Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's quite extraordinary that a coalition member should quote with approbation the Law Council of Australia, having ignored so many submissions the Law Council of Australia made about so many bills that the opposition brought forward when they were in office. The Law Council was generally supportive, and I was on this inquiry that was referred to by the member for Braddon, the inquiry into the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the consequential and transitional bill, which was chaired so ably by Susan Templeman, the member for Macquarie. She chaired that inquiry, and there was a report.

And this is not the first report; it's not the first inquiry. When those opposite were in power they engaged the Hon. Ian Callinan AC KC to complete a statutory review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was tabled in July 2019. That review found that the AAT was 'not always meeting community expectations, and workloads and backlogs were preventing the timely and final resolution of matters'. It made a series of recommendations, which those opposite squibbed. So, we are in a position where we're having to clean up the mess—and those opposite know this.

It's interesting that the member for Braddon talks about the fact that they're going to oppose this legislation, because three members of the coalition served on the committee which recommended unanimously that this bill be passed. There was no dissenting report at all from those opposite. The coalition members of that committee were: the member for Cowper, the deputy chair; the member for Hughes; and the member for Menzies. They did put a sort of clarification at the end. They could have dissented, but they didn't dissent at all. So, this is a unanimous report that recommends that this legislation be passed.

This legislation has a long history. The AAT also had some history. It was established on 1 July 1976 following reviews of administrative decision-making that took place in 1971. There was a need for a mechanism for external review of government decisions that was accessible, informal and relatively affordable. That was necessary. The Whitlam government tried to bring in this legislation. And this is one of the things that happened when Malcolm Fraser became the Prime Minister. A number of good things that were initiatives of the Whitlam Labor government were taken up by him, and one of those was the AAT.

I heard the member for Braddon talk about how we should be concentrating on cost-of-living issues—and we are. If only those opposite had actually asked questions in question time about it, it might show that they had some veracity or truthfulness about their concern about the issue. But they haven't. The member made out in his speech today that this is something that is almost esoteric, that it doesn't affect too many people. But if you have a look at this report—and I'd refer the member to pages 4 and 5—it includes a table showing how many people affected by decisions of government sought review. For example, in 2022-23 there were 41,037 lodgements in the AAT, 42,689 finalisations and 66,131 cases still on hand. If you add those numbers together, that's far more than the number of voters in any single constituency in this place.

A lot of Australians are affected by decisions of government—veterans' affairs, social security, migration et cetera. They have a right to have their cases dealt with expeditiously, fairly and impartially if they feel that they haven't been treated well by government decision-making. This is not an obtuse issue. It's not an issue that doesn't affect many people. It's a lot more people than are at the MCG on a Saturday to watch Collingwood play Carlton. It's a lot more than those going to see the Broncos play the Cowboys at Lang Park. This affects a lot of Australians. So don't give us lectures saying that we're not concentrating on issues that affect Australians. We're cleaning up the mess of those opposite. And the idea that somehow this wasn't even looked at, when former Justice Callinan did a review for the previous government in 2019—we announced on 16 December 2022 that we would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and we did public consultation on this issue back in April and May of 2023. Guidance was sought from an administrative review Expert Advisory Group chaired by former High Court Justice the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC, and it was engaged on across the government and the AAT. Consultation with a whole bunch of stakeholders was conducted in September and October 2023. So this idea that somehow the Attorney-General went into his office and got out his laptop and started typing, or took out his pen and starting writing, without consultation with the Australian public and those people who are affected is arrant nonsense from those opposite. It is rubbish! The government has engaged in a consultation process. In addition to this, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee will be examining this bill—as they often do in the other place—and reporting in July 2024. Yet there are these ideas that somehow we haven't looked at this bill; that it hasn't been the subject of community consultation; that, somehow, it doesn't affect many Australians—that it's an obtuse little issue that doesn't affect Australians.

It affects many Australians. So I listened to the member opposite, and he was saying that it's not really a very important issue and the government should be concentrating on something else. Yet, at the same time, he talked about there being so many issues, and said that we'd rushed this through, somehow, allegedly, and that it's going to affect many people. I couldn't understand the logic of those opposite; it was totally inconsistent.

And have a look at this report. There are over 60 pages in this report that deals with it. The Law Council suggested some constructive defining amendments and made some important comments. Generally, the submitters in this thing talked about the failure of the AAT and the fact that it needed reform.

So we have two bills before the chamber that are absolutely critical. They'll affect a lot of Australians. Maybe those opposite don't believe that government decision-making affects Australians. But we, on this side, believe that government is a force for good, and, when it's not a force for good, Australians have the right to seek to have those decisions reviewed and for that to be dealt with in an affordable, timely and fair way. That's why this legislation before the chamber today is so important. And that's how disingenuous those opposite are about this particular issue.

