Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased today to rise to speak in favour of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. These are very important bills that will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a new and improved Administrative Review Tribunal. This is a very important reform in strengthening and improving the federal system of administrative review and is arguably the most important review of this system in some decades.

Of course, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal commenced operation on 1 July 1976, following a number of important reports, including by the Commonwealth Administration Review Committee in 1970 and the Committee of Administrative Discretions in 1973. The important Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975 followed.

I want to go back briefly to that bill and, indeed, to the second reading speech of that bill by Mr Enderby, the Attorney-General at the time. What it will show is the reforms that we are debating today really go back to the heart of those seminal reforms in the mid-1970s. In that second reading speech back on 6 March 1975 Mr Enderby said the following:

An inevitable development of modern government has been the vesting of extensive discretionary powers in Ministers and officials in matters that affect a wide spectrum of business and personal life. Unfortunately, this development has not been accompanied by a parallel development of comprehensive machinery to provide for an independent review of the way these discretions are exercised. While there has been established a considerable number of review tribunals of one kind or another under the legislation of this Parliament, these have not developed in any coordinated fashion.

What the Attorney-General at the time was reflecting was the fact that there had been a significant extension in the number of significant decisions that were made that impacted people's lives in a material way, yet the ways in which those decisions were reviewed, the machinery by which those decisions were reviewed, hadn't kept up. The establishment of the AAT was about a number of things. One was to establish a single independent tribunal with the purpose of dealing with administrative decisions on a very wide basis. But it would also be set up as a standing body so that it would be able to deal with decisions as new legislation arose. That's really important because we've seen, in the intervening 50 years, a number of pieces of legislation which have vested in decision-makers decisions in a range of areas that weren't contemplated back in 1975. This was a very important reform back in 1975 and provided, in my opinion, very important protections for people that hadn't been provided up until that point.

I also note, in that speech, given on the introduction of the bill, the Attorney-General at the time made reference to the fact that the members of the tribunal should bring appropriate professional and technical expertise. Of course, that's one of the issues we are dealing with today. The reputation of the AAT and the effectiveness of the AAT had materially eroded under the previous government because it had, in a systematic way, not been appointing people with sufficient technical expertise right across the organisation. That was something identified right from the beginning as central to the effectiveness of the organisation. It's important to go back to that period.

I might also note that not long after the passage of the AAT Act, there was the AD(JR) Act, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. I remember this well, because I studied law at the ANU, and the ANU back then—and I'm pretty confident this is still the case—was renowned for constitutional law and administrative law. Some of the people who taught me law were there at the foundation of these very important acts, the AAT Act and the AD(JR) Act. They taught us about the black-letter law of these acts and also about their importance from a public policy perspective—that these acts were absolutely central as a check on decision-making by ministers, by governments and by bureaucracies. They were in many ways world leading.

There were other reforms in that period, of course. There was the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There were various laws in relation to the Federal Court. I saw a quote from Michael Kirby in an article he wrote in 1989 in which he was reflecting on the AAT Act and the AD(JR) Act. He said that these acts, in combination, were 'probably the most adventurous and far-reaching legal reforms' to have taken place in Australia. From somebody of Michael Kirby's ilk, that says a lot—that these acts are absolutely critical in providing protections to people in our community.

I look at the people in my own electorate, my own community, and at some of the decisions the AAT makes—that it reviews decisions in relation to migration and refugee matters, that it reviews decisions in relation to NDIS matters and in relation to social security matters and veterans' appeals. These are life-changing decisions. These decisions can have an impact on somebody's security of income. These decisions can have an impact on whether somebody stays in the country. These decisions can be absolutely fundamental to people's wellbeing. So, the review of these decisions is just as important, in many ways, as the decision itself. So I reflect upon, firstly, how fundamental it was that Australia was trailblazing back in the 1970s when the AAT Act was passed and when the AD(JR) Act was passed and upon the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, these acts were designed so that they could expand so as to deal with the growing scope of government. And now of course we see that they have grown to include all the various aspects of migration law and to include NDIS decisions. These are critically important.

That's why it's so important that this government and the Attorney-General have responded to what was a serious erosion of the AAT under the previous government. The previous government, as a number of speakers on this side have pointed out, appointed dozens of individuals who had been candidates for the Liberal Party, who'd been elected to the Liberal Party, who'd been political advisers or connected in some other way. Merit based appointments are absolutely central to the effectiveness of a body like this. Merit based appointments rely upon people demonstrating that they have the appropriate qualifications, that they have the appropriate experience and that, in a technical sense, they understand the laws that need to be applied. This is a part of the administrative review ecosystem that had been materially undermined by the previous government over a long period of time.

In addition to that and just as important as the merits based appointment of members is that the previous government had undermined the institution in a systemic way that had been undermining it financially, which was creating serious backlogs and delays. We all know the saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is not some kind of cliche; it goes to the heart of the way the justice system affects people. The kinds of backlogs that the AAT was dealing with—not the fault of the individuals who worked there—were a direct result of some of the resourcing and other decisions made by the previous government. So, action was absolutely necessary. That's why it's so important that the Attorney-General has taken the serious, stringent action that he's taken in these bills to turn things around, rectify the situation and take the organisation—what will now be the Administrative Review Tribunal—back to the important vision that was set out by the then Attorney-General back in 1975 and continued in subsequent important related acts. Of course, that is also reflected in the vision of the current Attorney-General. So there is a continuity between the speeches that were made in 1975 and the speeches that are being made today in terms of what this system is there to achieve.

Before dwelling on a couple of the key elements of the bills, I want to reflect on the fact that, in developing these laws, the government has drawn on the knowledge and wisdom of an expert advisory group that is really, in many ways, a who's who of administrative law expertise in Australia. It was led by High Court justice the Hon. Patrick Keane, and it also included Ms Rachel Amamoo, Professor Anna Cody, Emeritus Professor Robin Creyke, Emeritus Professor Ron McCallum, former Federal Court justice the Hon. Alan Robertson, and Emeritus Professor Cheryl Saunders. I note that at least one of those—and probably more—is a former lecturer and professor at the ANU, so I feel even more continuity with my alma mater with what we're seeing here in the chamber today.

There are two bills that I will discuss here, and those two bills in conjunction will set up this new body, which is absolutely critical. The first bill that we're discussing today will set up the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council, and the second bill that we're discussing today will abolish the AAT and make a series of consequential changes to a number of other acts so that the new arrangements operate seamlessly.

I want to touch on a couple of the provisions—in particular, strengthening requirements for merit based appointment. As I mentioned earlier, this is absolutely critical. The workload of this body has increased substantially since the 1970s. Even in 1976, this body was extremely important, but since then the range of decision-making that it covers has expanded, the number of decisions obviously has expanded and the workload has expanded dramatically, so the number of officers that are needed has also expanded. But, as I mentioned earlier, what we've seen over the past decade is an erosion in the capacity of the organisation to draw upon people with sufficient expertise. It ended up relying too heavily on a smaller and smaller subset of people with the right expertise, so that inevitably led to backlogs and delays. The new arrangements will require the use of assessment panels when undertaking merit based appointment of the president of the tribunal and members of the tribunal—except for the judicial deputy presidents—and the CEO and principal registrar. I think it's critical that these amendments will put beyond doubt the legislative requirement to use an assessment panel as part of the appointment process. As I said, this is going to be very clearly a merit based appointment process for new members of the tribunal.

There are a number of other elements to these bills that are material and that further strengthen the system. There are a number of provisions that provide second review of social services decisions and many other consequential amendments. I won't run through all of those. I simply return to the core theme of my contribution today, which is that Australia should, I believe, be proud of the fact that it led the way in the 1970s with very important reforms of our legal system to provide citizens with greater protection when it came to the exercise of discretion in a range of contexts. As I said, this was reflected in Michael Kirby's comment that these were some of the most consequential laws ever passed in Australia. Today, after a period in which those important reforms have been undermined, we in this chamber have the opportunity to set that right and put things on a firmer footing.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of two bills before the House: the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Bill 2023. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on these bills, which represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades. This is an important reform and one that is absolutely necessary, considering what the Albanese government inherited from the coalition: an AAT that was not fit for purpose, was not on a sustainable financial footing, was overwhelmed by a large and growing backlog of applications, and was operating multiple and ageing electronic case-management systems, which was a legacy of the former government's bungled amalgamation of the AAT with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. Unfortunately, it was an AAT that no longer enjoyed the trust of the Australian community and, frankly, was not taken seriously by government agencies and departments. We saw the devastating consequences of this lack of authority highlighted by the robodebt royal commission, when members of the AAT made hundreds of decisions that the approach to calculating and raising debts under the robodebt scheme was indeed unlawful, but those decisions by those members and their obvious implications were ultimately ignored and buried by the former government.

We know that effective administrative review is critical to Australia's system of government, so one might ask how the AAT ended up in such a state. It's hard to think of a more boringly titled body than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but it ended up in such a state. The former government appointed as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merit based selection process, including some individuals with no relevant expertise or experience.

It's worth noting some of the media commentary from around that time. In 2021, Paul Karp in the Guardian wrote:

A longtime former Liberal staffer on the administrative appeals tribunal (AAT) has quit his role as a consultant to a lobbying firm after Labor uncovered what it labelled a potential conflict of interest.

…   …   …

"It's deeply concerning that one of those appointments, former Liberal staffer Tony Barry, was being paid by taxpayers to review government decisions at the same time as he was being paid as a lobbyist to influence government decision-making."

That was said by the then shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus.

On 15 May 2022, the ABC's Eric Tlozek wrote:

An Adelaide barrister has told the ABC he has been stopped from hearing welfare debt cases at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) because he made too many decisions against the government.

Michael Manetta, a member of the AAT since 2016, was removed last September—

September 2021—

from hearing social security cases by the tribunal's new deputy president, Karen Synon.

Members may recall that Karen Synon was a former Liberal senator.

On 16 May, 2022, Katina Curtis wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

An anonymous submission to the Senate committee inquiry made by a former AAT member who spent two decades on the tribunal said the change to appointment processes began in 2014. They saw "highly experienced and efficient members ... dumped and replaced by inexperienced inefficient post-2014 members", many of whom they said had no relevant experience or education and some who "didn't know how to save a document in Microsoft Word".

