Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the two related consequential and transitional provisions bills. I commence my address to the Senate by posing this question: what is the price of a dirty deal between the Attorney-General of Australia—who, prior to the election, took it upon himself to spruik transparency from the highest mountain at every opportunity—and the Australian Greens? The bad news for the Australian taxpayer is that I can actually answer that question for you. How much do you think a dirty deal to put through a bill of this nature—an incredibly complicated bill, which has not yet been properly scrutinised by the Australian Senate, despite our role as the house of review—would actually cost the Australian taxpayer?

Bear in mind, colleagues, that there is a cost-of-living crisis that the Australian taxpayer is currently experiencing under the Albanese government, yet those on the other side constantly say, 'We are putting in place the following cost-of-living measures,' and the Australian Greens cannot help, every time they stand up, talking about what they would do if they were in government. What is the price of a dirty deal between the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus, and the Australian Greens to push through a pet project of his? Senator Cadell, you were saying it would be a few million dollars? I'll be honest with you, in a cost-of-living crisis, I would have also said it couldn't be more than a few million dollars, yet last night, when the budget papers were delivered, all you needed to do was open up the relevant budget paper and you would see that the price of the dirty deal—wait for it, Australian taxpayers, because you are paying for it—is $1 billion.

The bill that we have before us is a $1 billion bill. So I say to all of the small-business people out there, to all of the hardworking Australians who pay tax, to all of the other business people in medium businesses and large businesses: for getting out of bed every day and for going to work and doing what we need you to do, which is prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, this bill represents a billion dollars of your money. The question that you have to ask yourself is this: for a billion-dollar Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus special, what do you actually get? I ask myself the same question. There are two simple questions. One is, 'What did Australians have before these bills?' The other is, 'What do they get afterwards?' This bill will go through tomorrow under a guillotine. Bang! The government and the Greens will stop debate. There will be no scrutiny, and it will be pushed through: one billion dollars with no scrutiny. The questions are: what did Australians have before these bills and what do they get afterwards?

In the first instance, before these bills, Australians had what is known as an 'administrative tribunal' that reviewed government decisions. After the billion-dollar deal between the government and the Australian Greens, what Australians get is an administrative tribunal that reviews government decisions. Hold on! Did I write that incorrectly? No, I didn't. What they have now is what they actually get after this bill goes through. That is a $1 billion imposition on the Australian taxpayer for the same system to be implemented but by a different government. Secondly, before these bills, Australian could apply for a merits review of a government decision that affected them. Afterwards, Australians can apply for a merits review of a decision that affects them. The only difference is this: you will pay much, much more for it. So far, I'm not sure the Australian taxpayer is getting a billion dollars worth of changes.

Before these bills we had a body of tribunal members, roughly half of whom were appointed by a Labor government. Afterwards—and this is where Mr Dreyfus's billion dollars actually gets him a bit of bang for his buck. Before these bills we had a body of tribunal members, roughly half of whom were appointed by a Labor government. Guess what you get for a billion dollars, colleagues? You get a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. I would have said, 'Forget everything else—bang, straight in with Labor.' A billion dollars, and that's what you get—a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. I have to say congratulations to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus for everything he said prior to the election on transparency. For everything you are saying now, in terms of criticisms of the former coalition government, well done. You have delivered a body that does the same thing, and Australians can still do the same thing in relation to the body, but the difference is the composition changes. For a billion dollars you get a body appointed entirely by a Labor government.

I really hope some journos might actually look at these bills and might actually question why the Australian Greens and the Labor government would spend a billion dollars to get a body that is entirely appointed by the Labor government. You'd be forgiven for thinking this may be one of most expensive rebrandings of a public service body in Australian history. As I said, it is a little ironic that the Australian Greens were big today, saying not enough cost-of-living relief had been given in last night's budget, yet they have joined with the government—bang, a billion dollars, quite possibly the most expensive rebranding of a public service body in Australian political history. Seriously! I hope journos pick up the phone to their offices and say: 'Why do you on one hand say there is not enough cost-of-living relief? On another, it's a billion-dollar name change.' Seriously!

In terms of the coalition's views on the bills, we've always said we are not opposed in principle to reforms to Australia's system of administrative review. I said when I was in government that there are areas where there is absolutely a legitimate need for reform and that improvements could be made. When you look at the context in terms of what the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does, it is a body that provides reviews of government decisions made under about 400 different pieces of Commonwealth legislation. This is an incredibly complex body. By necessity its remit is complex, wide ranging and reaches into virtually all portfolios. As I said, we have always been upfront. We are not opposed to changes. But, I tell you, not properly scrutinising this body and not properly unpacking the billion dollars—the Australian Greens have decided, 'It's a billion dollars, it's taxpayers' money; we're more than happy to guillotine it and put it through.' I have a problem with that.

