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

I'm pleased to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, which completes the Albanese Labor government's legislative package of reforms necessary to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and improved body. The history of the AAT goes back a long way, and its jurisdiction is quite significant. There's no general jurisdiction for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It goes back to when it was first created. It started operating in 1976, and it was really a creation of the Whitlam government before that. The jurisdiction is not given by a separate piece of legislation but by the various acts of parliament that we pass in this place.

There are 400 acts of parliament that actually gave the AAT jurisdiction. The AAT is an important body. The new body, the ART, which is taking over its responsibilities, has the power to affirm, to vary, to set aside and to substitute decisions through an independent decision-making merits review de novo. The AAT is not restricted to the evidence that was before the original decision-maker. It has a very varied jurisdiction, but it's not a court; it's a tribunal. Its decisions are published, of course, so it helps in terms of the jurisprudence. It covers a range of areas that the Australian public will come in contact with, such as child support, what we used to call Centrelink, migration, taxation, veterans entitlements, workers compensation and the like.

The Administrative Review Tribunal, or ART, legislative package gave effect to the government's commitment to establish a new administrative review tribunal that's more efficient, user-friendly and accessible. It picks up the good things of the AAT. It is independent and fair, but it doesn't have the problems that were created under the previous government's watch. This miscellaneous bill supports the establishment of the new ART, which will commence on 14 October. The tribunal was established by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which was given royal assent on 3 June this year, and two additional acts contain consequential and transitional amendments to 248 Commonwealth acts. So you can see the breadth of impact on our jurisprudence and legislative framework from the Commonwealth's point of view, simply by that legislation that was passed and by this consequential and miscellaneous legislation.

This bill creates a new system, one that is fair, reasonable and just, timely, accessible and responsive to people's diverse needs. The improved transparency and quality of decision-making will promote public trust and confidence in the ART, and this bill completes the establishment of the tribunal. The amendments are largely procedural and technical, making changes to 52 acts to update references to the AAT in pieces of legislation that have been passed or introduced to parliament since the ART Act. There are some technical amendments to support the efficient conduct of the tribunal review and ensure the legislation operates as intended by the government.

The bill we're debating today could only be introduced following the passage of the ART Act due to the volume and complexity of interactions between the ART Act and other pieces of Commonwealth legislation. There are some minor changes to the ART Act to improve the user experience. The bill's intended operation is pretty clear. I'll briefly go through it, but I think it's a demonstration of the government's commitment to the bedrock of a democratic system and a federal system of administrative review. I pay tribute to Gough Whitlam for that, because its genesis goes back to the days of Whitlam and, of course, Lionel Murphy. It harks back to those days, and we are trying to get back to those days and what the AAT originally was intended to be, not how it was effectively changed and, I say, prostituted by the previous government's appointments.

The amendments in this legislation exclude a period of time over the Christmas period in the calculation of the 28-day period in which a party can appeal. It makes sense, frankly. This is from 24 December till 14 January. It's an impractical and disadvantaged situation for anyone appealing in that time. It enables practice directions, which are very common, by the way, in any court system, and also allows the president—you have a president, deputy president, senior members and members in the ART—to create these practice directions for the efficient operation of a court's or, in this case, a tribunal's system. It ensures the management requirements and practical implication of how to manage case loads, and the ART is going to have a huge case load.

It amends authorisation to ensure the decisions of the National Archives of Australia relate to access to certain national security records and ensures, by the way, that amendments to the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill are reflected in the new tribunal, which makes sense as well. It ensures that the Attorney-General can delegate power to authorise the payment of costs or grant legal or financial assistance to officers in their department. Cost auditors are integral to any tribunal. The Law Officers Act 1964—and noting the significant administrative burden of work associated with these functions—says clarification where an is applicant is no longer able to continue with an application. That often happens when someone is bankrupt, the company is in liquidation or there's been a death. A person can continue the proceedings only if they would have been able to apply for the review in the first place, which is common sense as well and, by the way, is consistent with other areas of law.

