---
title: "Administrative & Public Law"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law"
type: "practice_area"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A31"
task_count: 34
last_reviewed: "2026-10-10"
---

# Administrative & Public Law

> Identify the decision, source of power, review route and remedy first. Check the complete administrative record, applicable law, procedural fairness issues and filing requirements.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-10

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

Also covers: Judicial review, merits review, constitutional law, government law, public administration law, Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) practice, FOI law, delegated legislation, natural justice, migration review, refugee law

## Key facts

- Tasks: 34
- Green: 5, Yellow: 20, Red: 9
- Levels: Green is AI drafts and the lawyer checks; Yellow is lawyer and AI draft together; Red is the lawyer writes and AI may only check, clarify or collect data.

## Principles

- **Define the matter**: Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- **Verify the authorities**: Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- **Reconcile the figures**: Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.

## Checklist

- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
- Obtain and inspect the relevant current official register or search result. Confirm identities, interests and the date and scope of the search.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Restrictions

- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.

## Jurisdiction note

Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.

## Basis

Practice guidance supports planning; the responsible lawyer confirms the scope, evidence and review requirements for the matter.

Also covers: Judicial review, merits review, constitutional law, government law, public administration law, Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) practice, FOI law, delegated legislation, natural justice, migration review, refugee law

Administrative and public law encompasses judicial review of government decision-making, merits review before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), FOI applications, constitutional challenges, and advice to government agencies on lawful decision-making. The AI risk profile is severe: the area is jurisdiction-specific, deadline-driven, and turns on the precise terms of statutes, regulations, and a moving body of ART and Federal Court authority — exactly the conditions that produce plausible-sounding hallucinations. Real Australian disciplinary and costs outcomes (Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129, Luck [2025] FCAFC 26, Re Dayal [2025]) demonstrate the area's acute exposure; the ART's replacement of the AAT (14 October 2024), the new on-the-papers migration regime (18 May 2026), and the GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026) have all created transition gaps that AI tools fill with stale or fabricated content.

## Limits on AI assistance

Red lines — never in this area

## Limits on AI assistance

AI must not generate or supply case citations, statutory references, or regulatory provisions for inclusion in any document filed with a court, tribunal, or regulator without prior independent verification against AustLII, Jade, or the Federal Register of Legislation. Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129 and Luck [2025] FCAFC 26 confirm that plausible fictitious administrative and migration citations are routinely generated; Re Dayal [2025] is the first Australian disciplinary outcome (loss of principal status). AI must not be used to draft or substantially generate affidavits, witness statements, or statutory declarations — GPN-AI (16 April 2026) expressly requires that these documents reflect the deponent's own recollection, knowledge, and experience; AI use that undermines that representation is prohibited. AI must not be used to generate or draft expert reports that are presented as reflecting the expert's own reasoning — GPN-AI and the ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 (effective 2 March 2026) both require expert reports to reflect the expert's own opinion; the ART Practice Direction specifically requires a statement disclosing whether AI was used. Client identity information, protection claims, visa history, instructions, and any other information obtained during a retainer must not be input into a general-access AI model (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Gemini, Copilot in consumer mode, etc.) without: a verified data processing agreement excluding model training on inputs, and the client's informed consent. ASCR r 9, Privacy Act APP 11, and — where a registered migration agent is involved — OMARA Code of Conduct s 35 all apply. AI must not determine or supply statutory deadlines for ART Migration Protection and Character Division applications — deadlines are non-extendable by statute and a single-day error forfeits the client's entire review right; the deadline must come from the decision letter and the current Migration Act, checked by the lawyer personally. AI must not supply constitutional law propositions for inclusion in High Court or Full Federal Court submissions without complete independent re-derivation by a lawyer with constitutional law competence — AI applies US (Chevron, non-delegation) and UK constitutional norms without flagging inapplicability. AI must not be used to state the current law on government automated decision-making, DTA Responsible AI Policy obligations, or Privacy Act ADM transparency requirements without the lawyer verifying the current version of those instruments — this framework is changing rapidly and AI summaries go stale within months. AI must not be used to advise that the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth) is in force — the Bill was withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper in early March 2026 without passing; any AI output treating it as enacted law is wrong and must not be relied on.

