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

I'm sure the minister is gratified that he has the opportunity to participate in a committee process in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024. By way of recommencement of the matters that we were discussing when we were previously in committee—we were looking at a number of matters—first, we were looking at the performance of the ART since it was stood up in October last year. In particular, we were looking at how the case backlog has actually worsened. It has gone backwards, rather than been improved, under the new legislation.

Another matter which we were looking at was the deeply concerning issue relating to the operation of section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, where public servants doing their job, faithfully, in the Department of Social Services who were involved in child support payments were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of material because of the way section 25 operated under the act or new documents had to be provided to the ART within 28 days—and there was no exception. This was causing major, major issues for the Department of Social Services, particularly in relation to material where the department was concerned. The public servants performing this very, very important task were concerned that unredacted material may cause or have the danger of causing issues in relation to family matters. I note that that issue had been ventilated.

We heard from the minister who was participating in the committee process at the time that the government became aware of this in July and August last year. The government became aware of the fact that public servants in the Department of Social Services were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of material because section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act wasn't fit for purpose. It wasn't fit for purpose because there were additional documents being added to those files on a regular basis, and all of that material had to be provided to the tribunal within 28 days. This was causing huge logistical issues. But this was not a matter which was explained or referred to by the government, although it was the express basis for the amendment contained in the bill. This was a matter which was brought to the opposition's attention by certain parties who were concerned by what they were seeing. So, when we as the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee sat to review this legislation, we had absolutely no idea that this issue was occurring and that section 25 was causing these problems.

As I said previously, I respect the fact that this matter doesn't fall within the usual portfolio responsibilities of the minister and he needs to rely on the advice of the Attorney in this regard. I also respect the fact that he has, in good faith, sought further information during the course of this committee process and provided that further information to us during the course of the committee process. I thank the minister—through you, Acting Deputy President—for that cooperation in that regard.

But it is deeply disturbing that such an important issue was left to linger from July or August last year to February 2025, where we now are. I say with due respect to the minister—through you, Acting Deputy President—that it is no answer to say that the opposition is causing further delay because we're simply taking advantage of the appropriate scrutiny processes of this chamber to properly scrutinise the bill. We've been in committee for perhaps 1½ hours or two hours, but you had seven months to fix this matter and bring it before the Senate so we could fix it, and the Albanese Labor government failed miserably to do that.

Minister, I would like to refer to some discussion we had previously in the committee process and to some answers which you gave during the committee process. For the benefit of the Hansard record, I would like to start by following up on some of the points that were made previously about the massive blowout in timeframes for the protection case load in the AAT. That blowout in case times was one of the many instances I refer to where the actual current performance of the ART has materially deteriorated compared to the performance of the AAT, on an objective consideration of the data. For those who weren't in the chamber, here is one example I gave, and I'll quote my previous comment:

I'll move on to another indicator with respect to whether or not the new ART is dealing quickly and fairly with cases that are coming before it, which was one of the aspirations of the Attorney when he introduced this reform—

'quickly and fairly', which I think the minister rightly referred to. I continue my quote:

If we look into the migration and protection case loads in particular, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a refugee matter was 113 weeks. The median time to finalise a protection matter under the Administrative Review Tribunal has now blown out to 232 weeks.

Here is the question I put to the minister:

Again, Minister, I ask you: What went wrong? Why has the timeline doubled?

Minister, you responded. Feel free to correct the record if I in any way misquote you, but the record of your response that I have is as follows:

Again, I disagree with your assessment on this, Senator Scarr. The work that the tribunal is doing is important. The Liberals left the AAT critically underfunded. We're still getting through the backlog that you left us. There are old cases that we inherited, and, indeed, thousands of the cases that we're dealing with are more than five years old.

What the minister failed to mention, of course, was that the rushed and sloppy legislation that was pushed through this place by the Attorney affected the repeal of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which was specifically designed as a fast-track process to deal with refugee cases. When the coalition left office, the median time for resolving a refugee case was 113 weeks, but, under the Albanese Labor government reforms, that timeframe has now blown out to more than four years. In light of the evidence, do you now concede, Minister, the important role that the Immigration Assessment Authority played in bringing down timeframes for resolving refugee issues?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a matter that was dealt with in the bill that was passed last year. We are obviously dealing with changes that are put forward in this legislation now, which are different matters.