In May 2022, Greg Barns SC, a Tasmanian barrister and former Liberal Party staffer, wrote:

The office of Attorney-General is one that has been tarnished by the Morrison government. Both Christian Porter and Michaelia Cash used it to destroy the independence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by turning the AAT into a branch of the Liberal Party.

…   …   …

Just how rotten this practice of stacking has become is starkly illustrated by a recent Australia Institute report. It has calculated that while in "the Howard and Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administrations, political appointees accounted for 6 and 5 per cent of all appointees respectively," "during the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison administration, political appointees accounted for 32 per cent of all new appointments." In the case of the Morrison regime, four in every 10 appointments—

40 per cent—

has been a government supporter or sympathiser.

As a result of this blatant, overt, shocking politicisation, the AAT had become fatally compromised. This politicisation undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making.

The effective and efficient functioning of a review body like an AAT is critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organisations, including the most vulnerable members of our community. Consider the impacts on community members who are seeking independent review of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts.

I'll just digress for a moment. Think about how groundbreaking this concept was in the 1970s when it was first proposed by Labor and when, to his great credit, Malcolm Fraser brought into fruition in '77. Think about how groundbreaking the idea was that citizens would have the right to appeal decisions made by executive government and to have those appeals then heard and decided upon not by executive government but by members of an independent tribunal. It's a fantastic concept, and we see it 40-odd years later completely humbled and dismantled by those opposite, from what it should have been into what it has become.

If you politicise an agency to that extent, if you have your party mates dominating that sort of body, how could people before that body have any confidence that they will get a fair hearing? If the vast majority of the people you are before are former senators, members, candidates or staffers of a particular political party, how can you have any confidence that you will get an adjudication that is fair when it may not be in the interests of that governing party? Indeed, this was what Mr Manetta found when it was alleged that he was making decisions that the then government didn't like. He was removed from adjudicating on those matters—removed by a deputy president who herself was a former senator of those opposite.

In decisions such as whether an older Australian receives an age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for a service injury or whether a participant of the NDIS receives funding for essential support, Australians need and deserve confidence that they will get a fair hearing.

In my electorate office, my staff and I spend a lot of time helping constituents to access government support, whether that's through Services Australia, the DVA, the NDIS or, sometimes, the AAT. We see firsthand how frustrating and stressful it can be for people when the review mechanisms they are relying on are themselves inefficient, ineffective, inaccessible and inconsistent. To this end, in late 2022 the Albanese Labor government announced its decision to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new federal administrative review body. I think it's been described by some as the 'nuclear option'—and it's probably the only nuclear option you will ever see on this side of the House! It's a big decision to completely abolish a body as complex as that and start anew, but that's what was required.

The bill before us today implements this commitment to establish a new federal administrative review body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which will replace the AAT. So the AAT will be replaced by the ART. The establishment of this new administrative review body—which is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair—is a key part of the government's commitment to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review.

The bill is built on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation to establish a tribunal that, as I said, is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. The bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee review into the performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system, four recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the government response to two recommendations from the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System.

The tribunal's objective will be to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just, resolves applications in a timely matter, is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of the parties before it, improves the transparency and quality of decision-making and promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. To improve merits review, the tribunal will incorporate features like simpler and more consistent processes, powers and procedures to respond flexibly to changing case loads. It will also help resolve cases more efficiently and effectively.

There will be: a simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions for each level of membership; clear and delineated roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership positions; and powers for the president to manage the performance, conduct and professional development of members. In stark contrast to the former government appointing as many as 85 of its mates to the AAT without any merit based selection process, a central feature of the new body will be a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of non-judicial members.

The fact is that many former politicians do have skills, experience and abilities to offer in their post-political life, but it is appropriate that, if they seek to be appointed to a body such as this, they be subjected to merit based assessment, just like anyone else, not by a quick word in your ear from your mate, who might be the minister and who you've maybe known for a few years—a little tap on the shoulder. These are important jobs, and they're certainly well-paid jobs, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they are important jobs that require technical ability to understand law and apply legal argument. So, if you're not a lawyer, you still have something to offer but you should be subjected to this transparent and merit based selection criteria. I fully support that, because all Australians have a right to a fair and independent review process and to have a system they can trust.

These reforms before the House today mean that, when you seek a review of a government decision, you can count on the ART to give you a fair hearing backed by technical expertise. It will carry authority and weight. The Albanese government has wasted no time in starting to clean up the terrible mess that those opposite left. In fact, more than 100 new appointments have already been made through our transparent, merit based process.

Before I finish: this will take not just the bill before the House today. If those opposite are going to support it, they need to support it wholeheartedly, because it's got to become part of the culture. What we saw, I think, with what happened to the AAT was a lack of respect for the idea that there should be an independent body questioning the decisions of government. I think that's what we saw at the heart of the former government: they just didn't respect the fact that there might be independent bodies out there that were making decisions that they didn't like. So they sought to stack bodies like this, preventing them from making those sorts of decisions. So it's important that this merit based, transparent selection process continues, not just through this government but through future governments as well. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review, and I commend this bill to the House.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for Lyons, I'm very supportive of this important reform, the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023. I'm very supportive of the re-establishment of a high-quality, high-integrity tribunal adjudicative function in Australia. We need it, and unfortunately it's been missing because of the actions and decisions made by the former government. Having a tribunal function of this kind is a crucial part of life in Australia. It was a very good idea of Labor advocates back in the seventies, and it was implemented by the Fraser government, to their credit. There should be lots of things like that that we can look at that are effectively conceived, introduced, established and then defended and maintained as a bipartisan matter. I cannot imagine that anyone would look at the role this tribunal has provided and needs to provide and say: 'Look, let's run that down. Let's use that as our own-kind warehousing opportunity when it comes to people from our side of the political fence who have missed out on something and need a place to spend a few well-paid years.'

The bottom line is that Australians deserve and must have a timely high-integrity avenue through which they can seek fairness and justice. And, as the term 'administrative review' suggests, there are always going to be circumstances where a member of the community is, quite rightly, intent on testing or challenging a decision or determination of a government agency. First and foremost, it's our role in government and as a parliament more broadly to make sure the function, capacity, resources and morale of those agencies is as good as it can be so that the decisions made are of the highest quality in the first instance.

But nothing is perfect, and it will always be possible that something isn't quite perfect. In any case, in order to have confidence in decisions made by government and particularly by government agencies, when you have a tribunal, a review opportunity, that builds confidence. Some people will think the determination they've got isn't quite right, and they can go and test that, and that's an opportunity they should have. In some cases they might be proved correct and in some cases they won't be. But either of those outcomes builds greater trust in the system.

As the member for Lyons said, there'll be lots of Australians who never have cause to think, 'In the past I needed to go off to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal'—the AAT, in future to be the Administrative Review Tribunal. But there's not an inconsiderable number of people who at some point will receive a determination that has a massive bearing on their circumstances, on their wellbeing, and who will feel that it's in their interests to go and test that. It could be for an age pension or a disability pension. It could be an Australian veteran. It could be a single parent. It could be for a migration or visa related matter, or something to do with the Australian tax office or the NDIS. You don't need much imagination to think about how a determination in one of those areas that is categorically not in your favour could have a massive impact. It's basically about income support. It's about support for a person with disability and their broader family. It's about access to different parts of our migration system. Decisions that don't go the way you'd expect in any of those areas are not small matters, and you should absolutely have the right to go and have them tested in a way that can properly be described as high integrity, transparent, efficient and timely.

Unfortunately, because of the way the AAT was run down under the previous government, that has not been the case. So both the substance and the perception—both of those things are important—of the way the AAT worked fell into poor disrepair. The tribunal wasn't dealing with matters in a timely way, to take the old saying—I don't know who it's attributed to—that justice delayed is justice denied. Again, when you think about what this covers—income support, disability support—if you have to wait forever and ever in circumstances where you may well have been cut off from one of the very few sources if not the only source of income that you have available to you, then every single day that you remain cut off from that support is a massive problem for you.

So we are making sure that a tribunal will exist that can make determinations about these matters carefully, fairly, responsibly and accurately. We know, from some of the acute kinds of incompetence and maladministration under the previous government, what happens when those mistakes occur in the course of the conduct of Australian government agencies. What particularly happens when those mistakes manifest plainly before the eyes of thousands of Australians in their living circumstances is that they are then incapable of being corrected. We saw that through the robodebt fiasco. I hope that there's never again something as catastrophic, in terms of scale and acute harm, as the robodebt fiasco. We can never forget that.

As the member for Lyons said, the government has taken on the responsibility of putting a high-quality, high-integrity and transparent tribunal and adjudicative function back into the centre of Australian life, and we've not done it by licking our finger and holding it up in the wind. We've done it with the guidance of some very serious reviews—the three separate reviews that the member for Lyons mentioned. Core among them was the review into the robodebt fiasco. It is worth remembering that the problems that manifested in the AAT—the way in which people were appointed, the kinds of people that were appointed, the delays and backlog that became characteristic of the system and the fact that the support structure in terms of electronic case management and other things was rundown, as resources were run down in the Public Service in Australia across the board—didn't just happen as the years went by. That happened because of the decisions of the previous government.

The previous government has never had much regard for Australia's Public Service. It's always been looking to crunch Australian's Public Service into smaller and smaller pieces, outsource its work, underpay its staff, knock people's morale around and casualise roles within those sectors. That is part of what happened to the AAT. It was certainly the case that at the core of how the AAT functioned—and how the new ART will also function—is that people will take on the very serious and sober responsibility of reviewing matters and making decisions. There was a situation where you had quite an extraordinary proportion of people appointed to those roles who really were chosen on the basis of how they were affiliated with the government of the day, the Liberal and National parties. There was a situation where, in one of the three terms of government, the ratio approached one in three. Then, in the Morrison government—the last term of the Liberal-National government—nearly four in 10 people were being appointed to a tribunal who had a clear connection to, or affiliation with, the Liberal Party. In many cases they had gone into those very well-paid roles immediately after losing an election, as a failed Liberal candidate or member or after coming adrift from a Liberal staffer position.

You get people who aren't properly qualified and don't have the requisite experience. Just as problematically, you get people who, by their nature and chosen course in life—which is perfectly valid—are affiliated with a political party and fight that ideological battle in the way that they see fit. To then find yourself being required to sit in judgement on the policies and the administration of the policies and programs of that government creates a clear conflict of interest. We saw that manifested in many instances.