- AI must not generate or supply case citations, statutory references, or regulatory provisions for inclusion in any document filed with a court, tribunal, or regulator without prior independent verification against AustLII, Jade, or the Federal Register of Legislation. Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129 and Luck [2025] FCAFC 26 confirm that plausible fictitious administrative and migration citations are routinely generated; Re Dayal [2025] is the first Australian disciplinary outcome (loss of principal status).
- AI must not be used to draft or substantially generate affidavits, witness statements, or statutory declarations — GPN-AI (16 April 2026) expressly requires that these documents reflect the deponent's own recollection, knowledge, and experience; AI use that undermines that representation is prohibited.
- AI must not be used to generate or draft expert reports that are presented as reflecting the expert's own reasoning — GPN-AI and the ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 (effective 2 March 2026) both require expert reports to reflect the expert's own opinion; the ART Practice Direction specifically requires a statement disclosing whether AI was used.
- Client identity information, protection claims, visa history, instructions, and any other information obtained during a retainer must not be input into a general-access AI model (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Gemini, Copilot in consumer mode, etc.) without: a verified data processing agreement excluding model training on inputs, and the client's informed consent. ASCR r 9, Privacy Act APP 11, and — where a registered migration agent is involved — OMARA Code of Conduct s 35 all apply.
- AI must not determine or supply statutory deadlines for ART Migration Protection and Character Division applications — deadlines are non-extendable by statute and a single-day error forfeits the client's entire review right; the deadline must come from the decision letter and the current Migration Act, checked by the lawyer personally.
- AI must not supply constitutional law propositions for inclusion in High Court or Full Federal Court submissions without complete independent re-derivation by a lawyer with constitutional law competence — AI applies US (Chevron, non-delegation) and UK constitutional norms without flagging inapplicability.
- AI must not be used to state the current law on government automated decision-making, DTA Responsible AI Policy obligations, or Privacy Act ADM transparency requirements without the lawyer verifying the current version of those instruments — this framework is changing rapidly and AI summaries go stale within months.
- AI must not be used to advise that the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth) is in force — the Bill was withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper in early March 2026 without passing; any AI output treating it as enacted law is wrong and must not be relied on.

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Australian traps

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

ART replaces AAT (14 October 2024): The Administrative Review Tribunal commenced under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth). AI trained before this date — and many tools trained after it — will generate AAT jurisdiction, AAT practice directions, AAT procedures, and AAT case references that no longer apply. Every AI output referring to the AAT must be identified and updated; AAT practice directions were replaced by ART Practice Directions from 14 October 2024 and revised again from 2 March 2026. ART on-the-papers migration regime (18 May 2026): The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (Royal Assent 9 February 2026, commenced 18 May 2026) requires the ART to decide certain migration reviews on written submissions alone, with no oral hearing. Student visa refusals are currently prescribed; further visa types can be added by regulation at any time. AI has no knowledge of this regime. Written submissions and evidence are the only opportunity — failure to respond to a written invitation results in mandatory dismissal. ART Migration and Refugee Division deadlines are non-extendable: Unlike most ART caseloads, the Migration Protection and Character Division has strict statutory deadlines with no discretion to extend. The deadline is stated in the decision letter; the current Migration Act must be checked. AI cannot reliably calculate this deadline and must not be asked to do so. Federal Court GPN-AI (16 April 2026): A Notice to the Profession issued 16 April 2026 accompanied the GPN-AI Practice Note. Lawyers filing AI-assisted documents in the Federal Court must include a declaration at the start of the document specifying where AI was used and how; the responsible lawyer must personally verify that facts are properly provable, authorities exist and support the propositions advanced, evidence is admissible, and discovery obligations are met. Non-compliance risks adverse costs orders and professional repercussions. Verify whether the Federal Circuit and Family Court has issued its own equivalent instrument. ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 (effective 2 March 2026): Expert reports filed in the ART from 2 March 2026 must include a statement disclosing whether the report includes content generated by AI (specifically listing Copilot, Perplexity, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek and closed-source applications). Legal practitioners briefing expert witnesses must advise them of this obligation. Non-compliance affects the weight the Tribunal gives to the report. ASCR r 9 confidentiality applies to all client information input to AI: The obligation extends to all information obtained during the retainer, not only privileged information. Re Dayal [2025] resulted in loss of principal lawyer status for submitting AI-generated false citations. The Victorian Legal Services Board & Commissioner and Law Society of NSW issued joint guidance (December 2024) confirming ASCR r 9 applies to AI tool inputs. Registered migration agents face additional obligations under OMARA Code of Conduct s 35 and the OMARA AI Guidance (March 2026). FOI Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth) did not pass: The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 was introduced 3 September 2025 but withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper in early March 2026 without receiving Royal Assent. Any AI output treating its proposed changes as enacted law (altered exemptions, timelines, or review mechanisms) is wrong. Current Cth FOI law remains the FOI Act 1982 in its existing consolidated form. ADJR Act (Cth) vs State administrative law: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) applies only to decisions of a federal character made under federal enactments. State administrative law differs jurisdiction by jurisdiction — VCAT, NCAT, QCAT, and SAT each have different enabling Acts, standing, time limits, and remedies. AI defaults to Commonwealth frameworks and routinely applies them to State proceedings. State tribunals have issued their own AI disclosure instruments: NCAT Procedural Direction 7 (April 2025), VCAT Practice Note PNVCAT11, Queensland courts and tribunals AI guidelines (applicable to QCAT). Automated decision-making obligations (APP 1.7–1.9, commencement 10 December 2026): Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 inserts APP 1.7–1.9 requiring APP entities whose computer programs make decisions significantly affecting individual rights or interests to disclose this in privacy policies. Commencement is 10 December 2026 (24-month grace period from 10 December 2024). Government agency clients must have compliance work underway now. AI may misstate the operative date or scope. Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26: The Full Federal Court redacted a hallucinated case citation from published reasons specifically to prevent AI systems from propagating the false citation — confirming that even court-level publication does not cleanse AI errors. The Victorian Law Reform Commission Report (tabled 3 February 2026, 30 recommendations) recommends prohibiting AI use in judicial decision-making and proposes court user guidelines; practitioners should monitor for implementing guidelines from Victorian courts and VCAT.