I'm proud to speak on this particular bill because it's an important bill. We're cleaning up the mess of those opposite. You could be a failed state LNP member in Queensland or candidate for this place, or an LNP former federal MP—the AAT was a sort of retirement village, a financial retirement home, for LNP and Liberal and National Party appointees and grandees, with 85 of them appointed. Even the Leader of the Opposition at one stage talked about how politicised the AAT had become—as if they'd forgotten they'd spent nine years over here politicising it.

So we are having to abolish the AAT and bring in a new system because it has really served its purpose and it needs major reform. Those opposite knew it because, three years before they got turfed out, they had a report that said it needed major reform—and they squibbed it.

So the bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's report Performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system; four recommendations from that royal commission that those opposite don't want to know about, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme; and the government's response to two recommendations from the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System. So there's a long history to this matter—a long history, even before these bills have been debated. It's not true to say that all of a sudden it's come up and been foisted upon the Australian public. The bills were informed by extensive stakeholder consultation.

The problems at the AAT extend well beyond the absence of a merit based selection process under the former government. They failed. If they had stopped to think about who they had kept on appointing to the AAT, then this bill might not have been necessary. If the AAT had been managed better, this bill might not have been necessary. Many of the people appointed by those opposite had no relevant experience—no legal experience. Some of them were active lobbyists, and that was well known. We've inherited an AAT that's not on a sustainable financial footing; an AAT beset by delays, with an extraordinarily large backlog of cases and operating multiple and aging electronic case-management systems. It's the legacy of the mismanagement of those opposite.

There was an amalgamation of the AAT with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The fact that there is an inefficient administrative system of review in this country comes at a real cost for tens of thousands of Australians every year. Cumulatively, well over 100,000 Australians are dealing with this system at any given time. These Australians feel abandoned by government. That's why people feel a loss of faith in government—because of decision-making.

The robodebt royal commission noted:

Effective merits review is an essential part of the legal framework that protects the rights and interests of individuals; it also promotes government accountability and plays a broader important role in improving the quality and consistency of government decisions.

Those opposite claim that they're Liberals. They should be in favour of individual liberty and the individual ability to stand up and argue a case against government. If they were truly Liberals, they'd be on the side of John Stuart Mill and those people that believe in individual liberty and want to support the little bloke or the little woman who wants to take on government decision-making. But they don't.

What we need is a new system in this country, and we're going to have it: an administrative review tribunal bill which establishes a much-improved tribunal that's fair and just; that resolves applications in a timely way, with little legal formality and at little expense; that is accessible and responsive to needs across a broad jurisdiction of law; that improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making; and that promotes public trust. That's crucial—you must have public trust in judiciary, in executive, in government and the legislature, and in administrative law in this country. You must have it. If you don't have it, people lose faith in government. A central feature of the new body will be transparent and merit based decision-making, with the appointment of non-judicial members—in stark contrast to the LNP mates of those opposite.

In recent years, Centre for Public Integrity board member Geoffrey Watson SC has said the damage to the AAT was too extensive to just replace the existing members over several years, so it's really necessary to start from scratch with a whole new body. That's what we found, as well—in that committee of which I am a member. Mr Watson was supportive of the government's approach and has argued that it will help restore integrity, openness and accountability and allow it to function independently of politics.

That's what has happened under those opposite. They politicised this whole process, and then they criticised it. The weird thing about it was how many times they stacked their mates on the AAT and then proceeded to criticise the decision-making that took place, on migration issues in particular, again and again. We saw it on the front page of newspapers. They'd say it publicly at press conferences. The great inconsistency: you put your mates on to get the decisions you want and you don't like the outcomes that you get.

The backlog was immense, and that's why we need to deal with it. This needs to be an ART that functions transparently and independently of politics. That's really, really important. It's important we also implement the recommendations of the royal commission into robodebt. By the way, I heard this from people over the weekend, and I heard it at my recent mobile offices. They want those recommendations of the royal commission to be carried out. People want royal commission recommendations to be carried out—just as we're doing. We've done it in terms of banking and in terms of aged care. With robodebt, it's necessary as well.

So this legislation picks up some of those recommendations and makes sure that we carry them out. People need faith in government. They don't need letters saying you owe a lot of money to the government when you don't actually owe it. This government opposite, when they were here—the government-in-waiting, as they think they are—knew very well that robodebt was wrong and that it was unethical and illegal. They knew about it, but they didn't do anything about it.

We're picking up recommendations from the royal commission here, and it's important that we do. That's why I'm so supportive of this legislation. Those opposite are a disgrace. They're disingenuous about this legislation. They know the system's not working. They knew it in government, they know it in opposition and they should be supporting the bill.

See this speech in context