We are not going to allow that to continue to be the case. In barely two years of government we've taken on the clean-up task in a whole range of areas. This is one of them. Australians deserve, and must have, a high-integrity, high-quality, transparent, fair and timely review process that they can have access to when they receive a very impactful decision from a government agency in some of the areas I've mentioned. That is what we are going to ensure is the case by providing the resources for the new Administrative Review Tribunal and, crucially, changing some of the settings around the way in which people are appointed, to make that absolutely a transparent and merit based process to make sure that where possible reviews are reported—I said before that justice delayed is justice denied. It's also true that justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done. The more people are able not only to experience for themselves but to see more generally in the broader community that there is an ability to go and challenge determinations and to have that occur fairly and properly, the more people will have faith in our system as a whole. It does contribute to not just the health but the health through faith in democracy, which is under threat. We need Australians to shape the governments that serve them, to shape the policies that serve them and also then to have faith in the outcomes of those processes. That's the virtuous circle of a healthy democratic system, and that's one of the things that we're doing here.

There will be a lot of people who, if they were to flick on the TV and find that there's currently a debate about the Administrative Review Tribunal, probably won't—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal Administrative Review Tribunal.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, as some appropriately refer to it as, the federal Administrative Review Tribunal. They might not linger over the remote control all that long. But it is an important thing, and we aren't just going to focus our work as a Labor government on the flashy things, on the things that catch people's attention. We are doing work and making reform in dozens and dozens and dozens of areas. We're doing it in big areas like energy and climate. We're doing it, of course, with a laser-like and enduring focus, in cost-of-living pressures, both in the immediate-term and for the longer-term benefit of the Australian community, as the Treasurer said today. But we're also going to focus on some areas of chronic neglect and dysfunction like this one so that, as we strengthen and improve the NDIS, it will still be the case that, if through that strengthened, improved and more sustainable agency a person gets a determination that, in their view, isn't right, they will be able to go and challenge that determination. As we improve the circumstances for people who rely on income support by making changes so that single parents get significantly more support than they did previously, if, for some reason, there's an issue with their circumstances, they can go and challenge that through the new Administrative Review Tribunal.

We are leaving no stone unturned. We take our responsibility to the Australian people very, very seriously. We know that they've been let down. We know that tens of thousands of people were harmed—in some cases grievously harmed—by the robodebt fiasco, which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you let the institutional bedrock of our system crumble into dust. When you trample it underfoot, when you basically see it as the parade ground for your own vanities, that causes enormous harm, and we aren't going to stand idly by and allow that to remain the case. We are going to step into every significant area of government administration and make it work for the Australian people, make it fairer, make it higher quality, make it more transparent and make it more timely—all the things that Australians have a right to expect. That is what we are going to do in their service as the Albanese Labor government.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Fremantle for that measured, statesman-like contribution on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023. The federal Administrative Review Tribunal has a nice ring to it; for those who've already put up with the discredited AAT for years now, it's a work of art, no doubt. It is a critical generational reform to replace the sadly discredited and, not to put too fine a point on it, stacked AAT. The Attorney-General is a man of detail, and with this bill he has surgically taken the scissors to the old AAT and is reconstructing it in this new form.

I record, right at the outset, why merits review of administrative decisions is so important for Australians who rely every year, day after day, on an independent review of government decisions. For many Australians, there are major life-altering impacts as a result of the decisions of an administrative review tribunal: whether they will receive an aged pension; whether Services Australia has fairly and correctly made a decision about their disability support pension; veterans being compensated for a service injury which was incurred in doing their duty for their country; businesses being stuffed around by government departments having a right of redress that's fair, independent and impartial; visa and citizenship decisions; and decisions regarding the NDIS and all manner of government agencies.

Australians expect, rightly so, professional decisions and an impartial tribunal when they turn up, but unfortunately the truth is the government inherited a horrible mess: a backlog of tens of thousands of cases, languishing. Australians were waiting for their review to happen, month after month, year after year, desperately writing into that black hole that had developed under those opposite in their wasted decade of decay, division and dysfunction.

It was an inefficient tribunal with outdated IT systems and long Liberal lunches—so the gossip goes, on some of the members who just don't seem to do any work once they're appointed. When they appoint their mates, they turn up, collect their large salaries and don't actually write judgements and do their work. The thing is close to broke, frankly, and through the government's reforms this bill will put it on a financially sustainable footing. It was stacked to the rafters with Liberal hacks. There was a perception that there was no merits based appointment. The people who were appointed to these jobs were not put there on merit; they were put there because of their mateship with the Liberal Party. It was so stacked even the member for Mitchell would have blushed, maybe. It was more stacked than a Deakin Liberal branch. Even the Western Australian clan have nothing on this!

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: there were inferences about members and parties. Branch stacking certainly couldn't fall under the appropriate definition in this House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce will refrain from any imputations that are inappropriate and—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll refrain. I won't draw those inferences, and I no longer need to.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

all inferences and will continue with his commendable speech in relation to this bill specifically.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Let's not draw as many inferences—

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're quite touchy, aren't they?

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the member withdraw.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce may assist the chair by withdrawing that which has created—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw the inference in relation to the member for Mitchell.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I need to withdraw a reference to the WA clan or a Deakin Liberal Party branch; they're matters of public record. But they are touchy, because as many as 85 former Liberal members of parliament, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal mates were appointed to the tribunal—not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven, not eight, not nine, not 10, not 20, not 30, not 40, not 50, not 60, not 70, not 80 but 85. A handful of these people may be competent, but how would you know? There was no merit based selection process. There were no ads and no job descriptions. There was no paperwork. There was no transparency.

And they're not bad jobs, Deputy Speaker Freelander. They're very secure jobs—more secure than your job or my job; more secure than the jobs of millions of Australians. Members may be appointed for up to seven years and can also be re-appointed. And, once appointed, they can only be terminated by the parliament, in response to an address by the Governor-General, for misbehaviour or incapacity, or by the Governor-General in the case of extended absences or bankruptcy. I think one of those Liberal MPs did get necked for extended absence; I'll have to check that. But they're well paid. A full-time deputy president—one of the Liberal Party mates appointed as a deputy president—can get $496,560 a year; a full-time senior member, level 1, $391,940; then $329,000. Then you fall down the ladder of Liberal mates; they only get $249,000, or, for a full-time member level 2, $221,000; or, for a full-time member level 3, $193,000.

Of course, it must be just a coincidence—do you reckon, Deputy Speaker?—that the only people the Liberal Party thought were eligible for those 85 positions were their former failed MPs, their former staffers or their mates. The best people for the job were just random Liberal hacks, as it turns out, with no qualifications, in many cases. Well, this bill could well be renamed 'Stop the stack'.

To be clear, though, and I'll say this very clearly: being a member of a political party in this country, I believe, is a public good. It's a good thing. Being a member of a political party should not disqualify anyone from being appointed, whatever party they belong to. In fact, I'd expect that, if we looked across an institution like the AAT, just like other institutions in our country, we would see members of our political parties. That's a good thing. But there should be a merit based process—that's the point—so that people have confidence in the people sitting in front of them deciding whether they get a disability support pension, or whether they get yet another decision about a robodebt case that might embarrass the former Liberal government, or whether they get their veterans entitlements, or whether they get their NDIS claim through, or whether their small business gets redress from an unfair decision of a government department. They should feel assured that the person sitting in front of them is qualified to do the job, and that they got the job not because they were a failed Liberal MP or a hack but because they went through a process and were actually the best person for the job, not because the AAT is a Liberal Party employment service.

I do want to stress—I really do—the importance of trust in institutions. When you look across the democratic world, we're not exempt. When you see the 'firestorm'—I was about to say a word that started with S and ended with 'show', but we'll say the 'firestorm'—that is social media these days, you see disinformation and misinformation aplenty, with right-wing and left-wing populism, whether it's Pauline Hanson's One Nation or the Greens political party—two sides of the same coin, they are.

You also see the decade of Liberal government decay, dysfunction and division. Take the scandal that is robodebt. The royal commission revealed nearly half a million Australians were served with fake debt notices, with the Commonwealth logo on them and the power of government compelling them to pay, for money they didn't owe. The AAT belled the cat—a few of them. But they buried that. Take their rorts: sports rorts and car park rorts. In response to that, they cut the Auditor-General's budget; we won't forget that. They tried to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, which reviews national security laws. They tried to abolish the Australian Information Commissioner. They refused to establish a national anticorruption commission. Former prime minister Scott Morrison—we can say it now, because he's gone—appointed himself, in secret, to multiple ministries. And they stacked the AAT. The greed and self-interest of the Liberal Party know no bounds.

So it is important, after that decade, that we do what we can to restore trust in government and integrity and accountability. This government is implementing the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. This government and this parliament established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is up and running, properly resourced, and undertaking the investigations right now. This government has followed what we said we'd do.

There have been more than 100 appointments made to the AAT, which—now, I'm glad they're sitting down—were merit based appointments! We put out job descriptions and we put ads in the paper and people applied for them and advice was given, and the people we've appointed to the AAT are there on merit. They're quality appointments; people can be confident in that. Now we have the federal Administrative Review Tribunal stopping the stack.

The government is committed to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's critical system of administrative review, beginning with the establishment of this body that will be user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. This time the member's not sitting down, but I'm going to say again—don't die of shock!—that it'll be a transparent and merit based process for the appointment of non-judicial members. The bill will also re-create the Administrative Review Council, which Tony Abbott shamefully abolished. All matters before the AAT when the new tribunal is in place will automatically be transferred across. There will be no break in continuity; Australians won't need to relodge their appeals. The tribunal's objective will be to restore that public confidence as an independent mechanism of review that's fair and just and that actually gets through things in a timely manner. All of us would have in our electorates people who have been waiting for months or years for that critical hearing from the AAT—desperate. In some cases it's about being reunited with their children or husband or wife whom they have been separated from because of a bad visa decision for—literally—years. People who deserve the DSP and who meet the criteria for the DSP but may not have provided the right information or might have had an unfair decision shouldn't be waiting months or years to get the help that they need.

