David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, isn't it true that some of the reasons why a majority in this place voted to abolish the coalition's fast-track system, the IAA, were that it was not required to observe even minimum standards of procedural fairness; that people didn't have a right to a hearing to present their protection claims; that fast-track decisions were generally based on a paper review of only the information the department held; that most people were only allowed to provide a maximum of a five-page submission despite having voluminous materials—which they were prohibited from presenting—that in most cases they were required to provide that submission within three weeks from the date their case was referred to the fast-track system from the department, despite the fact the fast-track system often then took two years to make the decision; and that people were generally prohibited from providing new information about their protection claims to the coalition's unfair fast-track proposal, again despite the fact that this so-called fast-track system often took up to two years? Isn't it also true, Minister, that one of the reasons the fast-track process was shambolic and worked against many of its perceived efficiency benefits was that it was so riddled with legal error that, in the period from 2020 to the middle of 2024, there were over 460 fast-track decisions that were overturned by the Federal Court because of legal error? Isn't it true that these were just some of the reasons why the coalition's pretend solution of fast track was not supported by a majority of members in this chamber?