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

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments that have been circulated to this bill.

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

I would like to kick off by looking at the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, noting the minister's reference to the desire to, through these amendments, improve the case management processes and deal with some technical issues. I want to start by looking at the case load, and this is based on the most recent statistics for the new Administrative Review Tribunal, as at 31 December 2024. When the coalition left office, the AAT tribunal had 67,720 cases on hand. At 31 December last year the new Administrative Review Tribunal, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, had 93,756 cases on hand. What went wrong?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr, for the question. We obviously believe there was a strong case for reform of the ART. We had seen under the previous government, which had been in power for 10 years, the politicisation of the AAT at the time. We didn't believe that was serving the nation and its best interests, which is why we announced the significant review. Obviously, the Attorney-General worked consultatively as we went forward to implement the new tribunal.

There has been a significant and sustained surge in applications for the review of student visa refusal decisions. That is obviously due to a significant increase in the rates of student visa application processing by the Department of Home Affairs. Rates of refusal of these applications are linked to changes in the student visa policy, which contributed to an increase in applications for review of these refusals by the tribunal. In 2024, there were 22,158 student visa refusal applications lodged with the tribunal. This represents a significant increase when compared to pre-COVID-19 application rates. For example, in 2018 there were 6,000 and in 2019 there were 6,848. This increase is an even greater when compared to post-COVID rates, from 2,374 applications in 2022 and 3,893 in 2023. As you can see, there's been a significant jump in those cases.

The tribunal has enhanced powers and procedures to ensure that matters are resolved quickly and fairly. There are more powers for registrars, and there is a demand driven funding model which supports the appointment of additional members when needed, meaning that matters such as student visa refusal decisions can be resolved more efficiently. The government is currently conducting a recruitment process for general members, targeting migration and protection skills, which will help the tribunal address this surge.

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

I should note that I acknowledge that this isn't the minister's area of ministerial responsibility, and I certainly wouldn't like to lay at his feet the issues which are arising at the ART under the reforms that were driven by the Attorney. However, the fact remains that you've spoken about the student visa issue, and I appreciate the issues arising there—again, because a Labor government policy is increasing the case load. But the difference in cases we're looking at is between 93,756 as at 31 December 2024 and 67,720 as at the time when the coalition left office. We're looking at 26,000 additional cases. The case load is quite extraordinary.

You mentioned that one of the aims of introducing the Administrative Review Tribunal was to deal with matters as quickly, efficiently and fairly as possible. In terms of efficiency, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a case was 30 weeks. Now the median time to finalise a case is 48 weeks. Again, I ask you: what has gone wrong?

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

I disagree with your assessment on that. I don't think pinpointing a period of time will be helpful to having a proper discussion on this. But, as I mentioned before, there has been a significant increase in the number of student visa refusal applications. In 2024 alone, there were 22,158. That's a vast increase from just 2,375 applications when the previous government was in power. As you can see from that one instance alone, there has been a significant increase in the workload of the new ART. We're confident that it is the right move to improve outcomes in this country, and these measures in this bill today will only add to that.

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

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

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

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. We're confident that these measures that we are implementing will make a difference. They are an important reform. I would point out that I think the only two people in the country defending the old AAT are you and the former Attorney-General.

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

Minister, I'll take that comment you made about only the former Attorney-General and me defending the old AAT. I should note, in my defence, that I've referred to facts. I've referred to the key performance indicators contained in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's annual reports year after year with respect to satisfaction rates amongst participants—those who've come before the AAT and their advisers appearing before the AAT—and rates of successful appeal. So I've based my defence of the AAT on the basis of facts, on the basis of objective, empirical data, as opposed to sweeping rhetoric about this or that politicisation. I've actually looked at the facts, and it's the facts that I'm referring to in this interrogation with respect to the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which, as you said, Minister, in your opening statement, was intended to quickly and fairly deal with cases coming before it.