Properly resourcing and setting up a modern, efficient tribunal and review system is really important. There will be as little informality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision. This is surgical; this really is taking the scissors to the mess we were left with. It will be accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties and it will promote public trust and confidence in the tribunal.

The key features to improve merits review include simpler and more consistent processes and a greater emphasis wherever possible on non-adversarial approaches to resolving disputes through the new federal ART. As much as humanly possible, you don't want the battle of QCs and lawyers through administrative review. The courts are still there—people can seek redress through the courts following this—but the whole point of administrative review is that there's an independent check on the power of government and the misuse of that power that citizens can access in a timely, cost-efficient and effective way, and that they feel it's fair. It's resolving most stuff quickly, cheaply and efficiently without having to seek recourse to lawyers and the court process. It will have simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions—job descriptions. You write the job description and you put it in the newspaper or online, people apply and then you pick the best people for the job. It will have clear and delineated roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership positions in the tribunal, including the president and the principal registrar. We could have put something in there to abolish the Liberal Party long lunches—if you look at the productivity of some of these stooges whom they've appointed, who were not qualified, it seems to be the last land of the Liberal Party long lunch at the AAT. That will be gone.

It is disappointing, isn't it, when you think about all the benefit that can come from the new federal Administrative Review Tribunal, that the Greens political party has done a dodgy little deal with the Liberal Party yet again to stall this reform in the Senate. It's absolutely shameful, the way they were mucking around with the committee process and taking their time.

In conclusion, I really commend the Attorney-General on the precise work—surgical work—that he has done in these bills. It will improve the lives of tens of thousands of Australians when they can again—finally—seek quick, efficient, fair, effective redress for government decisions with which they don't agree. That's a really important part of our public administration system in Australia; you don't just cop the decision from government when it's unfair or wrong. It's not like dealing with a toddler. The citizens are not toddlers. It's not: 'Because I said so! You're going to bed now.' If you get a decision, you're entitled to reasons for that decision and a fair process of review, and that's exactly what these bills will do.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, and the associated bills, is the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades. It will abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with the new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal.

Effective administrative review is critical to Australia's system of government. A strong, user focused administrative review body provides an avenue for community members to seek independent review of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives. It is critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organisations, including the most vulnerable members of our communities. Critically, high-quality reviews of government decision-making can—and, if this bill is enacted, will—encourage better-quality decision-making across government.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews Commonwealth government decisions in areas such as migration, social services, the NDIS and veterans affairs. It affects every component of our lives, and it's an important body of oversight over government decisions. Every year thousands of people rely on the AAT to independently review government decisions—decisions such as whether an older Australian receives the age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for a service injury or whether a participant in the NDIS receives funding for essential support.

The driving rationale behind this reform is that, under the coalition government, we saw a stacking of the AAT. This was a sight to behold. It was disgraceful. As many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close associates of the Liberal Party were put into plum jobs with the AAT, without any merit based selection process, on salaries worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They did it again and again, including on the eve of the last election. Decisions of the AAT have life-changing impacts for thousands of Australians. This approach is disrespectful, lacks compassion and lacks integrity.

In the six months before we came to government, the NDIA spent more than $28 million fighting appeals in the AAT. Over 4,500 NDIS participants had complaints with the AAT—an increase of 400 per cent on the previous year. Thanks to the Minister for Government Services and the Minister for the NDIS, more than 90 per cent of those cases have now been resolved and we now have 30 per cent fewer cases being referred to the AAT in the first place. From people with disability seeking support through the NDIS to vulnerable families trying to get the right social security payments, Australians should and must be able to count on the AAT to get a fair hearing. But the Liberal Party didn't seem to care about this. The stacking of the AAT by the coalition government was shameless.

The Albanese government does care about Australians who are struggling. We do care about their right to a fair and independent process and to having a system they can trust. We have wasted no time, on coming into office, in starting to fix the mess those opposite left.

This legislation requires that members of the tribunal be appointed through a competitive, publicly advertised merit based process. Our commitment to this is already on display, with more than 100 new appointments already made through our merit based process. The ART Bill builds on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation to establish a tribunal that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and, importantly, fair. The ART Bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee review into the 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 tribunal's objective will be to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just; resolves applications in a timely manner and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision; is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties involved; improves the transparency and quality of decision-making; and, importantly, promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal.

The tribunal incorporates key features to improve merits review, including simpler and more consistent processes; an emphasis on non-adversarial approaches to resolving applications; a suite of powers and procedures to respond flexibly to changing caseloads and help to resolve cases more efficiently and effectively; a simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role description for every level of membership; clear roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership positions in the tribunal, including the president and the principal registrar; a transparent and merit based appointment process for members informed by the operational needs of the tribunal to ensure only the highest quality members are appointed to these important roles; and powers for the president to manage the performance, conduct and professional development of members.

The ART Bill also has mechanisms to identify, escalate and report on systemic issues in administrative decision-making, including the re-establishment of the Administrative Review Council. This council is important. It will monitor the integrity of the Commonwealth administrative review system, inquire into systematic challenges in administrative law and support education and training for Commonwealth officials.

The bill also establishes, for the first time, a guidance and appeals panel within the tribunal to resolve matters raising systemic issues and review tribunal decisions that may be affected by error. It is worth saying that these errors have significant implications for people's lives. The panel will provide a mechanism for escalating significant issues and addressing material errors in tribunal decisions.

Finally, the bill enables the tribunal to publish any decision and requires it to publish all decisions involving significant conclusions of law with implications for Commonwealth policy or administration.

The consequential and transitional bill repeals the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to be replaced by the tribunal established by the ART Bill. It amends 138 Commonwealth acts to ensure that existing legislation operates as intended for the new tribunal, updates hundreds of references across the Commonwealth statute book, and streamlines the various regimes that currently apply to review of matters in the tribunal. In particular, the bill retains essential modifications to the operation of the merits review framework for tax and charity matters which ensures the workability of these frameworks and protection of tax revenue collection or otherwise upholds longstanding core tax principles and practices.

It abolishes the Immigration Assessment Authority and harmonises provisions relating to reviews of migration and refugee decisions, providing a broader suite of tools for the efficient and effective resolution of these matters. It adjusts the exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule for migration and protection matters so that it continues to codify matters relating to notification, non-disclosable information and requirements on what information must and must not be put to an applicant for comment before certain powers are exercised. At the same time, it enables flexibility for the tribunal to reduce delays and backlogs in migration and refugee matters, increases fairness for genuine applicants and maintains the integrity of the migration system. It alters the approach to the review of social security and child-support decisions. Instead of a two-layer approach in which neither layer is fully effective, the bill provides for a more fit-for-purpose style of review. Matters will be triaged with the resolution pathway, adapted according to the complexity of the matter and whether the participation of the decision-maker will assist in effective and efficient resolution. This means that finding resolutions to complex issues will help vulnerable people—in particular, veterans, pensioners, people on unemployment benefits and single parents. They deserve our support. The consequential and transitional provisions bill will also maintain merit review in two separate bodies as a unique feature of veterans' entitlement law, with matters reviewed in the Veterans' Review Board continuing to be appealable to the ART.

The consequential and transitional provisions bill also contains measures to give effect to the transition from the AAT to the ART. This includes transitioning the tribunal's active, pending and potential caseloads, including matters currently before the courts, to minimise disruption and to maintain review rights. The bill also contains conditions for certain AAT members, including the president, to transition to the ART and sets out arrangements for certain members who do not. These bills have been informed by significant consultation, including guidance from the Administrative Review Expert Advisory Group, 120 responses to a public issues paper, 287 short survey responses, consultation with 147 stakeholders in 80 consultation events in April and May 2023, and close engagement across government and the AAT.

A second consequential and transitional bill will be introduced as soon as possible in the autumn 2024 sitting of parliament, amending acts not included in the first consequential and transitional bill. These acts represent less than seven per cent of the tribunal's case load. The amendments are predominantly minor and technical updates or amendments to Commonwealth acts which require consultation with the states and territories.

The government intends that the tribunal will commence operations in 2024, subject to timing of passage of the bills. The Attorney-General's Department is working with the AAT, government agencies and other stakeholders to identify and plan the practical steps required to implement the reform following passage of legislation. Appointment processes for members of the ART are already underway. I congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by my friend and neighbour the member for Macquarie, for its suggestions on how the bill can be improved.

In closing, I say that the Albanese government has made a commitment to restoring integrity and faith in governmental systems and administration. As the chair of the NDIS joint standing committee, which has heard many harrowing stories from people with disabilities and their families and carers who have been about to face the AAT, I thank the Attorney-General for this historic and vital reform. The ART is another prime example of Labor making necessary reforms to ensure that Australians have an appeals process that is user focused, non-adversarial, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. We are committed to getting this right and to re-establishing a system that is fair and has integrity. I commend the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the associated bills to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. The parlous state that the AAT is in is best reflected, I would say, in the experiences that my electorate office has faced over the years, virtually on a daily basis. We've had to deal with countless constituents who've come to us both frustrated and bewildered, in most cases, by the very long and frustrating delays that they have experienced as they await the outcomes of their cases being heard and adjudicated by the AAT. My office deals with referrals to the AAT, predominantly in the areas of immigration, Centrelink and the NDIS. Of course, as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I also know too well the importance of integrity in the structures of our migration system and its particular avenues of appeal, especially as a large number of my constituents are very much engaged with the migration process.

I'd often be asked and would have to answer about why the delays that my constituents were experiencing were so exorbitant. To reasonable people and, often, desperate people, such delays just didn't make any sense. Often it resulted in their being angered and distressed, and this distress was further compounded by their inability to understand our appeals system, especially for those who didn't speak English, because they had to rely on others to support them and to guide them. These are people who await decisions whose outcomes have a direct impact on their lives. Therefore, the stakes are often very high for these people and for their families.

Most of my constituents who have had to deal with the AAT are what I would describe as vulnerable people who are not very well resourced and often do not understand the complexities of an appeals process, yet they are subject to it and need to go through it. So they are pensioners—invalid pensioners or age pensioners—NDIS recipients and their families and, in a large number of cases, those who are appealing decisions in matters of immigration. Across the board, there are a range of visa categories, from partner visas through to parent and humanitarian visas. So, as you can imagine, these are issues that are very personal and sensitive in nature, and the effect of senseless, unreasonable delays have often left my constituents not just frustrated but, as I said, desperate with worry and uncertainty about their future and what it holds.