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

Given that improving the performance of the then AAT with the new tribunal, the ART, was one of the core objectives of the bill, let me ask you about a comparison of the performance of the ART with that of the Immigration Assessment Authority. The Immigration Assessment Authority, the IAA, was tasked with the fast-track review of what are called fast-track reviewable decisions. As I understand it, these were generally decisions made by a delegate of the minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to a 'fast-track applicant'. A fast-track applicant is 'an unauthorised maritime arrival who entered Australia between 13 August 2012 and 31 December 2013 who has not been taken to an offshore processing country and has been permitted by the minister to make a protection visa application'. In short, they were the legacy case load that resulted from Labor's disastrous mismanagement of our borders under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Fast-track applicants who previously might have gone to the IAA are the cohort who would now fall in the protection case load of the ART. Is it correct that those matters which previously went to the IAA would now fall within the province of the ART?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's my understanding.

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

In terms of the functions of the immigration assessment authority, that was the body specifically tasked to deal with that massive blowout in protection visa claims that arose under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, when the Labor Party was previously in government. Based on the evidence I ran through earlier, we're now in almost exactly the same scenario in terms of the backlog of cases before, now, the ART but without the Immigration Assessment Authority to actually assist with processing that backlog. Is that correct?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; I missed the point of the question.

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

I will repeat the question. In terms of the functions of the IAA—that was the body that was specifically tasked to deal with the massive blowout in protection visa claims that arose during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—based on the evidence I ran through earlier, we're now in almost exactly the same scenario in terms of case backlog, but we don't now have the IAA to assist with processing those claims. The IAA no longer exists to assist with processing that backlog of claims. Is that correct?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is correct that the Senate voted to abolish the IAA last year when they voted for the establishment of the new ART.

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

I also wanted to refer to the objectives of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which were set out in section 473FA of the Migration Act, until the ART bills were rushed through this chamber. That legislation made clear that, in carrying out its review functions, the Immigration Assessment Authority was required to provide a mechanism of limited review that was efficient, quick, free of bias, consistent with the procedural requirements set out in the Migration Act and independent of the minister and the Department of Home Affairs. I'll just repeat that. The objectives of the limited review to be undertaken by the IAA were to be efficient, quick, free of bias and consistent with the procedural requirements set out in the Migration Act and to be independent of the government.

Given that the wait times for protection visa matters to be processed by the ART have doubled since you took office, Minister, do you accept that that kind of quick, unbiased and independent process, which was previously offered by the Immigration Assessment Authority before it was abolished, could help the government address the unsustainable growth in its case load and that now is the particular time where we need the assistance of an IAA to assist with that backlog of cases?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr. As I've already answered, the Senate voted to abolish the IAA last year. This bill before the Senate is dealing with other issues. You have other opportunities if you want to pursue those questions on the IAA.

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

I note that the minister is almost referring to the Senator as some sort of autonomous body independent of government. The fact is that the government actually introduced the legislation, supported by the Greens, to abolish the Immigration Assessment Authority, and it was because the government had the numbers in the Senate that the Immigration Assessment Authority was abolished. This wasn't some passive act of the Senate. This was an act of the Albanese Labor government to introduce legislation into this place to actually abolish the Immigration Assessment Authority.

For the benefit of the Senate I refer to the fact that the current median time to finalise a protection matter in the ART is 233 weeks, more than four years. It now takes more than four years to finalise a protection matter in the ART. What was the median time, Minister, to finalise a protection matter in the IAA's jurisdiction before it was abolished? What was the median time at the end of the 2023-24 financial year?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not something I've been briefed on. Obviously we've established that the IAA was abolished last year when the original ART legislation went through. I dispute the fact that you're attempting to put here as cherry-picking numbers. I've detailed some of the reasons behind that in terms of the complexity of the cases that we're dealing with now and the increase in cases as well. Those points you're making have nothing to do with the bill that is before us tonight.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge, for that contribution. As I said, I don't believe we're here to talk about the IAA. The fact of the matter is that the Senate voted to abolish it last year upon the establishment of the new ART, and we believe that was the correct decision.

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

Minister, you referred to the fact that Immigration Assessment Authority was abolished by the Senate after the Albanese Labor government introduced the relevant legislation. I note that, for the 2023-24 financial year, the median time to finalise a protection matter in the Immigration Assessment Authority's jurisdiction before it was abolished was six weeks. It took six weeks for the IAA to resolve a matter, and that was as at the end of the 2023-24 financial year. Minister, do you know what the median time was to finalise a protection matter in the IAA during the 2022-23 financial year?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't been briefed on the IAA and their operations, Senator Scarr, because they're not relevant to this legislation.

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

The answer is nine weeks. Let's go back further. We have all this on the record. At the end of the 2023-24 financial year, the median time for the IAA to finalise a matter was six weeks. At the end of the 2022-23 financial year, it was nine weeks. Are you aware, Minister, of what the median time or the average time to finalise a protection matter in the IAA was during the 2021-22 financial year?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. As I said, I haven't been briefed on the operations of the IAA because they're not relevant to this legislation.

