After five years of stacking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) with party hacks, former candidates and donors, the federal government — prompted by revelations of the widespread cronyism detailed in a two-month-long Inq investigation — is changing how it appoints tribunal members.
Attorney-General Christian Porter has confirmed in a statement to Inq that the AAT is working on “a new performance evaluation and appraisal process of its members” which “may” inform decisions on appointments made ultimately by the attorney-general.
As Inq reported in September, an AAT member is paid up to $385,000 per annum, is almost impossible to sack, needs no qualifications, has a contract of up to seven years (renewable) and has no retirement age. It is, in other words, a plum job for political mates and ideological fellow travellers.
Inq understands that work on the new process is well advanced, and will apply initially to the re-appointment of AAT members whose contracts are set to expire and that there will be an independent assessment of members’ performance carried out by a former or serving judge. The system might then be expanded to cover new appointments to the AAT.
The new process represents a major turnaround by the attorney-general, who earlier this year made 86 appointments and reappointments to the AAT as a last hurrah in the shadow of a looming federal election which the coalition was expected to lose.
Of those appointed members, 19 had close Liberal Party connections and at least eight have no law degree. The AAT’s legislation stipulates that members should be lawyers of at least five years standing, unless they bring specialist skills which make up for that.
Porter’s appointments included former WA state Liberal minister Joe Francis, who has no tertiary qualifications but who has been a Liberal Party member from the age of 18, as well as former Liberal Senate president Stephen Parry. Earlier Porter appointments included his own senior adviser William Frost.
The attorney-general has accused critics of “mud-slinging” and has routinely defended the appointments, claiming they were all made on merit, despite there being no transparent appointment process.
Inq understands AAT president Justice David Thomas and the attorney-general came under pressure to act after Inq’s revelations of rampant political stacking of the AAT — a quasi-judicial body which, in its own words, is meant to conduct “independent” merit reviews of migration, refugee, social security and other decisions by government ministers, departments and agencies.
Our investigation revealed that, in the last six years, the government has refashioned the membership of the AAT, turning over 70% of members in the name of reflecting “community values”:
- Sixty-five of the 333 AAT decision-making members are former Liberal Party staffers, former Liberal or National politicians, party donors, members, unsuccessful Liberal candidates or Liberal government employees
- All bar one of the 65 were appointed to their roles in the last six years
- Twenty-four of those 65 appointees have no legal qualifications, including seven of the AAT’s senior members
- The vast majority were appointed without a transparent selection process.
A lack of experienced and competent members has left the AAT struggling to clear cases, especially in the migration and refugee division. A review conducted by former High Court judge Ian Callinan QC also pointed to plummeting morale linked to the high number of political appointments.
Check out the full, original Inq investigation here.
The moral iq of our Federal government knows no lows. Our race to the bottom of civil rights, economic competency, foreign policy (Et Tu Timor Leste?) double standards – not forgetting the environmental vandalism is damaging our ‘standing’ in what’s left of the ‘Free world’.
Well done on forcing at least this small change.
Until we see what Porter proposes, it’s just waffle.
Props to INQ/Crikey for putting the AAT under the spotlight. Keen to see whether things actually change.
INQ could have written this one on most of those appointed under the chief plotter’s big rush to appoint party apparatchiks and failed liberal politicians to as many tribunal and departmental posts as possible prior to the last election. Very consistent with his pronouncement early on that “we help our mates in the liberal party”.
The underlying motivation was to:
(a) ensure that if he won the election, he could count on most decisions being favorable to party dictates;
(b) impede any other administration that may have won the election, with the mates then favored by expensive, hard to escape term contracts protecting them.
Just shows the devious nature of the party and its leader.