Insights

Q&A with Robert Reitano: Insights from the First Year of the ART

Written by Robert Reitano | Feb 24, 2026 4:29:59 AM

One year on from the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), practitioners are beginning to see how Australia’s new merits‑review framework is operating in practice. To reflect on what has genuinely changed—and what challenges remain, we spoke with Robert Reitano, who offers a candid, practitioner‑focused perspective on the ART’s first year. From the impact of merit‑based appointments to cultural shifts in adjournments, caseload pressures, and the procedural adjustments now expected of practitioners, this Q&A explores where the ART is performing well and where further improvement is still urgently needed.

 

One year in, what do you see as the most meaningful change the Administrative Review Tribunal has brought to merits review in practice?

There is no doubt in my mind that the most meaningful change in practice is the appointment of skilled, qualified and experienced decision makers to the ART. This change cannot be underestimated in its importance but is also difficult to measure so far as what it has delivered in concerned. I note the President in his Annual Report attributed the improvement in the quality of decisions (as reported by the legal profession) at least partly to the merit selection process. I have certainly noticed the improvement in decisions (Although I still think some of them are too long!). I rather anticipate that there has been an improvement in the hearing process albeit there is no measure, but if you are appointing better and more qualified members and you've seen improvement in decisions the other bit possibly follows. It is simply impossible to measure the way in which the public now views the independence of the ART but again, it's difficult to imagine that public trust and confidence have not significantly improved as a result of the 'new' and qualified membership.


From your perspective, what have been the biggest early challenges in the transition from the AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) to the ART (Administrative Review Tribunal)?

This is a much more difficult question than meets the eye. The change in membership was always going to present a challenge but that was in part ameliorated by the strong body of members who were not in the class of political appointments who came over from the AAT.
The other obvious challenge for the ART was always going to be the significant and aging caseload and how that would be dealt with. The Annual Report and a couple of decisions suggest it may still be an issue. I think the important thing in the next 12 months will be for the ART to address that issue with some innovative and proactive strategies. There is no doubt that something needs to be done.
 
 
What lessons do you think decision-makers and practitioners have learned in the first year of the ART’s operation?

The main lesson is that the adjournments and extensions of time culture is now a thing of the past. No matter how user friendly the AAT was in that respect it's over. Given the size and age of the caseload that was just something the ART could no longer carry Especially as far as practitioners are concerned the obligation now is on assisting the ART and that means contributing to the efficiency of the process in a real way.
 
 
In your view, has the Administrative Review Act 2024 achieved its intended goals so far, or are there gaps emerging already?

So far as restoring public trust and confidence in the process of independent review surprisingly I think that has been achieved. So far as dealing with the back log of cases and aging cases because of what appears to be the large influx of student visa, protection and NDIS cases there remain gaps.
 
 
Have you seen any clear shifts in how matters are being managed or listed compared with the AAT, and what impact is that having on parties?

No, but that is not to say there have not been any. As an outsider with limited vision of what's happening on the inside I can only rely on the 'gossip rails' which suggest not much has changed. When I read the list each day one thing I find remarkable is that members continue to list only one matter a day. I sometimes laugh as it takes me back to the consternation I caused when I listed more than one case day in my time at the AAT. I also see hearings continue to start at 10am. My own view of that is that is something courts do and I am not sure the ART needs to do that, at least not every day. I have no doubt that managing cases so adjournments aren't granted for any reason and extensions of time aren't granted for any reason inevitably has an impact on parties and isnt much liked. I can only people were warned on 24 October 2024 that the culture would change.
 
 
What are the key procedural or strategic adjustments you think practitioners need to make when appearing before the ART?
 
I have been a long-time believer (from my days in the AAT) that there is a lot of 'waste' that goes on procedurally even when parties agree on directions and the like. This is in part because there is always a desire to improve the material that was before the original decision maker, so parties tend to put everything on again and then a little bit more. Also, I am a massive believer that parties should almost routinely be required to put what they want to say orally in written form and should be invited to proceed at oral hearings on the basis that the Tribunal would have read their writing. That of course is a bit idealistic but that was a course I personally preferred and believed it facilitated efficient hearings. I also was not a fan of directing self-represented litigants to put on Statements of Facts Issues and Contentions largely because more often than not what you got back was unhelpful. Directing those people to put a full written submission or an outline of submissions in writing on was always more useful "Just tell me in writing why you say you should win?" I think practitioners need to embrace things like this and thinking about what directions for hearing ensure their matter will proceed efficiently.
 
 
From an outside perspective, what do you think the ART is doing well so far?
 
I think the new Guidance and Appeals Panel is working well. I think the way it has been explained in decisions and the sparing way it is being utilized is good
 

What do you think still needs improvement most urgently to ensure the ART delivers efficient, fair, and accessible merits review?
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record the backlog and the old cases need to be fixed.

 

 

Robert will explore these issues further in the session The Administrative Review Tribunal: Reflections from the Outside One Year In on Thursday, 5 March 2026, covering:

  • One year on from the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal, what lessons have been learned and what challenges remain? What impact has the Administrative Review Act 2024 had on the process of merits review?

    • Examine how the Tribunal has evolved in its first year and emerging issues for practitioners and decision-makers
    • Join a timely reflection on the Tribunal’s performance and future direction

 

Robert Reitano, Barrister, Frederick Jordan Chambers
Rob Reitano commenced his legal career as the associate to Justice P. R Munro a Judge of the then Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in late 1986. In August 1988 he commenced practice as a solicitor with Clayton Utz solicitors in its employment and industrial law section under the guidance of Joe Catanzariti who later became a Vice President of the Fair Work Commission. In August 1991 he commenced practice at the NSW BAR as barrister practising in the areas of employment and industrial law acting in particular for trade unions in the predecessor to the Fair Work Commission, the Industrial relations Commission of Australia, in the Industrial Court of Australia and in the Federal Court of Australia. He later developed a speciality in work health and safety prosecutions as a prosecutor acting for the then WorkCover Authority of NSW. His practice over many has extended to a wide range of other matters including administrative review proceedings, commercial litigation and so on. Rob was appointed as a sessional member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in April 2019 and was assigned to the Taxation and Commercial Division. In the AAT Rob gained a reputation for being able to deal with matters across a range of divisions which included dealing with visa cancellations and refusals, social security appeals, child support matters, NDIS matters, vocational training educational institution registration, tax agent and finance industry disciplinary matters, bankruptcy matters, taxation and superannuation guarantee matters and even a sports anti-doping case. In 2024 following the end of his term of appointment he returned to full time practice at the Bar. He is keen lawn bowler, an AFL umpire and has a marathon PB of 3:21:58. His other main interest is as Age Manager of his nine years old daughters little athletics group.
View full post