- ART replaces AAT (14 October 2024): The Administrative Review Tribunal commenced under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth). AI trained before this date — and many tools trained after it — will generate AAT jurisdiction, AAT practice directions, AAT procedures, and AAT case references that no longer apply. Every AI output referring to the AAT must be identified and updated; AAT practice directions were replaced by ART Practice Directions from 14 October 2024 and revised again from 2 March 2026.
- ART on-the-papers migration regime (18 May 2026): The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (Royal Assent 9 February 2026, commenced 18 May 2026) requires the ART to decide certain migration reviews on written submissions alone, with no oral hearing. Student visa refusals are currently prescribed; further visa types can be added by regulation at any time. AI has no knowledge of this regime. Written submissions and evidence are the only opportunity — failure to respond to a written invitation results in mandatory dismissal.
- ART Migration and Refugee Division deadlines are non-extendable: Unlike most ART caseloads, the Migration Protection and Character Division has strict statutory deadlines with no discretion to extend. The deadline is stated in the decision letter; the current Migration Act must be checked. AI cannot reliably calculate this deadline and must not be asked to do so.
- Federal Court GPN-AI (16 April 2026): A Notice to the Profession issued 16 April 2026 accompanied the GPN-AI Practice Note. Lawyers filing AI-assisted documents in the Federal Court must include a declaration at the start of the document specifying where AI was used and how; the responsible lawyer must personally verify that facts are properly provable, authorities exist and support the propositions advanced, evidence is admissible, and discovery obligations are met. Non-compliance risks adverse costs orders and professional repercussions. Verify whether the Federal Circuit and Family Court has issued its own equivalent instrument.
- ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 (effective 2 March 2026): Expert reports filed in the ART from 2 March 2026 must include a statement disclosing whether the report includes content generated by AI (specifically listing Copilot, Perplexity, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek and closed-source applications). Legal practitioners briefing expert witnesses must advise them of this obligation. Non-compliance affects the weight the Tribunal gives to the report.
- ASCR r 9 confidentiality applies to all client information input to AI: The obligation extends to all information obtained during the retainer, not only privileged information. Re Dayal [2025] resulted in loss of principal lawyer status for submitting AI-generated false citations. The Victorian Legal Services Board & Commissioner and Law Society of NSW issued joint guidance (December 2024) confirming ASCR r 9 applies to AI tool inputs. Registered migration agents face additional obligations under OMARA Code of Conduct s 35 and the OMARA AI Guidance (March 2026).
- FOI Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth) did not pass: The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 was introduced 3 September 2025 but withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper in early March 2026 without receiving Royal Assent. Any AI output treating its proposed changes as enacted law (altered exemptions, timelines, or review mechanisms) is wrong. Current Cth FOI law remains the FOI Act 1982 in its existing consolidated form.
- ADJR Act (Cth) vs State administrative law: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) applies only to decisions of a federal character made under federal enactments. State administrative law differs jurisdiction by jurisdiction — VCAT, NCAT, QCAT, and SAT each have different enabling Acts, standing, time limits, and remedies. AI defaults to Commonwealth frameworks and routinely applies them to State proceedings. State tribunals have issued their own AI disclosure instruments: NCAT Procedural Direction 7 (April 2025), VCAT Practice Note PNVCAT11, Queensland courts and tribunals AI guidelines (applicable to QCAT).
- Automated decision-making obligations (APP 1.7–1.9, commencement 10 December 2026): Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 inserts APP 1.7–1.9 requiring APP entities whose computer programs make decisions significantly affecting individual rights or interests to disclose this in privacy policies. Commencement is 10 December 2026 (24-month grace period from 10 December 2024). Government agency clients must have compliance work underway now. AI may misstate the operative date or scope.
- Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26: The Full Federal Court redacted a hallucinated case citation from published reasons specifically to prevent AI systems from propagating the false citation — confirming that even court-level publication does not cleanse AI errors. The Victorian Law Reform Commission Report (tabled 3 February 2026, 30 recommendations) recommends prohibiting AI use in judicial decision-making and proposes court user guidelines; practitioners should monitor for implementing guidelines from Victorian courts and VCAT.

