I INTRODUCTION
The primary role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is to review the decision of the original administrator and to come to a decision that is the correct or preferable one based on the facts. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) guides its operation, in that it must provide a review process that is “fair, just, economical, informal and quick.” In observing the proceedings of Tusitala and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, it is evident that the tribunal has an enhanced ability to gather relevant information compared to the original decision maker. This information is potentially valuable and should be given proper weight to when making a decision. It is also apparent that the objects of fair and just are naturally contradictory to economical, informal and quick. Nonetheless, the AAT reconciles competing aims through its flexibility to deal with proceedings as it deems fit.

II HEIGHTENED ABILITY OF TRIBUNAL TO ASCERTAIN RELEVANT INFORMATION
One of the principle features of the AAT is its enhanced ability to collect and find facts in making a decision affecting the rights of the applicants. The Senior Member (SM) of the tribunal indicated that she has to come to her own conclusion, which is the correct or preferable one, on the materials before her instead of the material before the original decision maker. It is notable that the SM can give appropriate weight to other factors beyond character grounds set out by the Migration Act. The Minister considers whether or not the applicant has passed the “Character Test” in deciding to cancel his visa, guided by Direction 55 that outlines its application. While some factors may overlap, the AAT has the discretion to assess the other factual details such as the severity of the applicant’s criminal offences, the availability of family support, the impact of family influence, various opinions about him, personal links to Australia, and chances of rehabilitation and reform.
Although the original decision maker also takes into account the strength of the applicant’s ties to Australia, he makes the decision based on the applicant’s records of family members; what is said on paper. On the other hand, the AAT is able to hear statements first-hand from family members, and observe a significant emotional impact if the applicant’s visa were to be cancelled. These factors may all weigh in favour of the applicant, but were not available to the Minister when making his original decision.
Moreover, the AAT is not bound by the rules of evidence , apparent when the SM directly questioned the applicant regarding the frequency of his family visits in prison and his bond with his nieces and nephews. The respondent indicated that the information should not be permitted since it went beyond the witness’ written and oral statement. Nonetheless, the SM clarified that as long as the evidence is relevant and not prejudiced, certain weight can be given to it. Hence, the AAT comes to the correct of preferable decision by considering a myriad of relevant factors.

III THE COMPETING NATURE OF THE OBJECTS
The AAT’s greater capability to gather and ascertain facts compared to the original decision maker reflects a commitment to provide a review process that is fair and just. On the other hand, in carrying out its function of collecting facts, the AAT demonstrates a manner that is economical, informal and quick. This is evident through the process of hearing witness statements over the telephone during the hearing, which is allowed at the AAT’s discretion . As the witness lives in Brisbane, this option is cost and time effective. It also encourages the witness to provide their statement, as they may otherwise be too nervous or uncomfortable on stand in a formal court procedure. Informality is further evidenced when the SM was prepared to rely on the written statement of the witness, even though it was not dated or signed.
However, the objects can be in direct competition with one another, and there is a quandary for tribunal members to decide which should take precedence. For example, when a second witness failed to pick up the phone call from the tribunal to provide her statement, the SM indicated that there could not be an adjournment. This sacrifices potentially useful information for time efficiency. On the other hand, the SM recognises a disparity in knowledge of legal processes and terms between the self-represented applicant and the respondent. Thus she often interrupts proceedings to explain and clarify issues raised, as well as talking the applicant through the procedures. This prolongs the case, but ensures a fair understanding between both parties.
Hence the tribunal member must decide how the case proceeds to reach a correct or preferable result. Legislation confers this discretion by omitting which of the objects should take preference, and reinforces the flexibility of the tribunal in dealing with each individual case.

IV RECONCILING THE COMPETING OBJECTS
Despite the contradictory nature of the objects, the tribunal aims to reconcile the objects in some respects. The SM’s use of colloquial language when addressing the applicant demonstrates how she reconciles informality with fairness; “this is where we are sorta getting to the ending. You need to prepare what you want to tell us because you get the last say.” She simplifies technical jargon to accommodate the layman-applicant, serving to confer equality of treatment to the unrepresented applicant.
Furthermore, the process of the cross-examination ensures that evidence is given fair weight. An inaccurate testimony was given in order to better reflect the applicant’s behaviour, however, this was exposed when the respondent cross-examined the witness through a series of peripheral questions. Thus even though information was gathered efficiently through over-the-phone statements, the tribunal affirmed the accuracy of the statements so as to give them proper weight when making a decision. The benefit of cross-examination is not available to the original decision maker, and certainly promotes fairness.

V CONCLUSION
Tusitala and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship reflects the ability of the tribunal to hear decisions by a government body and come to its own independent conclusion based on its merits. Despite having the same powers as the executive, the AAT considers more factors than the original decision maker by collecting new but relevant evidence, and hearing witness statements. The tribunal aims to provide a “fair, just, economical, informal and quick” system of review, but when the objects are competing, it has the flexibility to determine which should take precedence. Nevertheless, the AAT can reconcile the contradictory aims through its processes. Thus the AAT is an important avenue of review for individuals who seek redress of administrative decisions. APPENDIX Date 26 March 2013
Hearing Tusitala and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Regarding Review of Minister’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa due to his substantial criminal record and repeat offending behaviour in Australia.