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

I want to run through some points about the problems we're now dealing with in this bill, which is all about fixing the case load blowouts, which I've referred to previously during the committee stage on this bill, and the backlogs that have been created through the rushed and sloppy introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. I want to quickly run through these points again for the record because I think they're very important.

The last annual report published before the Attorney decided to abolish the AAT was the 2021-22 annual report. Minister, I've raised this during estimates on previous occasions. Before the Attorney announced that he was going to abolish the AAT, the last annual report that had been published by the AAT was for the financial year ending 30 June 2022. From my perspective, and I think from the perspective of any reasonable analysis of that report, the annual report indicated that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was working hard to either meet or exceed its benchmarks. I referred earlier in the debate to user satisfaction. That isn't just the user satisfaction of the parties appearing but also the user satisfaction of their representatives. The user satisfaction rate to 30 June 2022 was 74 per cent—above the target of 70 per cent. That is quite an extraordinary figure when you think about it, because the users we're talking about here are those everyday Australians who are seeking review of decisions that have great consequence in relation to their lives. They're decisions in relation to the NDIS, Veterans' Affairs, child support payments—all sorts of extremely important decisions that have an impact on their lives, and 74 per cent of users were actually satisfied with the performance of the AAT. The AAT outperformed its user satisfaction target of 70 per cent—so 74 per cent satisfaction against a target of 70 per cent—and it continued to outperform the target in the 2022-23 financial year. It continued to perform positively in that respect. As I recollect, the user satisfaction of practitioners who were supporting users of the system was even higher than that of the users themselves. So for those who had more experience in dealing with matters before tribunals there was an even greater user satisfaction rate. So the AAT outperformed the target for the 2021-22 year.

It continued to outperform the target in the 2022-23 financial year, and, in that financial year—in that same year—just 1.3 per cent of appeals were allowed from all appealable decisions from the AAT. If one were to accept the narrative of the Labor government, that figure should not have been 1.3 per cent; it should have been much higher. But only 1.3 per cent of appeals were allowed. In other words, of the cases that went to the AAT in that year, in 98.7 per cent of cases the matter was resolved in the way the AAT said it should be resolved. To me, that is not a hallmark of an institution or a tribunal that is not fit for purpose. From my perspective, it's the hallmark of an institution that is fit for purpose and is performing well.

Let's look at some of the other performance measures. In relation to transparency, in the financial year to 30 June 2022 the AAT exceeded its performance benchmark of 5,000 decisions published. So there was transparency with respect to the decision-making processes of the AAT. It continued to exceed those benchmarks in the 2022-23 financial year. In relation to decision-making quality, in 2021-22 the proportion of appeals allowed by the courts was below that benchmark of five per cent, and the AAT continued to meet that threshold in the 2022-23 financial year.

We've spoken about backlog, and we've spoken about the need for there to be efficiency. So let's look at clearance ratios. In 2021-22 the AAT fell just short of its target, due primarily to the sudden jump in post-COVID lodgements. Having been at 119 per cent clearance ratio the year before, in 2021-22 it dropped to 95 per cent in the face of a sudden surge in lodgements. The number of lodgements dropped off significantly in 2022-23, and the AAT was then back to the position of finalising more cases than were in fact lodged. So it was actually turning over more cases than were being lodged, quite opposite to what is occurring today under the ART, where the backlog is growing by thousands and thousands of cases.

In terms of sheer output, the number of AAT applications and referrals finalised, the AAT reached 90 per cent of its target in the year 2021-22 in terms of cases finalised. Again, this was despite continued disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic such as lockdowns and other restrictions affecting operations in various locations during the reporting year. I must say, as a member of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, that we were—at least, I was—consistently impressed by the workarounds that were adopted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by the registry and by the members of the tribunal. They worked very very effectively during that COVID-19 period.

In 2022-23, after the pandemic, the output target was reduced, and the AAT met that target. We, on this side of the chamber, do not say the AAT was a perfect body, but what is? Have a look at annual reports for any government agency—any tribunal—have a look at user satisfaction rates and find me a perfect body. You won't be able to find one.

The timeliness of decision-making remains a concern under the ART. This is driven by a range of factors including complex legacy migration cases from many thousands of unlawful arrivals during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor years of government.

These are not performance measures of a body so badly underperforming that the only possible option is to wipe the slate clean and start again. I believe there was a case for appropriate amendments and reforms to be made with respect to the operation of the AAT. It was not a case where the slate needed to be wiped clean.

Fast forward from May 2023 to today and we have increased delays. So, Minister, I ask you again: how does this bill, which is meant to fix your rushed and sloppy legislation, specifically address any of these concerns, in particular with respect to increased delays?

Progress reported.