## Risks to address

How it goes wrong

## Risks to address

Fabricated migration and administrative law citations using ministerial abbreviations: AI generates case names in authentic-looking MIMA/MIBP/MIAC/MIEA formats with AustLII-style neutral citations and realistic-sounding legal propositions. Documented in Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129; format mimicry makes human detection without active verification nearly impossible. AAT/ART confusion and stale procedure: AI trained predominantly on pre-October 2024 data produces AAT jurisdiction, AAT practice directions, and AAT member decisions that no longer apply. The ART has different divisional structures, Practice Directions (revised 2 March 2026), filing procedures, and — since 18 May 2026 — an on-the-papers regime that did not previously exist. Wrong or fabricated ART migration time limit: AI may state an extension discretion or default period that does not exist in the Migration Protection and Character Division where statutory deadlines are non-extendable. A one-day error permanently forfeits the client's review right. FOI Amendment Bill 2025 treated as enacted law: AI trained on data from September–December 2025 may present the Bill's proposed reforms as in force. The Bill was withdrawn in March 2026 without passing. Advice based on AI summaries of the Bill's effect is advice based on non-existent law. Conflation of Commonwealth and State administrative law: AI applies Commonwealth FOI Act exemptions to State RTI/FOI requests, ADJR Act standing requirements to VCAT or NCAT proceedings, and ART jurisdictional rules to state tribunal matters. Each State Act has materially different provisions. Application of US constitutional doctrine: AI applies Chevron deference (never applicable in Australia; also overruled in the US in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo (2024)) and US non-delegation doctrine to Australian constitutional analysis. Documented in AI legal exam hallucination studies and constitutional law outputs.

