrative discretions or making administrative decisions; and

(h) to promote knowledge about the Commonwealth administrative law system; and

(i) to consider, and report to the Minister on, matters referred to the Council by the Minister.

(2) The Council may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.

(3) If the Council holds an inquiry, or gives any advice, referred to in paragraph (1)(ab), the Council must give the Minister a copy of any findings made by the Council in the inquiry or a copy of the advice, as the case may be.


Appendix B Reports and guidelines issued by the Administrative Review Council

Reports

The following reports have been published by the Administrative Review Council since its inception in 1976. For many of them, publication was preceded by the distribution of discussion or issues papers. The reports are listed here in year order, starting with the most recent. The year of publication is provided in parentheses after the title.

48 The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies (2008)

47 The Scope of Judicial Review (2006)

46 Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making (2004)

45 A Report on the Council of Australasian Tribunals (2002)

44 Internal Review of Agency Decision Making (2000)

43 Administrative Review of Patents Decisions (1998)

42 The Contracting Out of Government Services (1998)

41 Appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court (1997)

40 Open Government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982 (1995)

39 Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals (1995)

38 Government Business Enterprises and Commonwealth Administrative Law (1995)

37 Administrative Review and Funding Decisions—a case study of community services programs (1994)

36 Environmental Decisions and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1994)

35 Rule Making by Commonwealth Agencies (1992)


34 Access to Administrative Review by Members of Australia’s Ethnic Communities (1991)

33 Review of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act: statements of reasons for decisions (1991)

32 Review of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act—the ambit of the Act (1989)

31 Review of Decisions under Industry Research and Development Legislation (1988)

30 Access to Administrative Review: provision of legal and financial assistance in administrative law matters (1988)

29 Constitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1987)

28 Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: stage three—anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions (1987)

27 Access to Administrative Review: stage one—notification of decisions and rights of review (1986)

26 Review of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act: stage one (1986)

25 Review of Migration Decisions (1985)

24 Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: stage four—censorship (1985)

23 Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: stage two (1985)

22 The Relationship between the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1985)

21 The Structure and Form of Social Security Appeals (1984)

20 Review of Pension Decisions under Repatriation Legislation (1983)

19 Rights of Review under the Migration Act 1958 and Related Legislation: interim report on the constitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1983)

18 Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971—amendments (1983)

17 Review of Taxation Decisions by Boards of Review (1983)

16 Review of Decisions under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (1982)

15 Australian Federal Police Act 1979—sections 38 & 39 (1982)


14 Land Use in the ACT (1981)

13 Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Tribunal (1981)

12 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Procedures (1981)

11 Student Assistance Review Tribunals (1981)

10 Shipping Registration Bill (1980)

9 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1980 (1980)

8 Social Security Appeals (1980)

7 Citizenship Review and Appeals System (1980)

6 Entry to Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island (1979)

5 Defence Force Ombudsman (1979)

4 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975—amendments (1979)

3 Review of Import Control and Customs By-Law Decisions (1979)

2 Repatriation Appeals (1979)

1 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977—exclusions under section 19 (1978).

Guidelines

The Council has also published guidelines for use by agencies, decision makers, tribunals and legislators, as follows:

• the five best-practice guides for administrative decision makers (2007)

• Legal Training for Primary Decision Makers: a curriculum guideline (2004)

• A Guide to Standards of Conduct for Tribunal Members (2001)

• Internal Review of Agency Decision Making—a best practice guide (2000)

• Commentary on the Practical Guidelines for Preparing Statements of Reasons (2000, revised 2002)

• Practical Guidelines for Preparing Statements of Reasons (2000, revised 2002)

• What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review? (1999).


Appendix C Letters of advice

Three letters of advice issued by the Council in 2007–08 are published on the Council’s website <www.law.gov.au/arc>, through the ‘Publications’ link on the home page. Table C.1 lists the letters.

The Council hopes to publish the three letters that are not listed here in its next annual report. These letters are not listed or published because of their proximity to the deliberations of government.

Table C.1 Letters of advice published on the Council’s website

Letter number Subject matter

1 Defence Inquiry Regulations

2 Department of Human Services Access Card

3 Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations draft principles to guide decisions made under Social Security Law



Appendix D Status of Council reports

In addition to letters of advice, the Council provides to government written advice in the form of project reports. Following is a discussion of selected Council project reports. Where applicable, action in relation to those reports in the current reporting year is noted.

Report no. 48—The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies

Summary

The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies was transmitted to the Government on 2 May 2008 and tabled in the Parliament on 4 June 2008.

