Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source

I mean, what can I say? Labor, what are you doing? This is an example of the modern era. Call me old-fashioned but, when I was growing up, my mother and my grandmother used to teach me to repair and recycle. Indeed, that is an ethos that many in this day and age are trying to get society back to. People are railing against fast fashion, people want to reduce unnecessary waste and, importantly in this age of cost-of-living pressures, people want to reduce spending. But not this Labor government—no. They are happy to throw out the old to bring in the new without even knowing whether the new will actually be better or not. It's like having that comfy old couch that you've moved from house to house. You know it's comfortable, but it's starting to look a bit worn. Instead of reupholstering it at a fraction of the cost, Labor are taking it to the tip and then rushing off to Harvey Norman for a bright new one without even sitting on it first to see if it's appropriate. That is the waste we are seeing with the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024.

Let's look at what we're doing today. We had an Administrative Appeals Tribunal that conducted independent merits reviews of administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments. According to their website, the most common reviews related to some of the most sensitive issues we have in our society: child support, workers compensation, family assistance including paid parental leave and social security matters, taxation, migration and veterans' entitlements. And they worked. In the 2022-23 financial year, according to their annual report, the AAT published 5,000 decisions, but that was just the published matters. They handed down 21,625 decisions, and they finalised 42,862 matters before them in just one 12-month period. They had a clearance ratio of 104 per cent. That's 100 per cent plus four—more than 100 per cent. In fact, in the last financial year, the AAT met or bettered five out of the six measurable outputs. To me, over 100 per cent is like a high distinction or a merit or an A plus or something. Yet, despite this track record, the Labor government are taking it to the tip so they can build a whole new, bright, shiny Administrative Review Tribunal which will conduct independent merits reviews of administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments. What? That's right: 'We had an operating AAT, but now we're going to spend a billion dollars to establish an ART.' That's a billion dollars for a new letterhead, probably a fancy new logo and a new appointments process. 'But, surely,' the people watching along at home are saying to themselves, 'the government has justification for this spend. There's got to be more to it.' Ordinarily, you would think that a decision to abolish such a body would be based on poor performance, but I've just outlined that that is not the case here.

We've also heard, and some of my colleagues have mentioned, that there is concern from the government that some of the appointments to the AAT had—wait for it—associations with the coalition. Shock horror—that someone with an understanding of politics may also have the skills required to participate on the AAT! The old AAT had some 340 members. Some were working full time. Most were working part time. Of those, 160 were appointed—since this government came into play—by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. About 180 were appointed prior to the 2022 election, and, according to Labor's talking points, as many as 85 of those were associated with the coalition. Dreadful!

Apparently, when the old AAT was abolished, the 160 members appointed by the current Attorney-General were retained to carry on existing work. The remaining 180 members are not guaranteed an ongoing appointment. Why not? Are they not qualified? Let's see. Of those on the uncertain list, as my colleague said earlier, we have people with doctorates in law and with master's degrees from some of the world's leading universities. We have decorated military officers, public service medallists, police officers, lawyers and people who have served on state or territory tribunals. Tell me they're not qualified. I can't see that they're not qualified—but hang on. Sorry, I forgot maybe they have been associated with the coalition. Well, excuse me.

When I read that, I shared the concern, but then I went to the Australian Public Service Commission, just to check. According to the APSC website:

6.4.3 Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination against a person on the ground of political opinion.

To be fair, the Public Service Commission does counsel about having regard to potential conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the expression of opinion on social media, and it urges caution. But it also says:

6.4.1 APS employees may participate in political activities as part of normal community affairs. They may also join, or hold office in, political parties.

Commonwealth public servants can even stand for and be elected to local government office. If they run for this venerable place—as we know from the former constitutional crisis—they can't hold a public service office while campaigning after the issuing of the writs or as they sit in this place, if they are successful, but doing so cannot preclude them from being considered for a future role in the APS once their candidature or political tenure has ceased. So, if it's okay for public servants to have political associations—you can't tell me that membership of a political party or running for a political party is not association—then why does an association preclude someone from being appointed to the ART in the future? Or is it only those with a conservative association? Ponder that.

Let's not forget that, back in February last year, Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, announced a review of all public sector board appointments, claiming that they were going to restore merit to the process and stop political allies from being handed lucrative positions. Maybe I won't mention the appointment of Minister for Trade and Tourism Don Farrell's mate to a trade and investment commissioner role and Australian Consul-General San Francisco role last year, or the fact that that said mate was a former Labor senator who went on to be a Labor staffer who didn't apply for the role he was appointed to—and was appointed over and above a senior female public servant with years of experience in a relevant portfolio. No, I won't mention that, because Labor don't believe in appointing people with political associations to run for plum roles.

Let's actually look at what we have before us. We've got three bills to formalise the abolishment of a system to provide a merits review process and to formalise the establishment of a system to provide a merits review process, at a cost of $1 billion. We've got three bills that will establish the Administrative Review Tribunal that will review decisions in relation to over 400 Commonwealth acts—basically, across nearly every Commonwealth portfolio—that have had woefully short scrutiny. The Labor-dominated Senate committee that scrutinised these three bills spent less than a whole working day scrutinising the bills.

This lack of transparency and scrutiny is from a government that promised a new age of openness and transparency and yet, in practice, is expert in secrecy and avoiding proper scrutiny. The rushing of this and the lack of scrutiny are reminiscent of—what did we see tabled on Monday?—the 'how not to answer questions on notice' manifesto which was provided by the Prime Minister's office to every Public Service department. As to this government, their modus operandi, their lack of openness and their lack of transparency, we've heard from Senator Shoebridge and Senator Roberts—and they're not two people who are usually singing off the same hymn sheet, but we've heard from both of them tonight that the scrutiny of these bills has been clearly and woefully inadequate.

I want to thank and commend my colleague Paul Scarr who, on that committee, put in a power of work, as well as extra work in his own time, and his contribution tonight showed just how deeply he understands this issue. His concerns about the attacks by the Attorney-General on the existing AAT are shared by all of us on this side. Senator Scarr's concerns about the majority report—which conveniently ignores much of the evidence that was provided to the committee and which recommends passing these bills—are shared by all of us on this side. And those concerns alone should be enough for these bills not to be supported by this chamber.

Added to that, there's the waste—the sheer and utter waste—of spending a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to abolish a functioning body and replace it with effectively the same body, just with new appointees. We'd better run a microscope over those new appointees and make sure not one of them has had any association with the Labor Party. If that is our measure—that you can't have an association with a political party—we'd better run a microscope over the new appointments. A billion dollars was spent on new letterhead, a new logo and new appointments.

Was the previous AAT perfect? Probably not, but it could probably have been reviewed and repaired, for far less upheaval, far less risk and far less cost than what will be achieved by passing these bills in this place. So, for the sake of Australian taxpayers and for the sake of sensible government, we cannot pass these bills tonight. Let's go back to review and repair.