So, at the very least, I believe, having dealt with these cases and the AAT, that there was an acceptance about the delays. It seemed to have become a culture or an expectation that there would be long delays, especially in the case of immigration cases. I noted over the years that these delays at the AAT became opportunities for unscrupulous migration agents and even labour hire companies to use the delays to tell vulnerable people such as those who were here largely on working holiday visas—and there were lots of these cases; I met many people, who came to see me over the years—that, if they applied for protection visas, they would go to the AAT and the AAT would take up to three or four years to process their claims, and by the time they got to that, they would most likely be rejected anyway, but that didn't matter. The purpose was that they would get three, four or five years of additional work on bridging visas here in Australia.

These kinds of almost vexatious appeals to the AAT were allowed to fester and become a magnet for exploitation and abuse by unscrupulous people because of the length of time that it took for cases to be resolved. It's a common feature, especially with immigration cases, that you're going to buy yourself two, three or four years. The other issue with the delays in dealing with immigration cases, especially with the AAT, is that migration agents would also use this as a pathway to eventually get into ministerial intervention. So the AAT, in becoming what it did become—this body that was unable to respond accordingly and in due time to cases—gave rise to a whole series of other possibly unintended consequences, but they were the consequences of those long delays. They were also the consequences of an AAT that was staffed by people that perhaps weren't appointed on merit. They didn't have the knowledge and they didn't have the expertise that was required to deal with the complexity of a lot of the cases that came before them.

The Australian public and my constituents have a right to expect that the AAT not be compromised as it was under the previous government, because the previous government had good form, without absolutely any thought whatsoever, in happily appointing their colleagues—as we've heard, 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates—without any merit based selection processes. They were quite happy to employ them and appoint them to the AAT. These people had no relevant experience to match the nature of the cases that they were being called upon to adjudicate over. So, in many ways, the former government fatally compromised the AAT. It undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. These appointments—and we've heard a lot about them throughout many of the contributions that have been made today by my colleagues—most certainly undermined the independence of the AAT and reduced its quality and the efficiency of its decision-making.

Bodies like the AAT require the appointment of people who have the skills to understand the complexities faced by our constituents, not just those in immigration but also those accessing Centrelink, the NDIS and the other vital government and social services. The issue of merit is fundamental to fairness and efficiency when it comes to appointments to the AAT. This is why I welcomed the Albanese government's announcement in late 2022 that it would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new federal administrative review body.

This is a significant reform, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the legislation in the form of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, which will implement the government's commitment to establish a new federal administrative review body. This bill builds on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation to establish a tribunal that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and, above all, fair. It is informed by a significant body of work and literature that implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's review into the 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.

When we came into government we inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable footing. It was beset by delays and had an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications, which was felt by everyone in my electorate who happened to come into contact with the system, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech. This came at a very real cost to the tens of thousands of people who rely on the AAT each year to independently review government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives. These are decisions such as whether older Australians receive an age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for service injury or whether a participant of the NDIS receives funding for essential support. Many of these people, as I've said already, are members of my constituency.

The Albanese government is committed to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review, beginning with the establishment of the new administrative review body, which will be user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. The important central feature of the new body will be its transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of the non-judicial members. They will be independent and untainted, and this will be the hallmark of any fair process that the Australian public, but in particular my constituents, deserve and will benefit from.

Under this government's legislation, the tribunal will finally have transparent, merit based appointment processes for the appointment of members. It will be informed by the operational needs of the tribunal to ensure that only the highest-quality members are appointed to these very important roles. This is in stark contrast to the former government, which, as it became evident, believed in jobs for Liberal mates, at the expense of our constituents, fairness and a merit based selection process. This is a welcome contrast—an effective, clear and just difference through the provision of an independent mechanism of a review which is fair and just. It resolves applications in a timely manner and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferrable decision. It is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties. It improves the transparency and quality of decision-making and promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. On those grounds, I commend the bills to the House.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023. I want to say from the outset that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was fatally compromised by the former government through its appointing of as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associate, without any merit based selection. They have undermined the tribunal's independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. The stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by the former Liberal government is quite extraordinary. But they did it time and time again, without any merit based selection process and for salaries worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but clearly they did not care.

As the federal member for Gilmore, I know how important the review process is for people in my electorate—people who are absolutely desperate to have a life-changing matter resolved. These include visa appeals, veterans' affairs appeals, NDIS appeals, Centrelink—the list goes on. But what did they get under the former Liberal government? They got a completely stacked Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There was a massive backlog. Think about that for a moment: they didn't care about people in my electorate who needed help.

I want to provide just one of many examples of the shocking treatment of my constituents, which was a veteran's appeal of a Department of Veterans' Affairs decision by the abysmally stacked and ineffective AAT. My constituent's review application was launched with the AAT in 2019. Since that time the matter remained open with the AAT and no decision had been made. Think about that. The veteran's appeal was lodged in 2019 and there was no decision made by March 2023.

Of course, I raised this very sad and shocking case with the Attorney-General in 2023 on behalf of my constituent. While I have been happy to help, I was completely appalled by the massive and, quite frankly, obscenely unacceptable delays. But should I be shocked? Not at all, because through case after case we've heard it before. It made sense, of course, with the former Liberal government appointing—as I said before—as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merit-based selection process, including some individuals with no relevant expertise or experience. The former Liberal government fatally compromised the AAT, undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making.

Our government inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable financial footing and was beset by delays and this extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications, which my constituents experienced firsthand. It was operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems, a legacy of the former government's mismanagement of the amalgamation of the AAT with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is one of the most shameful acts against people in my electorate of Gilmore and people right around Australia who were crying out for help.

I am here today to say that I care, and the Albanese Labor government cares about Australians who are struggling. We care about their right to a fair and independent process within a system they can trust. That's why the Albanese government announced that it would abolish the AAT and replace it with an administrative review body that serves the interests of the Australian community. A central feature of the new body is a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of new members.

I am pleased that our government also took immediate action to address the backlog of cases and reduce wait times while the new body is being set up. In this regard, the government committed $63.4 million over two years for an additional 75 members, and we made a directive last year to prioritise the assessment of outstanding immigration AAT matters due to the huge backlog. We have wasted no time in starting to fix the mess that those opposite left.

I want to really thank the member for Isaacs, the Attorney-General, for his fearless determination to fix that mess, because, in terms of a mess, it was at the top of the pile. It's a pile so high, with a stench of incompetence and stacking by the Liberal government, that only those opposite could be proud of.

The legislation we introduced in December last year to abolish the AAT and replace it with a new administrative review body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair, I'm pleased to say, was actually developed in consultation with people who use the system every day. Importantly, the legislation requires that members of the tribunal be appointed through a competitive, publicly advertised, merit based process. Already, we've demonstrated our commitment, with more than 100 new appointments through our merit based process.

The purpose of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 is to respond to suggestions raised through the parliamentary scrutiny process, including by civil society stakeholders, and to improve and clarify provisions of the bills. In particular, the amendments would strengthen requirements for merit based appointment processes; insert a requirement for a statutory review of the operation of the bill and associated consequential amendment bills; provide a pathway for parties to reviews to seek a second review of tribunal social service decisions, which includes social security, family assistance, child support, paid parental leave and student assistance reviews; refined clause 67 relating to litigation guardians to rename them litigation supporters and more clearly reflect supported, rather than substituted, decision-making; clarify the policy intent of the bill regarding participation by decision-makers in proceedings through changes to the election notice regime; and make other minor and technical changes. Additionally, amendments are proposed to make technical corrections and changes to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the bill upon commencement.

As I've mentioned, our strengthening appointment requirements will require the use of assessment panels when undertaking merit based appointment of the president of the tribunal, members of the tribunal, the CEO and principal registrar. These amendments put beyond doubt the legislative requirement to use an assessment panel as part of the merit based process for appointments to the tribunal. The effect of the amendments is that the minister cannot recommend a candidate for appointment unless they have been assessed as suitable by an assessment panel through a process that was merit based, including public advertising of the position and compliance with any requirements in the regulations. And I am very pleased that the amendments require a statutory review of the bill and related bills to commence just before the five-year anniversary of the commencement of the bill, ensuring proper assessment of the overall reform. The statutory review must consider the implementation of the legislation, including the tribunal's operations and whether it is achieving its objectives.

I am also very pleased the amendments include a second review of social services decisions. The amendments insert a new part 5A to the bill, setting out which decisions are eligible for second review at the tribunal and the processes, procedures and powers that apply to second review. The amendments also include definitional changes and notes to the bill to facilitate the operation of the new part 5A. The second review pathway will replace access to the appeals function of the guidance and appeals panel under part 5 of the bill, in which a party can apply to the president to have a tribunal decision referred to the panel. Referral of a decision to the guidance and appeals panel is at the president's discretion, and can only occur if the president is satisfied the decision may contain a material error or raises an issue of significance to administrative decision-making. Where an application is made for second review of a tribunal social services decision, the review must be conducted. If an application has not been made, the president may still, on their own motion, refer an application for review of a decision to the guidance and appeals panel on the basis that it raises an issue of significance to administrative decision-making on either first or second review.

Provisions of the bill that enhance processes for tribunal review of social services decisions when they are first reviewed, such as allowing for the participation of a decision-maker where it will assist to resolve the matter, are retained. Over time, it is expected that more matters can be resolved at the first review; however, these changes will take time to implement and to mature. The retention of second review for certain social services decisions will ensure that existing systems and safeguards remain in place until that can occur. Consequential amendments will ensure the tribunal operates as intended when providing second review for social services applicants with amendments to social services portfolio legislation required to facilitate reviews under the new part 5(a).

A number of stakeholders suggested amendments to clause 67 of the bill to more clearly reflect supported rather than substituted decision-making. Amendments to clause 67 would respond to these concerns, including by changing the term 'litigation guardian', which suggests substituted decision-making, to 'litigation supporter', to better reflect the roles and duties of persons appointed to such a position.

The amendments would also ensure that the bill incorporates recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. In particular, they create a presumption that all people have decision-making ability which cannot be rebutted solely on the basis that a person has a disability, in accordance with principle 2 of recommendations 6.6 and 6.7 of the DRC report.