In my first question I referred to the fact that the cases on hand have blown out from 67,000 to 93,000. Apparently that's our fault, because it's dealing with the backlog. But the backlog has now blown out by 26,000, so I don't quite follow that. I'll give you another statistic, and this is in relation to the migration part of the AAT's jurisdiction. On 13 October the AAT had 31,310 cases on hand, and a little over two months later the case load has blown out to 38,495. It's only in a little more than two months that the case load has blown out. Again, why is there this extraordinary increase in case numbers on hand?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. Again, I don't it's accurate to pinpoint two points in time when analysing these matters. What we know from when the AAT was in operation was that it prioritised the easy cases and often left the hard cases to rot. We are now doing those old, hard cases, and they are taking longer to resolve as a result. That's leading to a longer average time to finalisation because of the dereliction of the previous government in dealing with some of those harder cases.

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

With due respect, Minister, I'm not sure how it's unfair to pick two points in time to analyse the performance of a new tribunal. I would have thought it's fair and reasonable. The first point in time is when you got rid of the previous tribunal, and the next point in time is the current case load. I can't think of a more fair way to assess the performance of a new tribunal than to consider what the position was before you introduced the tribunal that the Attorney said would increase speed, efficiency and fairness. Now we're comparing it to the current position in terms of case load. I'm not sure there could be any more reasonable way of assessing the performance of the tribunal.

But I'll try with another statistic, and this is in relation to the protection case load. As at 31 October, there were 41,476 cases on hand, and, under the new tribunal, that number again has blown out to 43,605 cases on hand. That's an increase of more than 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. Again, what has gone wrong?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. A significant number of the cases on hand now are more than five years old. We are not responsible for those, but that's what we're dealing with. And it highlights, as I mentioned earlier, what we inherited when we came to government.

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

I'm just looking at the facts, and the facts say that there's been a blowout of 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. That's what the facts are telling us. I refer to what the Attorney-General said on the record as justification for his decision to abolish the AAT:

The Albanese Government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays and an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications and that is operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems …

The sad truth, though, is that under Mr Dreyfus's watch, under the Attorney's watch, expenditure has blown out to the point that your budget papers reflect a billion-dollar spend on the ART and we're getting this blowout in case numbers. All that's been achieved is a massive increase in the case load of more than 26,000 cases and an enormous blowout in wait times from 30 to 48 weeks. These processes are important, and it is important, as you said previously, that matters are dealt with quickly and fairly. The ART you have established and are attempting to fix now with this legislation has been an expensive failure, hasn't it?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I completely reject your assertion there. As I mentioned earlier, we know that there are only two people in the country defending the old AAT: you and the former Attorney-General. I understand what it's like being the loyal servant of the party that you are, but the reality is that the AAT that we inherited when we came to government was a complete mess. It had been used as a stacking exercise for the Liberal and National parties. We wanted to reform that. We think it's an important reform that's in the long-term interest of the country.

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

Minister, whilst I appreciate your flattery—I am a loyal servant of my party—can I say, again, the defence that was mounted in relation to the AAT was based on the statistics and the key performance indicators, which anyone listening to this debate can look at by going to the annual reports of the AAT. They indicate that the AAT consistently met its key performance indicators with respect to successful appeal rates and also to user satisfaction—that's the satisfaction of the Australians actually appearing before the AAT and, even more importantly and perhaps even more persuasively, of the lawyers and representatives who advocated on behalf of those Australians.

When the ART legislation passed the Senate roughly half of all ART members had been appointed by the current government. Now that the AAT has been abolished and replaced by the ART, all of the new tribunal members have been appointed by the current government. There can be no more excuses about this politicisation et cetera. All the members of the existing ART have been appointed by this government. The only difference we're now seeing in terms of performance is a massive increase and blowout in wait times in exchange for much more money. A billion dollars has been invested into this new ART. Why should Australians pay a billion dollars for a tribunal that performs worse than its predecessor, on the basis of objective data, when the only real difference is that the members were appointed by the Albanese Labor government?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I obviously disagree with your assessment. What I've talked through this morning as we've been dealing with this legislation is a significant number of increases that we've seen in regard to student visa refusal appeals, which were up at 22,158 last year, a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2022 and almost a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2023.

We also identified that, under the previous government, the AAT prioritised the easy cases and left those hard cases that the new tribunal is now having to deal with. You have a sorry record. I also respect that you acknowledge you did stack the AAT with political appointees as well; at least that is a bit of honesty on your part. But this is an important reform, and it is one that we think will serve the long-term interests of the country.