The report focuses on the powers granted government agencies in order that they can compel the provision of information, the production of documents and the answering of questions. It considers the use of these powers with reference to the legislation and practices of Centrelink, Medicare Australia, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The report highlights the significance of coercive powers as administrative and regulatory tools for government but does not seek to achieve across-the-board uniformity in this area.

The Council identifies 20 best-practice principles that are generally applicable to Commonwealth agencies. Matters covered in the report include what the ‘trigger’ threshold for use of the powers should be, which agency officers should exercise the powers, the conduct of hearings, training, privilege, and the exchange of information between agencies. The following are examples of best-practice principles:

• Agencies should consider alternative means of obtaining information before resorting to the use of coercive information-gathering powers.

• Coercive information-gathering powers should be delegated only to sufficiently senior and experienced officers in an agency.

• Coercive information-gathering notices should comply with privacy legislation and inform recipients of their rights in relation to privilege.


Response

The Coercive Information-gathering Powers of Government Agencies does not contain any formal recommendations; rather, it presents a framework of best-practice principles that are generally applicable to all Commonwealth agencies.

Report no. 47—The Scope of Judicial Review

Summary

The Scope of Judicial Review was transmitted to the Government on 3 May 2006 and tabled in the Parliament on 9 May 2006.

The report deals with constitutional and policy considerations relevant to the scope of judicial review and, in particular, notes the essential role of judicial review in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding individual rights. It considers when it is appropriate to seek to reduce the scope or practical availability of judicial review, and the Council’s conclusions are summarised in a succinct framework of indicative principles.

The report begins by outlining the constitutional and legislative basis for judicial review in the Commonwealth administrative law system, the grounds for seeking judicial review and the rationale for providing judicial review. The public law values that underlie judicial review are the rule of law, safeguarding of individual rights, accountability, consistency, and certainty in the administration of legislation.

Consideration is given to a number of justifications for limiting the scope of judicial review that were put forward during the Council’s project or have in the past been used to justify such action. Examples are avoiding fragmentation of criminal proceedings, urgent decisions, decisions involving matters of policy, decisions where there is a need for certainty, and decisions where review is sought on the ground of unreasonableness. The report examines whether and in what circumstances these reasons justify removing or limiting the scope of judicial review.

In general, the Council considers that the rule of law and the provision of remedies for redressing unlawful government action or inaction are paramount values in Australian society and under the Australian Constitution. A strong justification is needed to reduce judicial review in such a way as to allow conduct to proceed without the availability of any kind of remedy. The Council recognises, however, that sometimes judicial review may be limited, since in some circumstances the public law values that underlie judicial review can be advanced by other means and at times other important legal and governmental values might conflict with the values underlying judicial review.


The conclusions summarised in the framework of indicative principles provide practical guidance to governments, policy officers and legislative drafters in the consideration of review mechanisms to be incorporated in legislation. The framework complements another of the Council’s publications, What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review?

Response

The Scope of Judicial Review does not contain any formal recommendations; rather, it presents a framework of indicative principles for practical guidance.

Report no. 46—Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making

Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making was transmitted to the Government on 12 November 2004 and tabled in the Parliament on 7 December 2004.

The report was preceded by an issues paper. In addition, a forum was held on 12 November 2003 to further consider the uses of expert systems. The forum was attended by about 60 people from a broad range of interest groups—including government, business and community organisations. Although the primary focus of the issues paper was rules-based systems, in the report the Council broadened the scope to take in other forms of expert systems used in administrative decision making.

Setting out best-practice guidelines for the use of expert computer systems by government agencies in administrative decision making, the report focuses on the sorts of administrative decisions best suited to the use of expert computer systems, the advantages and disadvantages of using expert systems in administrative decision making, best-practice principles for developing and operating expert systems in administrative decision making, and the need for expert systems in administrative decision making to comply with the administrative law values of lawfulness, fairness, rationality, transparency and efficiency.

The report identifies 27 best-practice principles the Council considers will ensure that decision making done with the assistance of expert systems is consistent with administrative law values.

Response

During 2005–06 the advisory panel the Council proposed in its report was established as the Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making Working Group. The group developed the Better Practice Guide on Automated Assistance in Administrative Decision Making in February 2007 to assist Australian government agencies in successfully deploying automated systems.


Report no. 42—The Contracting Out of Government Services

Summary

The Contracting Out of Government Services was transmitted to the Government on 25 August 1998 and tabled in the Parliament on 2 November 1998.