In relation to the election notice regime, amendments to clauses 60 and 63 would clarify that decision-makers may elect not to participate in a kind of proceeding or in particular tribunal case events relating to a kind of proceeding other than directions hearings and individual proceedings. These amendments clarify the policy intent behind the tribunal's election notice regime, consistent with the tribunal's objective to ensure reviews are accessible and resolved as quickly and with as little expense and formality as the proper consideration of the matter permits.

There are a number of other amendments. The amendments to the consequential bill amend the Migration Act 1958 to ensure the drafting is clear and unambiguous, improve the operation of certain provisions and ensure consistency across matters in the Migration Act. The amendments to this schedule insert provisions into a number of acts in the social services portfolio. These amendments would harmonise privacy settings so that tribunal proceedings for student assistance matters are held in private, clarify date-of-effect provisions and ensure the tribunal can publish de-identified decisions for social services reviews, including at first review, implementing recommendations from the robodebt royal commission report in relation to the publication of tribunal decisions in in social services matters.

Amendments relating to the security division are consequential to proposed amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal 2023, relating to how decision-makers can elect not to participate in tribunal proceedings and case events. The amendments also make technical corrections to existing drafting.

With regard to the veterans' affairs, amendments in this schedule are consequential to proposed amendments to the ART Bill relating to how decision-makers can elect not to participate in tribunal proceedings and case events. The amendments also make technical corrections to existing drafting.

In relation to transitional provision amendments, amendments to this schedule provide additional clarity to the transitional arrangements attaching to parts of the ART legislative package. The amendments aim to facilitate a smooth and uninterrupted transition from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Administrative Review Tribunal. The amendments include clarifying how consultation requirements in the ART Bill are to be met where powers are exercised as of its commencement.

To conclude, in this House, we are elected to serve and support our constituents, and that means where there is something that is not working or not serving its purpose we should make changes. That's what we're doing with these amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023. All of our constituents deserve a fair review system. Whether it's a Centrelink matter, a NDIS matter, a visa matter or a veteran's matter, constituents must have access to a fair and transparent review process. I commend these bills to the house.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've said it many times in this place: I'm really proud to represent a truly diverse and vibrant multicultural community. The richness of cultures, languages and traditions that make up the fabric of Bennelong not only enriches our social landscape but contributes significantly to the economic and cultural vitality of our region. We see this in the flourishing local businesses, the diverse culinary offerings that have become the pride of our food festivals and the cultural events that draw visitors from across the city and the nation, showcasing the unity in our diversity.

Representing such a diverse constituency also means I've developed a deep understanding of the intricacies of our immigration system. We are a country built on migration, a country of migrants. Over 70 per cent of locals in Bennelong have either one or both parents who were born overseas. We are a country that is far away from a lot of people, but we have a population that is deeply connected to the world. As such we should have an open, transparent and well-functioning immigration system.

As many reviews have proved, we have inherited just the opposite. Many members of Bennelong who have families overseas are constantly navigating this complex process. They are understandably seeking to reunite with loved ones, family members and friends, whether for a short visit or with the hope of building a permanent life here. These experiences, both joyful and challenging, have provided me also with invaluable insights into the working of our immigration policies and procedures.

With this deep understanding of the immigration system, I've also had the opportunity to become very well acquainted with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the critical role it plays not only in the immigration process but also in all the areas it covers as well. The AAT becomes relevant for locals as a place where they can seek review of decisions made by arms of government. Reviewmaking is a crucial part of the process for anyone who has the experience of having an unsuccessful visa application. Through countless interactions in seeking to assist locals in Bennelong, either in preparing their appeals or simply helping them navigate the system, I've gained a firsthand view, in my short time in this place, of the system's strengths and, most importantly, its weaknesses. My local community's experience underscores the importance of an accessible, fair and efficient review system—a system where decisions are made transparently and based on merit, not hindered by unnecessary bureaucracy or delays.

The AAT has been established to offer a fair avenue for challenging government decisions, including those related to visas, to ensure they are made justly and lawfully. It plays an important role. It should serve as a critical interface between the government and individuals, embodying the principles of accountability and transparency that are foundational to our democratic values. However, the system has increasingly struggled with politicised appointments and inefficiencies which have impacted its ability to deliver timely and, importantly, impartial decisions. It's become clear to me that without substantial reforms, such as those proposed by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, trust in and the fairness of the administrative review process will continue to erode.

The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and its consequential amendments offer this parliament an opportunity to ensure that fairness, accessibility and independence are not just aspirational values but are actively embodied in the functioning of our administrative justice system. The credibility of the AAT hinges on its ability to be autonomous from political meddling, ensuring decisions are based on law not favouritism. Unsurprisingly, those opposite, who were in government with no credibility or integrity, seek to oppose these measures to clean up the AAT. Under the Liberals and Nationals, the AAT was subject to egregious mismanagement that severely compromised its integrity and efficiency, and tampered with its mission to serve the Australian public.

Historically, the AAT prided itself in appointments grounded in legal expertise, professional merit and unwavering commitment to impartial justice, yet under the Liberals and Nationals 85 appointments to the AAT were based on political loyalty rather than competence or legal ability. This included a motley crew of the former MPs, failed political candidates and party affiliates, many of whom were glaringly deficient in the legal expertise requisite for the tribunal's mandates. I'm not saying that former MPs don't have a role to play post public life. There are plenty of examples of former MPs doing a good job serving their nation after their time in this place. However, it's also clear that the Liberals and Nationals flatly abused the system to benefit those with connections to their government—they had 85 political appointments.

That makes me think: what happened when these appointments were made on basis of political influence rather than on merit base? Instead of legal experts, they put on their mates. By de-skilling the AAT, the Liberal-National governments fundamentally neglected the tribunal's operational requirements and it was completely dysfunctional. A backlog of cases was made even worse by inefficiencies and the inept handling by inexperienced employees led to huge delays. Australians across the country were left waiting in limbo while decisions on their visa status, Centrelink payment eligibility, childcare subsidies and other things clogged the system owing to this AAT mismanagement. Multiple outdated electronic case-management systems created a patchwork of obsolete systems, ill-equipped for the modern challenges of administrative review.

The negligence of those opposite not only assaulted the tribunal's independence and the quality of its decision-making but also crippled its efficiency, accessibility and financial stability. It left thousands of Australians waiting to be heard on critical matters, leaving them with a very real emotional, practical and financial toll. In my electorate, the experiences of Brian from Eastwood and Rebecca from Meadowbank are two of the many reminders of the real, tangible impacts of a tribunal mired in inefficiency and hampered by negligence. Brian from Eastwood started on his journey to securing permanent residency for his wife with optimism, but it quickly descended into a protracted nightmare owing to the inefficiencies at the AAT. Their anticipation of starting a new chapter of their lives in Bennelong was brutally interrupted by an unforeseen rejection in 2019 that threw them into a relentless cycle of waiting and uncertainty. For four long years they heard nothing from the AAT, with no idea when their case might be heard, trapping them into a state of the unknown.

Similarly, Rebecca's struggle with the AAT over her parental leave payment further shows the tribunal's inability to respond flexibly and resolve cases effectively. Even though she had given up part of her salary to help her employer during the pandemic, she ended up in a frustrating situation where she was told she couldn't get the financial help she really needed, because the backpay she received pushed her over the threshold to claim her paid parental leave. Her hope turned to disappointment when the AAT could not consider her specific circumstances owing to its inflexibility. These are just two of many stories that I've heard about in my time in this place about how it genuinely cost tens of thousands of people across the country who rely on the tribunal each year to independently and efficiently review government decisions that often have had a significant and life-altering impact on their lives.

The Albanese government is fully aware of how urgent these problems are, and that's why we are addressing the longstanding issues of fairness, accessibility and impartiality that have plagued the AAT. This effort creates a new review body that prioritises people's needs and rights. This legislation aims to fix the root cause of the issues, not just the surface problems. It means we propose to create a system centred around the user and ensuring that people feel supported every step of the way. The new body proposed by this legislation will be more efficient. It will reduce wait times and it will deal with the backlog that has kept too many Australians waiting for too long. It will be easier for everyone to use, no matter their background or how much they know about the law.

Under our government we will have an administrative review tribunal that will ensure that the people who make the decisions are chosen because they're the best people for the job. It'll make a system easier for everyone to use. It'll make decisions faster and ensure that the tribunal can do its work independently of political interference and external pressures. We'll ensure that appointed tribunal members are appointed because of their skills, not their politics. By rigorously vetting appointments to ensure members possess the necessary legal experience, integrity and impartiality, we will significantly uplift the quality of decision-making and, concurrently, restore public trust in the tribunal's processes and outcomes.

We're also very focused on making the tribunal user-friendly. This entails streamlining application and review processes and embracing modern technology to facilitate easier application submission and efficient case-tracking. Our aim is to make dealing with the tribunal easier and more transparent for everyone, whether they're an individual or a business. This more user-friendly focus will help us deal with a backlog of cases waiting to be heard by the tribunal. By using innovative case management strategies and technology, this legislation will lead to a reduction in wait times, no longer leaving people waiting years for their decision.

We'll also implement new rules and structures to keep the decision-making processes independent, restoring people's trust in the AAT. The introduction of new safeguards and governance structures will protect the tribunal from external influences and guarantee that decisions are made solely on legal merit and the evidence presented. We want to deliver a clearer, fairer system that people can trust. By focusing on skill, simplicity, speed and fairness, we're making a commitment to improving the way the justice system is done in reviewing government decisions. This is about making sure our system is a model of fairness and justice that thousands of Australians, who depend on the AAT each year, can use.

Under the stewardship of the previous government, the AAT was allowed to devolve into a quagmire of inefficiency and politicisation—a far cry from its founding principles of impartiality, fairness and accessibility. Appointments were driven by political loyalty rather than by competence, and they have undermined the tribunal's integrity and capacity to deliver timely decisions.

