Talk:Administrative Appeals Tribunal

In Australia commonwealth judges are a special class of official who have tenure as judges (but not in the AAT) until age 70. Although some members of the AAT are in fact judges, not all of them are. Therefore the edit.

Removal of text

Put back the text, sources quoted case references which can be followed if you wish. Any case/legislation commentary will *always* be *editorialized* if not you would end up with a list of cases and statutes which means nothing.

I removed a large block of text that consisted of editorializing and speculation and which lacked sources. Editors are reminded of our neutral point of view, our requirement for sources and our proscription on original research. Each of these by itself is sufficient reason to remove editorializing such as that which was present here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now placed a {{expansion}} tag on top, because the meat of the article has now been gutted, and requires replacing. enochlau (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again replaced. UninvitedCompany/or person removing, needs to be specific, which part is he/she is refering to as all material parts are referenced to case and legislation. Be specific, not general.

Please do a proper analysis of your proposition. The analysis was neutral being directly a function of the constituional postions of the bodies as set out by he High court, in the same way, as y = mx + b is a straigh line eqaution, it is a functional nuetral description. Read understand and digest the implication and how the anayisis is situated in the legal regieme. That is the analysis pics out the consequences of an alternative solutions/implications of the rulings as a situatated in the consitution. TCE LLB (UNSW), MBBS (SYD)

I'm not the one who has been advocating the content's removal. Check the page's history and annoy the other users who have been removing it recently instead if you care so much about the text. enochlau (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ADR?

What is ADR, referred to near the end of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.237.190 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is "alternative dispute resolution". The article should spell it out so I've changed it here. [1] Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Refugee Review Tribunal and Migration Review Tribunal into Administrative Appeals Tribunal#Origins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge of Refugee Review Tribunal and Migration Review Tribunal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal#Origins was challenged.

Proposing above merges because, both articles are likely to remain perma stubbed as there is no scope for expansion in future since older tribunals were amalgamated to AAT. Per WP:DUP#3

@Find bruce and Shirt58: - hako9 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Thanks for pinging me Hako9 and for putting the merge proposal notices on the articles. Both tribunals were created as separate entities and existed for more than 20 years. It is incorrect to say that "there is no scope for expansion". The Austlii databases are not complete, but includes Refugee Review Tribunal: 36,392 cases, accessed 511,167 times in the last 12 months [2]; Migration Review Tribunal: 53,766 cases, accessed 537,810 times in the last 12 months [3]. The access numbers are high given it's 6 years after the tribunals ceased to exist. The decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal in has been heavily scrutinised before the High Court - 165 decisions out of 1,162 applications for special leave. There are lots of reliable sources on the tribunals, including journal articles eg [4] [5] [6] & I think that Dr Sage Jacobson wrote her doctoral thesis on the tribunal. A brief search shows articles on the Migration Review Tribunal, eg [7], [8] along with ones dealing with both tribunals, eg [9] and [10]. Then there is the more philosophical objection from someone who has spent far too long from unscrambling the mess made when an editor with a focus on recent events merges articles because of their current status, thereby losing the historical nuance.--Find bruce (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, for having to unscramble the mess. Off-topic but my intent for merging is that it leads to less fragmentation and less of a wiki rabbit hole experience. I'd be surprised if the tribunals didn't have 36k/53k cases in its 2 decades of operation, but those journal sources clearly have notewothy content and references to landmark judgements. I'd have liked separate sub-sections viz., RRT and MRT, within Origins section of AAT article and then a WP:SPLIT into respective articles when they get large. But I agree that there's scope for a lot of expansion, so I can't justify a merge now. You may have guessed I am out of my depth regarding Australian laws. I'll keep this open for now, close/remove tags in a few days, in case someone would like to comment. - hako9 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's me that should apologise not you - I wasn't intending to refer to you, but rather trying to communicate my frustration has arisen from other instances. There is a long history in Australia of specialist courts and tribunals being established and then abolished & there's a great quote from the former Chief Justice Robert French, "The tide went in, the tide went out".Federal Circuit Court – History Repeats Itself The problem with these articles is that they don't lead you anywhere, let alone down an interesting rabbit hole. I'll try & find some time over the next month or so to get the articles at least to a start stage, so that it includes a structure and references that give readers some basic info & editors some points to expand on. --Find bruce (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose. Both are separate, unrelated tribunals with separate histories that don't lose their notability because they were subsequently merged into a different body, and have wider relevance than just as the origins of the current body. This attitude of trying to redirect every historical organisation or institution to the closest-modern day equivalent is an absolute menace for our historical coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update new AG details

Remove Mikeala Cash from AG role. Update with new information. 103.154.155.252 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)