AAT Liberal appointments fail to meet benchmarks

A raft of Liberal-appointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have failed to come close to their expected benchmarks.

Former Ipswich MP Ian Berry is one of many Liberal-appointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who have failed to meet requisite benchmarks. Picture: Steve Pohlner

A raft of Liberal-appointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have fallen well short of their performance benchmarks, despite many earning six-figure salaries.

Data obtained by The Australian reveals several Liberal appointed members of the AAT, which conducts independent merits reviews of commonwealth administrative decisions, have closed between 45 per cent and 66 per cent of their workload.

The figures, set internally and referred to as “case days”, are adjusted for every tribunal member in reference to their responsibilities and availability and the complexity of assigned cases.

Labor senator Kim Carr asked for the benchmark performances of Liberal-appointed AAT members ahead of Senate estimates hearings, with the information detailing tribunal members who have not met or been within 10 per cent of their benchmark.

They included former LNP Queensland Ipswich MP Ian Berry and James Lambie, George Brandis’s former chief of staff, who progressed through only 42 per cent and 45 per cent of their respective benchmarks during the 2020-21 financial year.

Both these members’ closure rates fell since 2018-19, with Mr Berry completing 32 per cent less of his expected case days and Mr Lambie 20 per cent.

Others included former Liberal Party upper house candidate Rachel Westaway and former Victorian Legislative Council member Donna Petrovich, each of whom finalised 50 per cent of their case days.

Former Liberal MP for Macarthur Russell ­Matheson reached 56 per cent.

The only AAT member who was appointed by Labor is Linda Kirk, an associate professor of Law who was reappointed by the Liberal Party.

Members of the AAT are appointed by the Attorney-General and paid $193,990 to $249,420, with senior members making between $329,930 and $391,940.

“There is no doubt that the ­appointments process for the AAT under the Morrison government is crook, but the other issue here is not about party politics but about parliamentary accountability and an attempt by an ­agency to prevent the parliament from assessing its performance,” Senator Carr told The Australian.

“The AAT is not above accountability, especially given how important the AAT is for people wanting a fair go in reviewing public service decision-making.”

The revelations come despite efforts by the AAT to keep the information secret, with the agency advancing a claim of public interest immunity, citing unreasonable disclosure of personal information/breach of privacy and the adverse impact on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the AAT. This was rejected by the Senate.

Some Liberal appointees performed above expectation. Denis Dragovic, who ran for Liberal preselection for the House of Representatives and Victorian Senate, completed 132 per cent of his benchmark. Peter Emmerton, a former Liberal ministerial adviser, finalised 128 per cent of his benchmark case days.

William Frost, a former senior adviser to Christian Porter, finalised more than double the number of case days expected.

A spokeswoman for the AAT said a range of factors could contribute to a member’s inability to meet a benchmark.

“The AAT has arrangements in place to monitor and review member performance, and to support them with tailored professional development,” she said.

“The grounds on which a member’s appointment may be terminated under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) are limited, given the independent nature of the office.”

The Australian has previously revealed the AAT – which reviews decisions made by government ministers, departments and agencies under Freedom of Information laws – had breached those laws repeatedly for two years.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said performance benchmarks were set by, and the responsibility of, the AAT.

“The government takes seriously the AAT’s ability to ensure the expeditious and efficient discharge of the business of the tribunal,” the spokesman said.