Unlike those opposite, the Albanese government is taking decisive action to address these longstanding challenges. We're not leaving this in the too-hard basket. By introducing this bill, we are laying the groundwork for a system that will seek to serve the Australian people. Through these reforms, we are not just changing how the tribunal will operate; we are affirming our commitment to justice, transparency and democracy. I commend them to the House.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address this chamber on the matter of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. This bill represents a pivotal component of our government's commitment to enhancing the efficiency, fairness and accessibility of Australia's administrative review system. As the federal member for Holt and a staunch advocate for the rights and interests of my constituents, I approach this legislation with a deep sense of responsibility and dedication to ensuring that the voices of everyday Australians are heard and respected within our democratic institutions. The reforms proposed in this bill hold the potential to significantly impact the lives of countless individuals who rely on the administrative review process to redeem decisions made by government agencies. Allow me to provide some context on the significance of this bill and the broader reforms it seeks to advance.

In late 2022, the Albanese government made the decision to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, and replace it with the new Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART. This decision was not made lightly but was driven by the recognition of the systematic challenges and shortcomings that had plagued the AAT in recent years. The AAT, once regarded as a cornerstone of Australia's administrative review system, had unfortunately fallen short of meeting the needs and expectations of the Australian people. Delays, insufficiencies and concerns about impartiality had eroded public trust in the tribunal, leaving many individuals feeling disempowered and disenfranchised. Countless people found themselves caught in the mess of incorrect decisions or lingering uncertainty while awaiting their turn to access the AAT. This inflicted unjust hardship and emotional turmoil on those whose lives hung in the balance.

Under the previous regime, asylum seekers endured waits of up to a decade for resolution of their cases. At the moment, only half of protection visas are processed in 4.8 years, with five per cent taking up to 6.2 years. These delays have not only worsened the struggle of vulnerable individuals but also provided ground for exploitation by unscrupulous migration agents, who've capitalised on their desperation with false promises of asylum avenues. Partner visa decisions are no better, with half taking 3.8 years to resolve. That is nearly four years away from your significant other—potentially, four more years away from your children. This distressing state of affairs stems directly from the former government's handling of the merger of the AAT with other tribunals, including the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The fallout from this mismanagement has echoed throughout the lives of tens of thousands of Australians who've relied on the AAT to come to a resolution on decisions, with profound implications for their lives and wellbeing. Throughout my term in parliament, I have encountered numerous constituents whose lives have been directly impacted by the outcomes of their AAT reviews. Their narratives have underscored the pivotal need to ensure that these decisions are made with accuracy and fairness. Unfortunately, the previous government fell short of upholding these standards of integrity in its governance. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre stated:

The end of the AAT and the establishment of a user-focused, merit-based, independent, accessible, efficient and fair system is a much-needed, prudent and compassionate reform.

It went on to say:

The AAT has fundamentally failed refugees due to under-resourcing, politicised appointments, undue complexity and inaccessibility, and the Abbott Government's cancelling of pro bono legal assistance for people seeking asylum. These policy choices, made primarily by the Abbott and Morrison Governments, resulted in the average time for a review of a protection visa application jumping from 31 weeks to over 3 years between 2017-2022.

Nonetheless, the Albanese Labor government was elected on a pledge to restore integrity to public institutions and foster trust in government decisions. Addressing the systemic challenges within the administrative review system is crucial to upholding this commitment to integrity. It was clear that decisive action was needed to restore confidence in the administrative review process and uphold the principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

The establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal represents a bold and ambitious step towards revitalising our administrative review system and ensuring that it remains responsive to the needs of those it serves. By establishing a new tribunal, we seek to rebuild confidence in the integrity of the review process and guarantee that individuals receive the justice and fairness they rightly deserve. The bill sets out the objective of the new tribunal which will guide its operations and the actions of all members of staff. In the words of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, the bill's objective is to provide an independent mechanism of review that 'is fair and just; resolves applications in a timely matter, with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision; is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties; improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making; and promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal'.

To ensure that it is able to achieve this objective, the bill would establish a tribunal with the following key features: a user focused design, including simpler and more consistent processes and an emphasis on non-adversarial approaches to resolving applications; a suite of powers and procedures largely harmonised across the tribunal to respond flexibly to changing case loads; mechanisms to identify, accelerate and report on systematic issues in administrative decision-making, including through a new guidance and appeals panel; a simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions for each level of membership; clear, distinct roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership in the tribunal; a transparent and merit based appointment process for members; and powers for the president to manage the performance, conduct and professional development of members.

The bill before us today is a crucial component of this broader reform agenda as it seeks to provide the necessary transitional and consequential provisions to facilitate the smooth transition from the old AAT to the new ART. It is imperative that we minimise disruption and uphold the rights of these individuals as we transition to the new tribunal. This bill achieves this objective by outlining clear mechanisms for the automatic transition of the AAT cases to the ART, thereby safeguarding the interests of applicants and ensuring that their access to justice is not unduly compromised.

Furthermore, this bill underscores our government's commitment to promoting fairness and equity in the administrative review process. We are implementing measures such as the establishment of the merit based appointment process for tribunal members so that the ART is populated by individuals of the highest calibre who are dedicated to upholding the principles of justice and integrity.

It is also worth noting the significant investments that our government has made to support the effective functioning of the ART. In 2023 the government made an investment of over $58 million in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court of Australia to increase the capacity of these bodies to deal with protection visa and other migration related case loads.

This bill allocates additional resources to the tribunal on top of this and includes funding for the recruitment of new members and the implementation of modernised case management systems. The government will provide $21.8 million over the two years from 2023 to 2024 for the AAT to support transition to the new ART. A further $18.5 million over four years, from 2023-2024, will be provided for the AAT to continue to develop and expand the new case management system for use by the new tribunal. These investments are crucial to addressing the backlog of cases that has clutched the administrative review system and to ensuring that individuals receive timely and efficient resolutions of their grievances.

In conclusion, the ART Bill represents a leap forward in our ongoing efforts to strengthen Australia's administrative review system. By ushering in a new era of transparency, accountability and efficiency, this bill reaffirms our government's commitment to upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of all Australians. I urge all members in this chamber to support this passage of this bill and demonstrate our collective commitment to delivering a fair and accessible administrative review process for the benefit of all Australians.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal, which will be created by the bill. This bill makes consequential and transitional amendments to 138 Commonwealth acts, covering approximately 93 per cent of the tribunal's caseload. These amendments are needed to effectively implement this significant reform.

This bill repeals the AAT Act and other legislative provisions that provide for the operation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Subsequently, the Administrative Review Tribunal, established by the ART Bill, will replace it. This legislation contains consequential amendments to act in 14 Commonwealth portfolios. These include Social Services, Treasury, Veterans' Affairs and Home Affairs as well as matters affecting the national intelligence community.

As we've heard previously in this place, the changes in the consequential and transitional bills focus on addressing the highest-volume caseloads within the tribunal and the most complex consequential amendments. Additionally, they also make simple but essential reference changes. In late 2022, the Albanese government announced its decision to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new federal administrative review body, both a necessary and a significant reform.

By appointing as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merit based selection process—including some individuals with no relevant experience or expertise—the former government fatally compromised the AAT, undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making.

The Albanese government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays, that had an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications and that is operating multiple ageing electronic case management systems. This is, of course, the legacy of the former government's mismanagement of the amalgamation of the AAT with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. This comes with the very real cost to the tens of thousands of people who rely on the AAT each year to independently review government decisions that have major, and sometimes life-altering, impacts for them. These are decisions such as whether an older Australian receives an age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for a service injury or whether a participant of the NDIS receives funding for essential support.

The Attorney-General announced that the design of the new body would be the subject of consultation that began in early 2023. This government has also made clear that AAT cases that are on foot when the AAT is abolished will be transitioned to the new body automatically.

Our government is committed to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review. At a time when we see research suggesting that there is very little faith in government institutions, it is very important that we are able to do what we can to restore that trust and confidence and make sure that our system of administrative review has the faith of our communities.

The work we're doing in order to do this will begin with the establishment of a new administrative review body that is user focused, that is efficient, that is accessible, that is independent and that is fair. A key aspect of this new body will be a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of non-judicial members. Again, I remind the House of the contrast in this model to the previous model set up by the former government, who appointed as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates. This was without any merit based selection process. Of course, when this is the case, it's little wonder people would question the decision-making that emerges from such a body.

The bill before us today is our government's implementation of our commitment to establish a new federal administrative review body. The new body will be called the Administrative Review Tribunal, and it will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This bill builds on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation to establish a tribunal that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. Importantly, this bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee review into the performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system, four recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the government response to two recommendations from the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System.

The tribunal's objective will be to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just and that resolves applications in a timely manner. It will do this with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision. It will be accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties. It will improve the transparency and quality of decision-making. It will promote public trust and confidence in the tribunal, which is fundamental. The tribunal incorporates key features to improve merits review, including simpler and more consistent processes and an emphasis on non-adversarial approaches to resolving applications. It also incorporates a suite of powers and procedures to respond flexibly to changing case loads and help resolve cases more efficiently and effectively. It will have a simple membership structure, with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions for each level of membership.

One of the most important aspects will be to incorporate a transparent and merit based appointment process for members, which, of course, to remind the House again, contrasts with how those opposite went about things in the past. This will also be informed by the operational needs of the tribunal to ensure only the highest-quality members are appointed to these important roles—again, an aspect of this bill which I hope will be instructive for those opposite.

The ART Bill also has mechanisms to identify, escalate and report on systemic issues in administrative decision-making, including the re-establishment of the Administrative Review Council. The council will monitor the integrity of the Commonwealth administrative review system, inquire into systemic challenges in administrative law and support education and training for Commonwealth officials in administrative decision-making and administrative law.

The bill also establishes for the first time a guidance and appeals panel within the tribunal to resolve matters raising systemic issues and review tribunal decisions that may be affected by error. The guidance and appeals panel would provide a mechanism for escalating significant issues and addressing material errors in tribunal decisions. This would promote consistent tribunal decision-making and rapid responses to emerging issues both within the tribunal and from government departments and agencies.

Finally, the bill enables the tribunal to publish any decisions, subject to de-identifying and redacting sensitive information, and requires it to publish all decisions involving significant conclusions of law or with implications for Commonwealth policy or administration.

