Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

We're in a situation here where we're seeking to appropriately scrutinise an amendment bill. The reason we're going through this process of scrutiny is that there was inadequate scrutiny in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. I previously read onto the record the issues with respect to the lack of scrutiny that were raised by the Law Council of Australia during the scrutiny process.

I've also previously referred to the fact that the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to the ART Bill, which was originally due in early July, was brought forward at the behest of the executive by a period of approximately two months. The opposition members on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee had barely one clear day to consider the government report in relation to that bill. As I've previously put on the record, we're talking about a bill that had over 500 pages of detailed, complex sections and concepts, with explanatory material also of over 500 pages.

It is my desire, and certainly the opposition's desire, that we undertake an appropriate scrutiny process with respect to this amendment bill to make sure that we're not back here again in another six or 12 months trying to fix some other error. We in the opposition make no apology for the fact that we're actually engaging and implementing the scrutiny processes of the Senate to make sure there is appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. If we'd had appropriate scrutiny of the legislation in the first place, we wouldn't be in a position where we had to consider this bill, but that's where we are. We have to try to fix a bill that was rushed through a shambolic legislative process, which was heavily criticised by a number of the key stakeholders, so the opposition makes no apology for engaging the scrutiny processes of the Senate.

In relation to High Court decisions, Minister, Senator Shoebridge referred in his earlier contribution to the way that the amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act responded to a High Court decision. Can I please take you back to that discussion, because I want to query whether or not that evidence is consistent with what we heard during the committee process. As I understand it, some inquiry participants raised the question of whether or not the bill related to the then recent High Court decision in Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The relevant citation is [2024] HCA 13. As I talked—with all due respect—to Senator Shoebridge, that's how I interpreted the comment which he made, and I'm sure that if in any way I'm not giving justice to his comment or contribution he'll quickly correct the record. As I understand it—and it was certainly the case during the inquiry process—there was reference to a recent High Court decision in Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. But the Attorney-General's Department, in its submission, explained that the bill did not actually respond to that decision—or it didn't link the bill to that decision. That was specifically interrogated of the Attorney-General's Department. They were referred to that decision and they were asked as to whether or not the relevant changes in the bill were being proposed because of that decision.

So, for the benefit of the chamber today, Minister, I'd like us to be able to clear that up for the record. Could you please explain how the measures in this bill relate to the Miller decision, or is it the case that the measures in this bill do not in any way relate to the Miller decision?