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

I'd like to summarise some of the arguments that I made in my first contribution in this debate. They are these. First, this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, is only necessary because of the abbreviated, shambolic process which was adopted by the Albanese Labor government in terms of consideration of this legislation. Indeed, as Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I know we were originally given a deadline of July last year to report on this bill, and it was brought forward by two months. I had the opportunity to look at the government members' report on the Administrative Review Tribunal bill for only about one clear day. It was completely unsatisfactory.

I don't blame the chair of that committee, Senator Nita Green, who does a very good job as chair of that committee. I don't blame the government members of that committee for that abbreviated process. This was executive action. The Attorney decided to bring forward the report on the bill by more than two months. That is completely unsatisfactory when you're dealing with a piece of legislation which has more than 500 pages. Now we're reaping what was sown by that shambolic process—amendment bills that are trying to fix the mistakes that were included in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act.

I want to quote, again, from the Law Council of Australia. These are not my words but the words of the Law Council of Australia in relation to the shambolic process, and I included this quote on page 43 of the committee's report. They said:

Whilst the Law Council is pleased to have obtained an extension to 2 February 2024 to lodge its submission, it remains very concerned that the Committee's truncated inquiry period will undermine or diminish the democratic and proper scrutiny of the Bills.

The Law Council's concerns are exacerbated by the sheer level of scrutiny required, given that the Bills comprise more than 550 pages, excluding more than 500 pages of explanatory materials.

And now what we are seeing is the need to fix the act that was passed by this Senate with that abbreviated scrutiny process. At least one of those provisions which has to be fixed is absolutely time critical. This shouldn't have had to be fixed; this should have been picked up. This relates in particular to item 2 of schedule 4 of the amendment of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, where a provision has to be inserted such that the decision-maker, especially with respect to matters involving child support, doesn't have to continually lodge documents after documents after documents in order to comply with the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and is having to redact documents because they potentially pose a threat to the safety of people going through that process. It's completely unacceptable that that should occur in the context of this legislation.

From my perspective, as I reiterated in my additional comments on this bill, whilst I acknowledge the need for this bill, I do not acknowledge or accept that there was any real policy need for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be abolished holus-bolus and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal. It has led to costs, dysfunction and mistakes. The AAT could have been the subject of some positive reforms without its being abolished. There was a vindictive streak running through the soul of this piece of legislation, and that was reflected in the compensation paid to those tribunal members who weren't reappointed.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, at least, Senator Scarr, the bill hasn't been guillotined!

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals.

The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor's jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen's visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn't care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation.

It's welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently.

Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians' expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.

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

The Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The ART Act commenced on 14 October last year. The miscellaneous measures bill completes the establishment of the tribunal by making technical amendments to 54 Commonwealth acts, including the ART Act, to support the efficient conduct of tribunal review and to ensure the legislation operates as intended.

The bill makes minor amendments to the ART Act and other laws aimed at improving the fairness and efficiency of the tribunal's operations. Importantly, these changes remove administrative burdens from officials across the Australian government, resulting in improved services for the Australian people. We will move amendments to provide that no part of the bill commences retrospectively, to prevent uncertainty and complexity; to ensure that no applicants in immigration detention have less time to apply for a tribunal review than they did previously; and to provide certainty regarding the timeframes for applying to the tribunal for review of decisions regarding foreign geographical indications for wine goods.

The government amendments also defer provisions that attracted criticisms in the course of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. The government remains of the view that these amendments would have been helpful to the tribunal and to its applicants by providing additional clarity regarding when an application is validly made. They would not have changed the law. However, recognising the concerns raised by stakeholders, the government will defer these amendments to enable them to be further considered and progressed at a later time. The bill reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. It simplifies the processes for applicants and promotes a more efficient, accessible and cohesive tribunal. I commend it to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.