Australia has a developed system of administrative tribunals, a unique feature being its generalist merit review tribunal. At the same time, Australia has experimented with most forms of tribunals and tribunal process. There are various reasons for this use of adjudicative bodies other than courts. Tribunals generally have more speedy processes and less formal procedures than courts, including an absence of any requirement to follow rules of evidence. Tribunals are generally cheaper than courts and there may be limits on legal representation in tribunal hearings. In other words, tribunals are constituted and function differently from a court. These features have meant it is common for the merits review function to be committed to a tribunal. A tribunal is more suited than a court to undertake the merit review task, that is, to examine whether a decision is substantively correct, after consideration of all relevant issues of law, fact, policy and discretion, than is a court.

Another incentive for the Commonwealth to rely on tribunals arises from the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. The Commonwealth Constitution prevents the High Court and other federal courts from exercising non-judicial power. As a consequence, there has been a necessity for the merits review function, which has non-judicial elements, to be undertaken by tribunals. The constitutional impetus does not apply to state courts. Nonetheless, the advantages of tribunal review have also seen the advent of numerous tribunals in the states and territories.