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

I'm not sure if there's a doppelganger giving a speech in another place who said the words that the minister attributed to me, but I don't think I acknowledged that the previous government had stacked the AAT—quite the contrary. If it was stacked, it was stacked with members who actually performed quite well in relation to the objective KPIs which I'm referring to in the course of this debate.

Minister, I do want to go to some of the particulars of the bill, and I do acknowledge that this bill doesn't fall within your bailiwick as a minister, so you may well need to get some advice from those members of the department and advisers who are there to assist you and who are, no doubt, hanging on my first question. If I can take you to schedule 4, item 2, from my perspective, as I understand it, this item is dealing with a very serious unintended consequence arising from the introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. Can I ask you the reason for that proposed amendment?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. This is in regard to ensuring practice directions and modified timeframes for providing documents. Item 2 amends section 25 of the ART Act to clarify that practice directions can specify an alternative timeframe for decision-makers to provide the tribunal with additional documents. This amendment ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. Section 36 of the ART Act provides that the president is required to consult the Tribunal Advisory Committee when making practice directions to ensure that practice directions are appropriate. This amendment does not reflect the tribunal's power to order faster production of materials allowed for in section 28 of the ART Act if a party could experience hardship by delay.

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

Minister, that's a very anodyne explanation of the operation of the bill. I want to drill down a bit further, though, as to the practical reason, in terms of the operation in particular of Services Australia, which necessitated this amendment to be made as a matter of urgency. What were the practical ramifications of the bill prior to its amendment in relation to the operation of Services Australia dealing with, for example, child support matters?

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

This amendment ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. For example, in long-running matters, it may be preferable to specify a single date for disclosure of materials.

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

Minister, let me be more direct. I raised concerns, hopeful that I was going to get an answer which explained the dangerous shambles that the rushing through of this legislation has caused, in particular in relation to the sensitive matter of child support cases and the work of Services Australia. If the public service employees of Services Australia are listening to this debate, can I say to you: when I considered this legislation as it came through the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I had no inkling that it was going to have this unintended consequence on you. You do have my sympathies. Minister, because of the way that section 25 of the original ART Bill was drafted, is it not correct that Services Australia is now required to manually review each customer file that is before the tribunal every 28 days to ensure that it complies with the existing section 25? Isn't that the practical consequence of the ART Bill having been rushed through?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I can only reiterate what I've said before about the importance of this amendment, which ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. You'd obviously have the opportunity to put questions to Services Australia at estimates.

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

Hopefully we will have that opportunity. We definitely look forward to that opportunity, unless the government calls an election before then. Again, we are hearing anodyne answers in relation to the need for this amendment to be made.

The minister has referred us to estimates to ask questions in relation to Services Australia, but the fact of the matter is that this amendment bill is now in committee. We can't wait until estimates; the senators are going to have to vote on this bill. Now is the time to be given answers. Again I'll try and provide some assistance to the minister. I can understand why the minister doesn't want to go into this territory—it is terribly embarrassing. It's more than embarrassing; it has actually put Australians, particularly in child support cases, potentially in harm's way.

Let me explain. One of the issues has been raised with us by multiple sources across government. This isn't the opposition making this stuff up; this has actually been raised with us by those public servants in government who have been trying to deal with this issue because of this rushed legislation. The new requirement, as this act currently stands—which you're seeking now to amend—adds an incredibly intensive process of reviewing thousands of documents and applying redactions, to protect from family and domestic violence risk people in vulnerable positions. Those documents then have to be sent out to the parties because their matter's before the ART and section 25 didn't adequately deal with this issue when it was rushed through.

In about 40 per cent of child support cases, where there is no family and domestic violence indicator on the file, there is now a need to seek a non-disclosure order. In those 40 per cent of cases, because they have gone in front of the ART, and because this legislation was inappropriately drafted in a rush, the public servants who are trying to do their jobs faithfully—they have my respect and sympathy—are now having to go and get an order that they don't have to disclose that material, even though in those 40 per cent of cases there's no indication of family violence. It's an absolutely appalling administrative burden that the department has to bear, and that is because of the inherent risk of either parent reacting adversely to the content of those documents and triggering a family domestic violence incident.