The report, which was preceded by an issues paper and a discussion paper, notes that, when government provides a service directly to the public, a recipient of that service who is dissatisfied with an aspect of its delivery might have available to them one or more administrative law remedies. Among those potential remedies are the right to information under the freedom of information legislation, the right to complain to the Ombudsman, and the right to have a decision reviewed by the Federal Court or a tribunal. When such a service is contracted out to the private sector, however, service recipients’ access to administrative law remedies could be lost.

The report considers how existing systems of governmental, financial and parliamentary accountability could be modified to take account of the increasing use of private contractors to perform activities and provide services on behalf of government. It discusses the difficulties some recipients of contracted-out services can have in seeking remedies for defects in those services—for example, because the recipient is ill or frail, has language difficulties, or has limited mobility.

The Council makes recommendations relating to the preparation of appropriate contracts and the application of both private and administrative law in situations where services are provided by private contractors.

Response

The report contains a number of recommendations that fall within the portfolio responsibility of three Commonwealth departments—the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Attorney-General’s Department. Further, several recommendations relate to matters that have also been the subject of consideration by other bodies—in particular, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, including in its report Contract Management in the Australian Public Service.3

The Council understands that the Government is not in a position to settle its response to the recommendations made in The Contracting Out of Government Services until it has settled its response to overlapping recommendations made by other bodies and that no time frame for release of a response has been provided.

Amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976, passed by Parliament in November 2005, enable the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about government

3 Report no. 379, October 2000.


contractors providing goods and services to the public on behalf of a government agency. The Act now provides that action taken by Australian government contractors and subcontractors in the exercise of a power or performance of a function for or on behalf of an agency under a contract with that agency is taken for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act to be action by the agency.

Legislation to create a separate office of the Postal Industry Ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was passed by Parliament on 29 March 2006; the office began operations in October 2006. The jurisdiction of the Postal Industry Ombudsman extends to private sector postal operators who register to participate in the scheme.

Report no. 41—Appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court

Summary

Appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court was transmitted to the Government on 29 September 1997 and tabled in the Parliament on 3 December 1997.

The report, which was preceded by a discussion paper, notes that appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court are limited to appeals on a ‘question of law’, within the meaning of s. 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Council recommended that the scope of review under s. 44 remain unchanged. It also recommended, however, that the Federal Court’s powers be expanded slightly, to give it discretion to receive evidence and to make findings of fact where there has been an error of law—provided the court’s findings are not inconsistent with those of the tribunal.

Response

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act 2005 includes items enabling the Federal Court to make findings of fact when hearing appeals from the tribunal and to receive evidence for this purpose. The court’s findings must be not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the tribunal, other than findings of the tribunal that were made as the result of an error of law. The Act also confers these powers on the Federal Magistrates Court in matters that have been transferred to it from the Federal Court.


Report no. 40—Open Government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982

Summary

Open Government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982 was transmitted to the Government in early 1996 and tabled in the Parliament on 24 January 1996.

The report, which was preceded by an issues paper and a discussion paper, was prepared in collaboration with the Australian Law Reform Commission and makes recommendations designed to improve the public’s access to government-held information. The Council was concerned to ensure that the Act was operating to give full effect to the Australian people’s right of access to such information. In particular, it made recommendations aimed at ensuring that the Act is interpreted in a way that gives proper effect to the Act’s objectives.

The report contains 106 recommendations, including a recommendation to establish a Freedom of Information Commissioner to monitor the administration of the Freedom of Information Act. Other recommendations concern application of the exemption provisions of the Act, clarifying the grounds on which access to a document can reasonably be denied, and providing guidance on how to apply the public interest considerations.

Response

On 14 March 2006 the Commonwealth Ombudsman issued Scrutinising Government: administration of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in Australian government agencies, the report of an own-motion investigation initiated in the interest of drawing attention to good practice and areas requiring improvement. The Ombudsman found that there was an uneven culture of support for freedom of information among Australian government agencies and that the Freedom of Information Act worked well in facilitating public access to personal information but not so well in providing access to policy-related information. The report referred explicitly to the Administrative Review Council – Australian Law Reform Commission report and supported the recommendation for the establishment of a statutory Freedom of Information Commissioner.

Report no. 39—Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals

Summary

Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals was transmitted to the Government on 14 September 1995 and tabled in the Parliament on 28 September 1995.