The question I now have for every Australian taxpayer who is thinking of voting Green or thinking of voting Labor, for every mum and dad out there who is going to have to stretch to pay their car insurance, their mortgage insurance, for their food when they walk into the supermarket, their gas bill or their electricity bill—how is that $300 going for you? 'The $300—seriously! It was about 18 months ago that I needed that.' Do you think it is worth $1 billion of your money to establish a new body that does the same thing as the old one? I would have thought the answer to that question is quite possibly 'no'.

When you look at where the money is coming from, the budget papers tell us some of it comes from the existing appropriation of the AAT, some of it will be paid for out of the court fees the government charges you to go to court and some of it—this is the interesting bit for anyone listening in—will be from the NDIA, Veterans' Affairs and Social Services. Remember, the budget papers were handed down last night. Quite frankly, I'd be calling the Australian Greens and saying, 'Hold on, I thought you were meant to be standing up for us, and yet you are prepared to utilise money coming from the NDIA, Veterans Affairs and Social Services to pay for a billion-dollar vanity project by the Attorney-General of Australia.' If you're a veteran or a person with a disability, or someone—like so many Australians every single day, millions and millions—who has to deal with Centrelink or Medicare, I really hope you think the service that you are getting from these government agencies is good enough that the Labor government, Mr Albanese, and the Attorney-General of Australia, Mr Dreyfus, can afford to take money away from them to build a shiny new tribunal. That is a huge portion in new funding.

We can explore the dirty deal, because I think it is very important. Perhaps Senator Larissa Waters would like to explain to the Australian parliament and to the taxpayer why it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a shiny new bauble—the tribunal—rather than on women fleeing domestic violence? Senator Watt, the question I have on behalf of Western Australians is this: why are we spending more money on a shiny new tribunal than we are on the transition for live sheep exports? For Senator Pocock, how many more affordable houses could have been built in the ACT but for this new tribunal? As people know, governments have to make decisions about where their priorities lie. The government stands up every day and says to the Australian taxpayer, 'We know you are doing it tough.' What they forget to say to them is, '… because of the decisions that we have made since we came into government.' How does it then stand here today—a dirty deal done with the Australian Greens to rush this bill through with little or no scrutiny; it will go through with a whole lot of other bills tomorrow under a guillotine? It's $1 billion for a shiny new bauble.

I was reflecting on the meaning of the word 'folly' in the English language. 'Folly' has two meanings. The first is 'a lack of good sense, or foolishness'. That is the term that most people, if you say you are going on a frolic, or a folly, would know—a lack of good sense, or foolishness. The other is a term that is sometimes used in architecture. It describes a costly, extravagant building constructed primarily for decoration but suggesting some other grand or transcendental purpose. Let's face it, there is a very real risk that, in passing these bills, the Senate is committing to a folly in both senses of the word.

What I worry about is, in particular, the lack of scrutiny in relation to this bill. If I look at the process to date, a process is important, because in the Australian Senate we are the house of review on behalf of the millions and millions of Australians. They expect us to do their jobs. Let me very quickly tell you, in the remaining time, that the Attorney-General of Australia has, we know, an obsession with transparency. What transparency actually means when it comes to the Attorney-General of Australia is secrecy and avoiding scrutiny. I think that is now almost an accepted fact.

The three bills here have 692 pages of new primary legislation, 760 pages of explanatory materials. The changes affect something like 248 Commonwealth acts. The decisions we make on this bill will directly affect the 67,000 cases—or around that—that are currently afoot before the AAT. Yet we had this bizarre and truncated sham committee process. I won't even bother to discuss the con job that happened in the House of Representatives.

Let's have a look at this. In the Senate, we have had just six hours and 55 minutes of committee hearings, per the program set out by the government. That is less than a single average workday to scrutinise a $1 billion project. This means the committee has spent less than 40 seconds per page. Senator Scarr knows this because he did an outstanding job on this committee, and he will speak on this bill shortly. But 40 seconds per page? You're a fast reader, Senator Scarr. On behalf of the Australian taxpayer, good on you. But what a complete joke. This is a process that has not been conducted in good faith. It makes a mockery of our committee system and simply highlights the utterly cynical and contemptuous approach the government and parts of the crossbench have taken on this issue. It is a sham and quite frankly it deserves to be treated as such.