- Fabricated migration and administrative law citations using ministerial abbreviations: AI generates case names in authentic-looking MIMA/MIBP/MIAC/MIEA formats with AustLII-style neutral citations and realistic-sounding legal propositions. Documented in Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129; format mimicry makes human detection without active verification nearly impossible.
- AAT/ART confusion and stale procedure: AI trained predominantly on pre-October 2024 data produces AAT jurisdiction, AAT practice directions, and AAT member decisions that no longer apply. The ART has different divisional structures, Practice Directions (revised 2 March 2026), filing procedures, and — since 18 May 2026 — an on-the-papers regime that did not previously exist.
- Wrong or fabricated ART migration time limit: AI may state an extension discretion or default period that does not exist in the Migration Protection and Character Division where statutory deadlines are non-extendable. A one-day error permanently forfeits the client's review right.
- FOI Amendment Bill 2025 treated as enacted law: AI trained on data from September–December 2025 may present the Bill's proposed reforms as in force. The Bill was withdrawn in March 2026 without passing. Advice based on AI summaries of the Bill's effect is advice based on non-existent law.
- Conflation of Commonwealth and State administrative law: AI applies Commonwealth FOI Act exemptions to State RTI/FOI requests, ADJR Act standing requirements to VCAT or NCAT proceedings, and ART jurisdictional rules to state tribunal matters. Each State Act has materially different provisions.
- Application of US constitutional doctrine: AI applies Chevron deference (never applicable in Australia; also overruled in the US in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo (2024)) and US non-delegation doctrine to Australian constitutional analysis. Documented in AI legal exam hallucination studies and constitutional law outputs.

## Review checklist

The lawyer's review checklist

## Review checklist

Verify every case citation: search AustLII and Jade by full citation; open the judgment; read the actual paragraph cited; confirm the proposition stated matches the judgment text — do not rely on AI's quotation of a passage. Verify every statutory provision: retrieve the current consolidated text from the Federal Register of Legislation (Cth) or State equivalent; confirm the section is in force and has not been amended, renumbered, or repealed since the AI-cited version. Note: the Act is the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth), not 'Legislative Instruments Act 2003'. Confirm the correct jurisdictional vehicle: ADJR Act 1977 (Cth), s 39B Judiciary Act, constitutional writs, ART Act 2024, or State enabling Act — each has different standing, time limits, and remedies. If a State tribunal is involved, apply the State Act, not Commonwealth frameworks. Check all deadlines independently from primary sources: for ART Migration Protection and Character Division matters, take the deadline from the decision letter and the current Migration Act only; for ADJR judicial review, check s 11 time limits; for FOI internal review, count from the decision letter under the correct Act. Never accept an AI-generated deadline calculation. Check GPN-AI (16 April 2026) compliance before filing in the Federal Court: confirm whether AI-assisted content appears in the document; if so, the declaration must appear at the start of the document and must specify the tool used, its function, and where in the document AI output appears. For ART expert reports, confirm the Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 AI disclosure statement has been included by the expert. Audit client information uploaded to AI: identify what client data (visa history, protection claims, identity documents, instructions) was input to which AI tool; confirm the tool operates under a data processing agreement that excludes model training on inputs; record this in the file. For registered migration agents: confirm compliance with OMARA AI Guidance (March 2026) and Code of Conduct s 35. Purge all AAT references: for any matter arising after 14 October 2024, remove or update all references to the AAT, AAT Act, AAT practice directions, and AAT decisions to ART equivalents under the ART Act 2024 and current ART Practice Directions (revised 2 March 2026). Apply Australian doctrine filter: identify and remove any US or UK legal doctrine (Chevron deference — inapplicable in Australia and overruled in the US by Loper Bright (2024); Wednesbury in unmodified English form; US non-delegation; English legitimate expectation beyond its Australian reception) and substitute the current Australian formulation.