The report, which was preceded by a discussion paper and a supplementary discussion paper, makes recommendations for improving people’s awareness of their review rights and establishing simple and accessible review tribunal processes, including access to interpretation services. There are 102 recommendations. The first 86 deal with matters of general application to all tribunals, regardless of the structure of the review tribunal system; they cover such things as the objectives of the merits review system, review tribunal processes, tribunal membership, access, information and awareness, and administration and management. The last 16 recommendations concern the structure of the review tribunal system and the relationship between its constituent parts; one of them is a recommendation for the establishment of an integrated review tribunal body—the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Response

The Government introduced the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill on 28 June 2000 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill on 12 October 2000. The former Bill provided for an independent multi-divisional merits review tribunal replacing four merits review tribunals—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The Senate rejected both Bills on 26 February 2001, and the Government stated it did not intend to reintroduce the Bills during the life of that Parliament. Instead, the Government committed itself to reforming the individual tribunals in order to achieve legislative and administrative efficiencies.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act 2005 commenced on 16 May 2005. The Act contains amendments to allow for more efficient conduct of reviews, such as enabling the president of the tribunal to authorise ordinary members to exercise powers currently conferred only on presidential and/or senior members, removing restrictions contained in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and other legislation on how the tribunal is to be constituted for the purposes of a particular hearing, and expanding the range of alternative dispute resolution processes available to the tribunal.

Administrative efficiencies have been achieved through the co-location of the Migration and Refugee Review Tribunals in Sydney and Melbourne, and it is noted that, for the first time, in 2005–06 these tribunals published a joint annual report.


Report no. 35—Rule Making by Commonwealth Agencies

Summary

Rule Making by Commonwealth Agencies was transmitted to the Government on 26 March 1992 and tabled in the Parliament on 6 May 1992.

The report, which was preceded by an issues paper, provides guidance on what matters are appropriate for inclusion in Acts and those that should be included in delegated legislation. The Council made 31 recommendations concerning procedures that could be applied in respect of instruments that were of a legislative character. The main elements of the Council’s recommendations related to the following:

• better guidance on matters that are appropriate for inclusion in Acts and on matters that should be included in delegated legislation

• improved practices to ensure high-quality drafting for all Commonwealth rules and mandatory consultation with the community before the making of important rules

• improved procedures for parliamentary scrutiny and control, which apply to all rules, and the sunsetting of rules on a 10-year rotating basis

• establishment of a Legislative Instruments Register in which all rules should be published, with rules being unenforceable if not published in this way

• special adaptations of those general procedures for rules of court and rules made under intergovernmental schemes for nationally uniform regulations.

Response

The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 received Royal Assent on 17 December 2003 and commenced operation on 1 January 2005. The Act represents the fulfilment of the fourth attempt by successive governments to implement the substance of the Council’s report after Bills introduced in 1994, 1996 and 1998. It incorporates most of the main recommendations in the Council’s report, with the creation of an authoritative legislative instruments register—the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments—that is accessible to the public electronically and the sunsetting of most legislative instruments after 10 years.

In March 2008 the Attorney-General appointed a body to review the operation of the Legislative Instruments Act.


Appendix E The Council’s expenditure, 2007–08

Table E.1 shows the Council’s expenditure for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.

Table E.1 Administrative Review Council: expenditure, 2007–08

Item/description Allocation

($) Expenditure

($)

1. Salaries and payments in the nature of salarya 359 310 394 159

Sitting fees 11 931

2. Supplier expenses 89 837 94 511

Council meetings 2 629

External conferences and courses (training) 618

Catering 1 303

Printingb 52 148

Stores and stationery 1 983

Travel 9 931

Travel allowances 2 655

Casual car and taxi hire 2 849

Consultancy 16 049

Total 449 147 488 670c

a. The budget overspend of $39 523 was due in part to a miscalculation of $14 000 in the amount allowed for long service leave entitlements. There were also unbudgeted payments: • to a Senior Legal Officer during periods of long service leave and extended annual leave • for two summer clerks who worked with the Council Secretariat, one from 26 November 2007 to

11 January 2008 and the other from 14 January to 22 February 2008. b. There was a small overspend arising from an underestimation of printing costs for Council publications. c. Includes the payment of a $2000 efficiency dividend from the Council’s budget. Notes: Figures incorporate a sum of $15 000, that being the amount carried over to 2007–08 from a once-off payment of $50 000 to the Council by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to assist in the development and publication of the Council’s best-practice guides for administrative decision making, including expenditure associated with the engagement of a consultant. From this carryover amount, $3862 was unspent and was returned to the department. The 2007–08 budget also included a carryover amount of $20 000 from the previous year. This sum was provided to the Council by the Attorney-General’s Department as a once-off payment for consultancy services in connection with the Council’s Complex Business Review project. Of the $20 000, $3225 remained unspent at the end of 2007–08.

T SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2007–08 - Attorney …Annual+Report+2007-08...Thirty-second annual report:...

Documents

Transcript of T SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2007–08 - Attorney …Annual+Report+2007-08...Thirty-second annual report:...