Extend the Administrative Review Tribunal Standard Review Time Frame to 90-days

Authors: Oliver Ellis, Hasriza Hassan, Zhi Yun Ng and Chris Noonan | Publish date: 03/12/2024

Problem Identification: 

Many individuals do not have enough time to apply for a review of a decision made by an Australian government service within the standard timeline set by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). 

People with Disability Australia (PWDA) has argued that the standard 28-day time frame to apply for a review is ‘grossly inadequate’. 

This means that many applicants, especially applicants with a disability, may face challenges in accessing their right to appeal decisions made by the Tribunal. Limited time to apply for a review may hinder participants from fully understanding the decision, gathering necessary evidence and seeking appropriate legal or advocacy support. This can result in a lack of fairness and transparency in the process.

Context: 

ART is responsible for reviewing decisions made by an Australian government service. This includes Centrelink, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and others.

Section 18(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act (2024) states that the timeframe to apply for a review must be at least 28 days. The Attorney General’s department (which is responsible for the Tribunal) has the authority to change the standard time frame rules as set in sections 5 and 6 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules (2024). 

PWDA has noted that many individuals feel a sense of panic or anxiety when receiving a decision from a government service. This can result in the person missing the deadline to apply for a review with the ART or choosing to abandon their appeal entirely. It has been further noted that, although there is the possibility of an extension, many individuals are unaware of this option or are incapable of applying for it in time. It has been further highlighted that many applicants may require additional time to organise the use of an advocate.

The Tribunal has already recognised the need for accessibility. The Tribunal’s statutory objectives stipulate that the rules should be ‘fair and just’ and ‘accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to the proceedings’. 

PWDA has called for an extension of the standard application time frame from 28 to 90 days. They say that this could assist many individuals (especially those with a disability) to meaningfully use the review process while giving them time to access sufficient resources and support. 

There is international precedent for removing or extending standard review application time limits. For example, New Zealand and some Canadian provinces do not impose specific time limits for applying for judicial review.

Solution Identification: 

Amend sections 5 and 6 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules (2024) to provide a standard 90-day time frame to apply for a review.

This could assist many individuals to meaningfully use the review process while ensuring access to sufficient resources and support, thus enhancing the fairness and accessibility of the review process.

Advice:

The Attorney-General’s Department should extend the standard review application time frame to 90 days.

---

Public Support: 

1. PWDA: https://pwd.org.au/administrative-review-tribunal-act-2024/

Where to go to learn more: 

1. PWDA, Submission to the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 – Public Consultation: https://pwd.org.au/administrative-review-tribunal-act-2024/

2. PWDA, Comment on the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024: https://pwd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PWDA.SB_.Administrative.Review.Tribunal.Rules_.2024-08-05.pdf 

Human Perspective:

When Sarah received a distressing outcome from the NDIA, she was overwhelmed with panic and anxiety, unsure of how to navigate the complex appeal process. The 28-day time frame felt impossibly short as she struggled to find the advocacy support she needed. Unaware of the possibility of an extension, Sarah was paralysed by the pressure and stress. With time slipping away, she missed the deadline to apply for a review, leaving her with no choice but to abandon her appeal, despite feeling that the decision was unfair.

To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences, and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.

Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement: 

N/a.

Support 

If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper, or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com. 

Reference list: 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (n.d). About the AAT. Australian Government.https://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat

Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (n.d). Australian Government.https://www.aat.gov.au/

Attorney-General’s Department. (2024). Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 – Public Consultation. Australian Government. https://consultations.ag.gov.au/legal-system/art-rules/

Campbell, E. Groves, M. (2004). Time Limitations on Applications for Judicial Review. FedLawRw 2; (2004) 32(1) Federal Law Review 29.https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2004/2.html

Federal Register of Legislation. (2024). Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00040/asmade/text 

People With Disability Australia. (2024). Administrative Review Tribunal Rules – Public Consultation.https://pwd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PWDA.SB_.Administrative.Review.Tribunal.Rules_.2024-08-05.pdf

People With Disability Australia. (2024). Submission to the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 – Public Consultation.https://pwd.org.au/administrative-review-tribunal-act-2024/