- Verify every case citation: search AustLII and Jade by full citation; open the judgment; read the actual paragraph cited; confirm the proposition stated matches the judgment text — do not rely on AI's quotation of a passage.
- Verify every statutory provision: retrieve the current consolidated text from the Federal Register of Legislation (Cth) or State equivalent; confirm the section is in force and has not been amended, renumbered, or repealed since the AI-cited version. Note: the Act is the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth), not 'Legislative Instruments Act 2003'.
- Confirm the correct jurisdictional vehicle: ADJR Act 1977 (Cth), s 39B Judiciary Act, constitutional writs, ART Act 2024, or State enabling Act — each has different standing, time limits, and remedies. If a State tribunal is involved, apply the State Act, not Commonwealth frameworks.
- Check all deadlines independently from primary sources: for ART Migration Protection and Character Division matters, take the deadline from the decision letter and the current Migration Act only; for ADJR judicial review, check s 11 time limits; for FOI internal review, count from the decision letter under the correct Act. Never accept an AI-generated deadline calculation.
- Check GPN-AI (16 April 2026) compliance before filing in the Federal Court: confirm whether AI-assisted content appears in the document; if so, the declaration must appear at the start of the document and must specify the tool used, its function, and where in the document AI output appears. For ART expert reports, confirm the Expert Evidence Practice Direction 2026 AI disclosure statement has been included by the expert.
- Audit client information uploaded to AI: identify what client data (visa history, protection claims, identity documents, instructions) was input to which AI tool; confirm the tool operates under a data processing agreement that excludes model training on inputs; record this in the file. For registered migration agents: confirm compliance with OMARA AI Guidance (March 2026) and Code of Conduct s 35.
- Purge all AAT references: for any matter arising after 14 October 2024, remove or update all references to the AAT, AAT Act, AAT practice directions, and AAT decisions to ART equivalents under the ART Act 2024 and current ART Practice Directions (revised 2 March 2026).
- Apply Australian doctrine filter: identify and remove any US or UK legal doctrine (Chevron deference — inapplicable in Australia and overruled in the US by Loper Bright (2024); Wednesbury in unmodified English form; US non-delegation; English legitimate expectation beyond its Australian reception) and substitute the current Australian formulation.