The stacking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the former government was quite remarkable and quite outrageous. Again, we know that many former Liberal MPs, candidates, staffers and associates were piled into plum jobs within the AAT.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have the shadow minister.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing order 75, irrelevance or tedious repetition. The member has had multiple goes at the Liberal Party, and I think it's time to move on.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will call the honourable member for Chisholm. She will be relevant.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Always. And thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I think it is really important for our communities to understand why this change is being made, why it was necessary that it be made and why our government is doing all we can to restore trust in institutions like the Administrative Review Tribunal. So, while it may pain those opposite to be reminded of some of the very egregious decisions made while they had the gift of government, I think it's really important to bring attention to that in this place, so that our communities understand what we're doing and so that they will hopefully be able to trust the system where before they were betrayed. I have already referenced the fact that decisions of the AAT have life-changing impacts for thousands of Australians, which again is why I think it does bear repeating why it is so important that we are making these changes, and to give context to our communities as to why this bill is before the House today.

From people with a disability seeking support through the NDIS to vulnerable families trying to get the right social security payments, Australians count on administrative review systems to get a fair hearing. That's why we are making this change today. We don't want to see huge backlogs out of control, with people waiting months or even years for a review of a decision. I'm pleased that our government cares about Australians who are struggling. We care about people's right to a fair and independent process and we care about people being able to have faith in a system that they can trust. That's why we wasted no time when we came into office in starting to fix the mess we were left with. The legislation that the Attorney-General introduced in December last year was developed in consultation with people who use the system every single day. It is so important that we listen to people who use this system all the time.

We are replacing the old system with a new administrative review body that is efficient, accessible, independent, fair and fit for purpose. I think our commitment to a better system is already on display, with more than 100 new appointments made through a merit based process. These bills are really important to our communities. They represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review in decades. Effective administrative review is critical to our system of government, and our communities deserve to know that the government takes this responsibility really seriously. This is a way for community members to seek independent review of government decisions that have major impacts on people's lives. As the Attorney-General has already stated in this place, this function is absolutely critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organisations, including the most vulnerable members of our community. I'm very proud to speak in support of this today.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to stand here and speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023. When we had the federal election in 2022, the Australian public said to us decision-makers here that they wanted to see more integrity in our government and in our institutions. That is the core of what this bill does.

Effective administration is not merely a duty; it is actually a responsibility and it is central to our system of governance. When our administrative systems fail, we fail our citizens and we fail in our obligations to democracy. The truth is that a robust democracy is one of the things that makes this country a great place. When we fail in our responsibility to serve people that elect us, we know who suffers: it is people. And we know that the former Liberal government fell dismally short in this regard. They neglected to uphold a system critical to our democratic principles and international obligations. The backlog in our administrative review system, which has meant that people have been denied access to a fair and impartial hearing, is an example of this. They failed to respect institutions and the responsibility of government. The former Prime Minister and his multiple ministries was the absolute epitome of this, showing a disgraceful disregard for the principles on which our system of government was founded and operates on—a system that I am proud of and that I am here to uphold.

Let's talk about the specifics of the bill. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established in 1976. It was meant to provide fair hearings for individuals affected by government decisions. It was to provide an avenue for people to review the decisions made by the primary decision-maker. When we think about just processes, it makes sense to have an independent organisation to review decisions that a body makes. However, over time, under the governance of the Liberals and its decision-making process, it became ineffective and inefficient. This was because the Liberals did not care about fairness and impartiality. They did not care about the impact of executive decisions on the people in this country. All they cared about was jobs for the boys and, less often, occasionally, for the girls.

The AAT became, under the Liberals, a retirement village for failed liberal staffers and failed liberal politicians, of which there were many. The former government appointed as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates and former Liberal staffers. They were appointed without any fair selection process based on merit. What did this do to the AAT? It seriously undermined its independence. It was a plum job in retirement, and the Liberal appointed AAT members failed in their duty to maintain any form of efficient decision-making. This poor administration had serious consequences for many Australians. It's disappointing, but unsurprising, given the track record of the Liberals as they operated under the previous administration. It was so disappointing, when we considered the origins of the AAT and what it was initially set up to achieve.

Further, in talking about this bill, we must not forget the vision behind the establishment of the AAT. It was an remarkable innovation aimed at providing accessible and impartial reviews of government decisions affecting everyday Australians. I refer to comments made by the esteemed Justice Kirby, who looks back fondly on those times. He describes how the Gorton, McMahon and Whitlam governments had begun to move toward securing the enactment of the mosaic of legislation which would truly revolutionise administrative law at the federal level in Australia. The initiative of the Whitlam government in establishing the AAT was part of a broader movement toward securing the enactment of legislation revolutionising administrative law.

It was a great time for change. It was a time when laws were passed to dismantle discriminatory policies, like the White Australia policy, and to establish groundbreaking legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act. It was at the same time that the Whitlam government established Medicare and provided expanded higher education to more people, particularly women.

Justice Kirby, who was chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1975, was there at the birth of the AAT. He described it as 'an exciting time' for administrative law. I don't know many people who are excited by administrative law, but, then again, I don't know many lawyers who would get as excited about the periodic table or collision theory as I do!

What we do have in common is that when Justice Kirby says, 'All sound law and policy should be based, so far as possible, on sound data'—I love that statement. Data driven decision-making is really important, and we need to make sure that we make decisions on sound, justified bases. It shows that there is not such a divide between science and policymaking. And how perfect it is that I come across Justice Kirby's comments during the week of Science Meets Parliament festivities, which we are all enjoying this week. I know there are a lot of scientists in the Great Hall right now talking about data driven decision-making.

If we look at the data when it comes to the AAT, we see a problem, and we need a solution. The functioning of the AAT has been subject to scrutiny showing that the status quo was not working. The current operation of the AAT was undermining public trust in effective public administration. This bill will implement the recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System.

The inquiry by the Senate committee found that the migration review division, the largest AAT division, cannot address the significant volume of legacy cases and the continuing number of new applications without better resourcing and case management. The committee was concerned that such a backlog of cases was taking years to finalise and that these delays have real-world impacts on applicants who have no certainty about the future for them and their family. And when we say the word 'applicants', we're fundamentally talking about people—and that's what this democracy is fundamentally about; it's about people.

I want to talk about this particular point raised by the committee. Only last week, while back in the electorate of Swan, I met with Associate Professor Mary Anne Kenny at the School of Law of Murdoch University. Mary Anne is a well-respected advocate and an independent adviser in the area of refugee and immigration law. She has a special interest in the intersection of mental health and refugee law. Mary Anne is also associated with the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University, which is in my electorate. Mary Anne has acted on behalf of many unaccompanied minors seeking protection in Australia. So when she came to speak to me with her colleague Professor Caroline Fleay I was really interested to hear their thoughts on this bill and how it will make a difference to the migration system she had been involved in for so many years.

We discussed the impact of the failed migration system and the cumbersome and dysfunctional administration of migration under the Liberal government on the lives of those living in limbo for so many years. I talked firsthand with two individuals who had suffered at the hands of a dysfunctional system. They're suffering mental health issues because of years of uncertainty. I appreciate their bravery and courage in presenting a face to the issue we're discussing today.

Today, as we address the erosion of one of these key initiatives by the previous government, we must acknowledge the voices of those directly affected by the administrative failures. I know for sure that the situation is not what the Whitlam government envisaged when they established the AAT. It was about protecting people from the abuse of power. And we have many things to thank the Whitlam government for. The initiative of the Whitlam government in establishing the AAT was part of a broader movement towards securing the enactment of legislation and revolutionising administrative law in Australia. It was a time of great change and a time when laws such as the discriminatory policies like the White Australia policy were passed, as well as the establishment of groundbreaking legislation like the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill before us today is a step towards rectifying the shortcomings that evolved under the watch of the Liberals. It will ensure that our administrative systems are not merely retirement villages for failed politicians but, rather, functional entities designed to actually serve people, designed to protect people, designed to provide an avenue for review, designed to function as they were meant to function. This bill is the result of careful consideration incorporating the recommendations of various committees and inquiries, including the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee and the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. It shows that it's not rushed, it's not hurried, it's not ill thought out. It's well considered, it's well drafted and it's well intentioned. It's responsive to the failures of the past.

That's why it's important that we can all contribute to this important debate. It reaffirms our commitment to providing a simple, affordable and accessible system for the review of government decisions. It's a testament to our dedication to upholding democratic principles. It's a testament to ensuring our accountability in decision-making. It's a testament to Labor's principles to make systems accessible to all: impartiality, fairness and equity. These are all principles that I stand by. These are principles that the Labor Party stands by. In conclusion, I urge all members of the parliament to support these bills. I commend the bills to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2023 would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and much improved body, the Administrative Review Tribunal. In doing so, these bills represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades. A strong user-focused administrative review body provides an avenue for community members to seek independent review of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives.

The government recognises the importance of setting up the new tribunal with the best chance of success and has continued to listen and respond to stakeholder feedback throughout the parliamentary debate. The amendments I will move shortly respond to suggestions raised through the parliamentary scrutiny process, including by civil society stakeholders. Importantly, these amendments would strengthen requirements for merit based appointments, require a statutory review and reinstate second review for social security matters where two-tier review currently exists before the AAT. The amendments underscore the key objective of the reform, which is to deliver an independent review that is as quick, accessible and trauma informed as is consistent with reaching a correct or preferable decision.

The bills and amendments were formulated following detailed consultation with affected agencies across the Commonwealth and with guidance from the Administrative Review Expert Advisory Group. This consultation has continued after the introduction of the bills. The government also worked closely with the AAT in developing these amendments and consulted key external stakeholders in the legal assistance and legal aid sectors, particularly services focusing on social security matters on the overall policy settings. I express my thanks to all stakeholders who have engaged in the process of developing these bills and the amendments. Their contributions have greatly strengthened this important legislation.

These bills represent a vital, urgent reform that will have a real and lasting benefit for the lives of thousands of Australians. We have heard a lot from the opposition in this debate about the need for delay. What we haven't heard is any reason to oppose this reform. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has unanimously recommended that the bills pass this place. I urge the parliament to swiftly pass these urgent, critical reforms.

In conclusion, this legislation presents an opportunity to significantly improve Australia's administrative review system, a key pillar of our democracy. It will play a vital role in protecting the rights and interests of members of the community, ensuring that government and the Public Service act within the bounds of the law. It will lead to better government and better government decision-making. Above all, it will restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of merits review. I commend the bill to the House.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. As a division is required, in accordance with standing order 133, the division will be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.