There are some technical amendments to clarify the operation of the ART which are consistent with the intention of the original legislation. In addition to these amendments, the bill makes some minor amendments to other laws. There are some amendments that update terminology and cross-references, remove specific provisions that duplicate ART timeframes to apply for various reviews of deemed decisions and standardise some frameworks. We're ensuring that the proceedings before the guidance and appeals tribunal and original decision-making may not alter the decision under review without the tribunal's visibility, and that makes sense. If the decision-maker makes a decision and then someone seeks a review of that original decision, you don't want to let that original decision to then be in a position to change that around before the ART makes a decision. That's simply a matter of justice and fairness and of transparency and integrity in the process.

The bill makes some amendments across several portfolios to ensure that legislation operates as intended, certainly removing time limits for seeking internal and tribunal review for the Aboriginal study grants scheme, providing assistance for isolated children, amending the Migration Act—this will be a very big part of the ART's jurisdiction as the area of migration was under that AAT. It's clarifying that the application is not valid therefore does not enliven the tribunal's jurisdiction unless it's properly made, which does not change existing requirements but ensures the applicant can easily identify on the face of the legislation that they are required to make a valid application.

There are amendments to the Crimes Act to provide that tribunal members nominate to issue post-entry and delayed notification search warrants with the same impunity and protection as tribunals that are nominated to exercise similar functions under the Crimes Act. When it comes to funding, we have provided $206.5 million over four years for the ART in the 2024-25 budget. The funding will ensure that the new tribunal is supported by a demand driven, sustainable model providing timely decision-making.

The funding package also includes $9.6 million to provide improved access to merits based review for regional, rural and remote communities as well as a user experience and accessibility team and a pilot First Nations liaison officer program—which I think is terrific, by the way. It's a great idea. This funding builds on our $128 million commitment in previous budgets to tackle the previous AAT's substantial backlog. The bill completes the package of reforms. It's about restoring trust and confidence in our system of administrative review. Tens of thousands of people rely on the AAT every year to independently review decision-making. The reality is that the previous coalition government fatally compromised the AAT, undermining its independence and eroding quality and efficiency over decision-making. The irony of the whole thing was that, having appointed all these people to the AAT, they constantly railed against the decision-making.

The AAT's public standing was irreversibly damaged as a result of the coalition's appointment of as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merits based selection processes at all. These appointees possessed no relevant expense or expertise, and some of them were active lobbyists.

In recent years, Centre for Public Integrity board member Geoffrey Watson SC has said that 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. And that's what we're doing here with this legislation. 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 said, the problems at the AAT extend well beyond the absence of a merit based selection process under the former coalition government. We inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable financial footing; an AAT beset by delays, with an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications, operating multiple and ageing electronic management systems. This was a legacy of the former government's mismanagement of the AAT, with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. An inefficient and ineffective administrative system of review comes at a real cost to the taxpayers and to the citizens of this country. These Australians were abandoned by the former government. As the robodebt royal commissioner said:

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.

We're fixing up the mess we inherited, and many people will benefit directly from the government's reform package. This is one of the most important legislative legal legacies in decades that this government will leave. It's something that Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus will be known for in the future as a reforming Attorney-General.

Through these reforms, we are seeking to restore integrity, trust and confidence. The new tribunal will build on the 50 years of experience. Our package reforms implement all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee's report Performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system; four recommendations from 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. The legislation was informed by extensive stakeholder consultation, including guidance from an expert advisory group led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC, and engagement over many months with AAT staff, members, users, peak bodies, legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts. Despite all of this, to the utter shame of the opposition, they voted against these reforms, demonstrating its ongoing commitment to using the AAT as a job agency for Liberal Party and National Party mates at the expense of the Australian public.

A central feature of the new ART is a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of nonjudicial members and existing nonjudicial members of the AAT, many of whom continue to embody the best traditions of the once-celebrated institution. They have been invited to apply for positions in the new body in accordance with the process. I note that the government recently announced a number of appointments to the existing AAT and the new ART. This will ensure that the AAT maintains the capacity to hear matters prior to the commencement of the new ART. The new AAT members will then transition to the new ART when it commences on 14 October for the remainder of their terms. Each appointee was assessed as suitable for appointment by the independent assessment panel through a transparent and merit-based process conducted in accordance with the guidelines for appointments to the AAT and the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024.

I congratulate each of these members on their appointment, and I thank the Attorney-General for this landmark reform and his long-standing commitment to law reform and building trust in government and public institutions. This bill completes a package of reforms that establish a new administrative review tribunal and reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context