## Tasks (34)

| Task | Level | How AI is used | What the lawyer must review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Build a review-rights and time-limit table from the decision letter](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/build-a-review-rights-and-time-limit-table-from-the-decision-letter.md) | Red | Extract the decision type, date of notice and candidate review paths into a table against the enabling provisions the lawyer has named. | Take jurisdiction and time limits from the current empowering statute Do not borrow a neighbouring tribunal's rules |
| [Draft a judicial-review grounds outline from the decision and the record](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/draft-a-judicial-review-grounds-outline-from-the-decision-and-the-record.md) | Red | Produce a structured outline of candidate grounds (jurisdiction, fairness, relevant considerations, no evidence) with transcript or record references. | Verify every authority Treat a generated ground as a question, not a pleading |
| Draft a statement-of-reasons request and a reasons-deficiency table | Yellow | Draft the request letter, then list missing findings, unaddressed mandatory considerations and unexplained steps from the reasons that come back. | Confirm the statutory trigger for reasons Do not treat a missing paragraph as automatically an error |
| [Draft a freedom-of-information request and a review application](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/draft-a-freedom-of-information-request-and-a-review-application.md) | Yellow | Produce a first-draft request, internal-review or commissioner-review application, and a table of claimed exemptions mapped to the Act the lawyer has named. | Use the statute that actually applies to this agency Do not carry exemption tests between countries or between state and federal Acts |
| Build a lawful-decision checklist for an agency client | Red | From the empowering provision and the proposed process, list power, mandatory considerations, consultation steps and record-keeping still required. | Re-derive power and fairness from the current statute; this advice will be acted on |
| Build a tribunal hearing chronology and document list | Yellow | Summarise the evidence bundle into a chronology, extract key facts from departmental records and list inconsistencies across statements. | Check extracts against the page Check the summary has not dropped an inconvenient date |
| [Build a delegated-legislation validity checklist](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/build-a-delegated-legislation-validity-checklist.md) | Yellow | From the instrument and the Act the lawyer named, list empowering provision, intra vires, procedure and subject-matter questions, mapping the instrument to… | Retrieve the current consolidated Act and instrument Do not rely on training data; it will be stale |
| Map procedural-fairness steps for a proposed decision | Red | From the decision type and the affected interest, list notice, hearing, bias and disclosure steps already taken and still required. | Decide what fairness requires in this context Do not treat a generated checklist as the content of the hearing rule |
| Build an AI-use gap table for an agency client | Yellow | Map the agency's described AI uses to the government AI policy headings the lawyer has listed, and mark missing impact assessments and human-review paths. | Open the current mandatory policy for that government Do not rely on a knowledge-cutoff summary |
| [Draft a state, territorial or local tribunal application from the decision papers](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/draft-a-state-territorial-or-local-tribunal-application-from-the-decisio.md) | Yellow | Produce a first-draft application, chronology and submissions outline from the decision and the tribunal form the lawyer has named. | Do not default to the federal statute Confirm the tribunal's current Act, time limit and form |
| [Verify and disclose generative AI in a tribunal document](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/verify-and-disclose-generative-ai-in-a-tribunal-document.md) | Red | Extract citations, chronology rows and any translated passages from a draft tribunal document into a checking list. | Own the document as the lawyer Do not treat the tool's check of its own output as verification Confirm the tribunal's current AI practice note before filing |
| Draft a notice of objection to production or a public-interest-immunity schedule | Red | From the notice to produce and the documents the agency has gathered, the tool indexes each document by date, author, recipient and file reference as they… | The lawyer settles the grounds document by document — legal professional privilege, public interest immunity, a statutory secrecy provision, or the terms of… |
| Build the schedule of documents for an information-access decision | Green | Draft the schedule rows from the lawyer's marked-up document set: number, date, author and recipient, a neutral description and the folio range, carrying the… | The lawyer confirms the schedule matches the documents actually within scope, that each description discloses nothing exempt, and that the decision and the… |
| Run the third-party consultation for an information-access request | Yellow | Draft each consultation letter from the validated template using the document details the lawyer has selected, and maintain the register of who was consulted,… | The lawyer decides who must be consulted and whether consultation is reasonably practicable in the time available, confirms the applicant's identity is not… |
| Work up the public interest test for a conditionally exempt document | Red | Organise the statutory factors for and against disclosure into a table against the documents and passages the lawyer has marked, extract the material the… | The decision-maker performs the balance, decides which factors are open on the evidence and writes the reasons;… |
| Prepare the notice of decision and reasons on an access request | Yellow | Work with the lawyer to draft the notice from the validated template and the regulator's published checklist, taking the decision on each document and the… | The decision-maker adopts the findings as their own; the lawyer checks that each exemption is explained document by document rather than by class, that the… |
| Prepare a refusal-to-deal consultation notice and the processing estimate behind it | Green | Draft the consultation notice from the validated template so that it states the practical refusal reason relied on, names the contact officer and the… | The lawyer owns the estimate and the sample it rests on, confirms the contact arrangements and consultation period meet the section's requirements, and checks… |
| Check the release copy against the decision before documents leave the agency | Red | Compare the release copy against the schedule and the notice of decision and list every discrepancy: a deletion claimed but not applied, a deletion applied… | The lawyer resolves every discrepancy against the source document, confirms each deletion is irreversible in the format actually being sent, and authorises… |
| Trace the delegation and authorisation behind a decision | Yellow | Draft the trace from the instruments and position records the lawyer supplies: the conferring provision, each delegation or authorisation with its… | The lawyer verifies each instrument against the register or the agency's records, confirms the point-in-time version, and decides whether an express… |
| Assemble the decision-maker's lodgement bundle for a tribunal review | Green | Draft the index and apply the pagination across the document set the decision-maker has identified as relevant, in the order and form the tribunal's practice… | The lawyer decides what is relevant to the review, settles any claim that material should be withheld from a party, confirms which jurisdictional-area… |
| Draft the statement of reasons for a reviewable decision | Yellow | Work with the lawyer to draft the reasons from the decision-maker's findings and the material actually before them, keeping each finding tied to the evidence… | The decision-maker adopts the findings and the reasoning as their own; the lawyer checks that every material question of fact is addressed, that no finding… |
| Respond to an Ombudsman investigation and proposed report | Yellow | Work with the lawyer to draft the response and build the corrections table: each statement in the proposed report, the agency material that bears on it, and… | The lawyer confirms each correction against the source record, decides what is put and what is conceded, checks that the response discloses nothing it should… |
| [Advise an agency on AI use under the DTA policy v2.0](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/advise-an-agency-on-ai-use-under-the-dta-policy-v2-0.md) | Yellow | Map proposed uses to the mandatory requirements. | Confirm requirements and accountable officials. |
| [Check an ART submission against the Generative AI Practice Direction checklist](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/check-an-art-submission-against-the-generative-ai-practice-direction-che.md) | Yellow | Complete the ART checklist item by item. | Verify and be ready to explain tool use. |
| [Draft an RTI/FOI external-review submission for an applicant](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/draft-an-rti-foi-external-review-submission-for-an-applicant.md) | Yellow | Organise the decision, exemptions claimed and reasons into a cited submission outline. | OIC Qld asks applicants to verify AI-produced content; check every exemption against the Act. |
| [Assess an agency's use of generative AI under state information-privacy law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/assess-an-agency-s-use-of-generative-ai-under-state-information-privacy.md) | Yellow | Build a gap table against the agency's AI policy and privacy principles. | Lawyer confirms the governing statute (PPIPA, PDPA Vic, IP Act Qld). |
| [Prepare a tribunal submission compliant with the ART Gen AI practice direction](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/prepare-a-tribunal-submission-compliant-with-the-art-gen-ai-practice-dir.md) | Yellow | Organise the submission and the AI-use disclosure required by the ART direction. | Verify every citation; follow ART PD (Aug 2026). |
| [Advise an agency on generative AI in decision-making](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/advise-an-agency-on-generative-ai-in-decision-making.md) | Yellow | Map the decision process against rules barring AI in reasons and outcomes. | Lawyer confirms legality of delegation and procedural fairness. |
| [Triage self-represented applicants' AI-drafted review applications](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/triage-self-represented-applicants-ai-drafted-review-applications.md) | Red | Summarise grounds and flag apparent fabricated authorities. | Officer checks every authority. |
| [Summarise a VLRC or law-reform paper for an agency client](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/summarise-a-vlrc-or-law-reform-paper-for-an-agency-client.md) | Green | Produce an executive summary with paragraph pinpoints. | Check pinpoints against the report. |
| [Draft an AI transparency statement for a Commonwealth agency](https://ailawframework.com/practice/administrative-and-public-law/draft-an-ai-transparency-statement-for-a-commonwealth-agency.md) | Yellow | Draft from the agency's AI use register. | Check DTA policy requirements. |
| Analyse automated decision-making in a government decision for review grounds | Yellow | Map automated steps to legality, procedural fairness and reasons duties. | Lawyer gives the advice. |
| Prepare an ART application outline from the decision and reasons | Yellow | Draft grounds from the reasons. | Lawyer settles; check ART AI practice requirements. |
| Summarise agency AI transparency statements for a client | Green | Compare published AI statements. | Verify the current statements. |

