The Albanese Government has announced it will open a Darwin registry of the newly formed Administrative Review Tribunal to make it easier for Territorians to seek an independent merit review of government decisions, a move which follows the Finocchiaro Government announcing it would remove third party merit reviews of its decisions on planning, petroleum, and water.

Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the government had allocated $3.6 million over four years to establish the Darwin registry and First Nations support services.

“The Administrative Review Tribunal is the most significant reform to Australia’s system of administrative review in decades,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“The new ART is providing efficient, accessible, independent and fair services for the tens of thousands of people every year who seek independent review of government decisions, such as whether they qualify for an age pension, are compensated for an injury they suffered while serving their nation or receive NDIS funding for essential support.”

Since the end of last year, merit review of Commonwealth administrative decisions have been undertaken by the ART which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART was established in part to address four recommendations from the Robodebt royal commission.

Mr Dreyfus said the government had allocated $2.6 million for a First Nations liaison officer program to better target support, and raise awareness of the availability of merits reviews of government decisions through the Tribunal.

He said Darwin was the only Australian capital city without an ART registry and that since the closure of the Darwin registry of the AAT in the 1990s, support had been provided out of the Adelaide registry, almost 3000 km away.

Last week, the Finocchario Government announced third party merit reviews would be removed from legislation covering petroleum, planning and water, a move which was praised by NT Farmers but criticised by the Environment Centre NT as government bowing to big business, adding the reviews are a key part of establishing transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

The scrapping of the reviews followed the leaking of a paper in October showing the government’s plans for a Territory Coordinator position, with the accompanying legislation allowing some developments to be excluded from existing regulations.

The decision to end merit reviews contradicts the former NT Natural Resources and Environment Department’s Environmental Regulatory Reform Discussion Paper from 2017 which recommended a limited amount of third parties the right to appeal government decisions. It also contradicts the stance of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The merit reviews of agency decisions is mostly undertaken by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, providing a cheaper option than taking a challenge to court, and the inclusion of third party merit reviews was a recommendation of the Pepper Inquiry into fracking in the NT.

NT Lands, Planning and Environment Minister Joshua Burgoyne said the government was removing the reviews because they were being used as “lawfare” by environmental groups, but provided no evidence of his claim.

The next day he announced the government would cut a total of $200,000 in funding per year to the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre over those group’s legal challenges to government decisions on fracking and water allocations, with the Top End group calling the government a “puppet for big business” that is “running scared from scrutiny and accountability”.

The NT Environmental Defenders Office had its funding cut by the NT government late last year.

In an opinion piece written for the NT Independent over the weekend, Greg Barns SC, a former political adviser and former National President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, said the the government cutting off funding was dangerous because of the critical need for civil society groups to be able to ensure the environment is protected in development and because in a democracy government should not cut funding to organisations just because they oppose the policies or decisions of that government.

“This latter argument might be said to be particularly relevant in a place like the Northern Territory where there is no upper house to keep a check on executive government,” Mr Barns wrote.

“Mr Burgoyne misleadingly terms the funding decisions ‘as being a shift in policy and priorities’. It is nothing of the sort of course – it is about silencing critics and preventing legitimate concerns about environmental issues being agitated in courts and communities.

“The CLP Government seems to be determined to silence critics and snub its nose at the idea it should be held accountable for its actions.”