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

In that case, for the Hansard, if I can, I will put on the record that the answer is seven weeks. Again, that's from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal annual report. We had a six-week average in the 2023-24 financial year, a nine-week average in 2022-23, a seven-week average in 2021-23, and we now have a situation where the current median time to finalise a protection matter in the ART is 233 weeks, or more than four years. That's the state of affairs that we're facing at the moment under the ART.

Minister, the issue I have is this. When the coalition was in power, we set up the IAA as an independent authority of just one senior reviewer and 26 reviewers. That small team reviewed 1,077 protection cases in a single year, with a median time to finalise of just seven weeks. Under your current arrangements, the protection case load before the ART has increased massively, and the median time to finalise is now more than four years. The proof of concept is there. Did the government consider re-establishing fast-track review processes, which are obviously sorely needed? Given the blowout in processing times under the ART, did you consider re-establishing fast-track review processes either in the development of the ART legislation or in developing this amendment bill which is currently before the Senate?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not to my knowledge.

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

Minister, have you been briefed on the cost to the Commonwealth of defending, just in the two years 2021-22 and 2022-23, the more than 460 IAA decisions under the coalition's unfair Fast-Track that were challenged in the Federal Court, found to be unlawful and overturned? Do you know how many endless millions of dollars of Commonwealth money were wasted defending unlawful decisions from the unfair Fast-Track proposal put forward by the coalition? As I said, in just those two years, there were more than 460 decisions of the coalition's Fast-Track IAA process found to be unlawful and overturned.

If you have any idea about the millions of dollars the coalition wasted on legal costs defending the indefensible, do you also know how long it took, what the median time was, for the coalition to drag those cases through the Federal Court unsuccessfully? How many years was the median time was for the coalition to defend the indefensible in the Federal Court?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned earlier, I haven't been briefed on the operations of the IAA, but I accept the points you're making about the legal challenges that resulted in it. If there is further information I can provide, I will.

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

Minister, there's some further information I'd be interested in having, if you are able to provide it. You made a comment in relation to my previous question. Just for the record, I'll restate the previous question. Did the government consider re-establishing a fast-track review process, which is obviously sorely needed, on the basis of the backlog, either in the development of the ART legislation or the bill currently before the Senate? That was the question I asked.

Minister, I respect the answer you gave. You said that you weren't aware of any such matter being considered. Can I ask you, during the course of this committee process, if you can make inquiry through the advisers who are here and the relevant minister as to whether or not there was any such consideration of the implementation of that Fast-Track review process?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to.

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

Thank you, Minister. That's greatly appreciated. Let's look at performance. There were 880 appeals from an IAA decision lodged in 2021 to 2022. In 159 of those matters, the matter was remitted. That means that the decision doesn't necessarily change; it's remitted back for further consideration. There were just two cases in which the decision was actually set aside. I just want to repeat those figures. Senator Shoebridge has made comments in relation to the performance of the IAA and I think it is important to get this on the record. Of 880 appeals from an IAA matter decision lodged in 2021-22, 159 of those matters were remitted—sent back for further consideration. It doesn't mean the first decision was incorrect; it just means it was sent back for further consideration. There are just two cases, out of 880 appeals in which the decision was set aside.

This means that, in 880 different cases, a solicitor was prepared to certify to the court that their appeal had reasonable prospects of success, but the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority was upheld by a court in over 80 per cent of those cases. In over 80 per cent of those cases coming before the IAA, the decision of the IAA was upheld by the court. Those are just the cases that solicitors chose to challenge. No doubt there were many other cases where a solicitor acting ethically, as they have to do, was not able to give that certification.

In case the question arises, the performance in over 80 per cent of the cases the decision of the IAA was upheld by the court, is directly comparable to the performance of the AAT during a similar period. In 2021, decisions of the AAT were overturned in 14 per cent of cases. In the same year, the IAA decision rate of overturn was 18 per cent—14 per cent, 18 per cent. It was materially consistent in terms of the rate of overturn of cases determined by the IAA as opposed to that of the AAT. In fact, it's an extraordinary testament to the quality of the decision-making of the IAA, given that it was so quick and efficient. We've talked about timeframes of six weeks, seven weeks or nine weeks. It's a testament to the quality of the decision-making of the IAA that decisions were handed down—during that period, at least—in seven weeks. I ask again, Minister: why hasn't the government considered, during the course of preparing this amendment bill—and given the huge backlog of cases—a fast-track option like the IAA?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got nothing further to add on the IAA. The legislation before us deals with some important amendments. You talked earlier about the administrative burden that's being placed on Services Australia staff, which this bill seeks to address. If you've got other questions about the IAA, I'd encourage you to put them at the appropriate time, but we should get on with passing this bill.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to 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?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding, Senator Scarr, is that those sections have been taken out by the amendment that was passed earlier today.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to 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.