## Jurisdiction notes

### Australia

#### Scope

Judicial review, merits review before the Administrative Review Tribunal, FOI, constitutional challenges and advice to agencies on lawful decision-making.

#### Where it goes wrong

Work is deadline-driven and turns on exact statutory terms and moving ART and Federal Court authority, the conditions where invented authority is most likely.

#### Decided cases

Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129, Luck [2025] FCAFC 26 and Re Dayal [2025] led to disciplinary or costs outcomes.

#### Recent change

The ART replaced the AAT (14 October 2024); a new on-the-papers migration regime began 18 May 2026; the GPN-AI Practice Note took effect 16 April 2026.

### New Zealand

#### Merits review

No Administrative Review Tribunal. Use the tribunal the statute names (IPT, Taxation Review Authority and others in the Courts of New Zealand guidelines).

#### Judicial review

In the High Court.

#### Information and rights

Official Information Act 1982, not FOI. Rights arguments may engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

#### Government AI use

Public-service guidance on digital.govt.nz, which the Law Society points to.

Sources:

- [Official Information Act 1982](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/156/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/109/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [High Court Rules 2016](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2016/0225/104.0/whole.html) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Courts of New Zealand: GenAI guidelines — Lawyers (7 December 2023)](https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Lawyers.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [NZLS: Generative AI guidance for lawyers (March 2024)](https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Ministry of Justice: Immigration and Protection Tribunal](https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/immigration/immigration-and-protection/) (checked 2026-09-23)

### United States

Local name: Administrative and public law

#### Judicial review

Federal: the Administrative Procedure Act and the agency statute, not ART merits review. State APAs govern state agencies.

#### Records

FOIA and state public-records laws replace FOI Acts.

#### AI rules

Rule 11 and standing orders apply in federal court. Agency manuals, such as EOIR PM 25-40, may add AI guidance.

Sources:

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [EOIR Policy Memorandum PM 25-40 (8 August 2025)](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [5 U.S.C. Chapter 5 (Administrative Procedure Act)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [5 U.S.C. Chapter 7: judicial review](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-7) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [FOIA.gov: Freedom of Information Act](https://www.foia.gov/) (checked 2026-09-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*