There's a very real concern that Services Australia staff, who will inevitably be dealing with the significant volume in a compressed timeframe, will miss something or make an error and inadvertently trigger a domestic violence event. That's why it has been raised with the opposition. It's an absolute nightmare scenario for those public servants, faithfully trying to deal with this legislation that was rushed through.

The reality is that one of the unintended consequences that was created by your ART legislation being rushed through this place is an increase in family and domestic violence risk, which the public servants in Services Australia are trying to mitigate, under the provisions of this misconstrued provision, before it is amended. And we're trying to fix that through this bill. That's true, isn't it, Minister? That is a key reason why this amendment is being put before this Senate for debate—the impact on the staff in Services Australia with respect to child support cases. Could you admit that, please?

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

I'm not downplaying the importance of the amendment, Senator Scarr. It is an important one.

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

I agree with you on that, Minister. Again I note that it's a great shame that the committee processes of this Senate weren't given enough time to interrogate down in relation to these issues.

The Law Council of Australia, in its submission to the legal and constitutional affairs tribunal in relation to this legislation, actually commented on the fact that—as I said in my second reading debate contribution—if legislation is going to be passed that is going to have such an impact on Australians in this country, it needs to go through rigorous scrutiny processes so issues like this are picked up.

Minister, is the government aware of any other cases, or any particular cases, where this new requirement has been linked to a tragic incident of family or domestic violence?

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

No, I'm not aware.

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

Hopefully, that is the case. When did the government first become aware that section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act was associated with an increased risk of family and domestic violence incidents in child support matters and creating this administrative burden upon the public servants in Services Australia, as I've previously outlined? When did the government become aware of that issue?

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

I'll try to get some advice on that, but obviously it is something that we've acted quickly on in terms of trying to fix it as part of these amendments.

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

It stands to reason that presumably the government was aware there was a problem when you issued the drafting instructions for item 2 in schedule 4 of the bill. I'll add a supplementary question to the question which you're going to seek advice on. When were those drafting instructions issued? Even an estimate to the nearest month would be helpful.

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

I'll try to come back to you as soon as we can.

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

I participated, with colleagues, in the review of this bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In that respect I pay my compliments to the chair of that committee—Senator Nita Green, from my home state of Queensland—and all the other senators on that committee, who work diligently together to scrutinise legislation coming before this place, to try to improve it for the benefit of all Australians and the common good. But this issue of the impact of the existing section 25 upon Services Australia in relation to sensitive child support cases, and the risk—and the work they have to go through to mitigate the risk—of family and domestic violence arising from inappropriate disclosure of documents under the existing section 25, was never raised. It was never countenanced, and the reason for the amendment, being partly founded upon that risk, was never presented by the department. Why wasn't that issue ventilated before the committee through the submission of the Attorney-General's Department or otherwise?

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

It's obviously not something that I was aware of. I'll take some advice and try to come back to you on that.

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

I would appreciate that because genuinely, in good faith, I say to you that I was absolutely gobsmacked when I heard about this issue of Services Australia staff having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents to prevent potential issues of family and domestic violence because of inappropriate disclosure that was introduced under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act. I was absolutely gobsmacked when that came to my attention. I think it should be of concern to all senators as to when the government became aware of that particular issue.

That then leads to the next question: why wasn't this matter brought forward earlier? Why wasn't this matter brought forward as a matter of priority so the public servants within Services Australia didn't have to continue to deal with this issue?

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

CHISHOLM (—) (): I think it's fair to say that it is a priority. It's the legislation that we're dealing with today. The amendment will actually fix that issue, and the only person delaying it at the moment is you.

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

Maybe these are the talking points you were given and I shouldn't attribute it to your door, but it is passing ironic that we're dealing with a matter that arose out of a failure of the executive, the Albanese Labor government, to allow proper scrutiny in relation to a very complicated piece of legislation, namely the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. It is passing ironic that we're actually trying to fix that mess up now and, again, a minister sitting on the government benches for the Albanese Labor government can't resist the urge to voice disdain for the scrutiny processes of this Senate chamber. But, again, it might be in the talking points. We'll move on to operation of part 12 of schedule 2 of the bill. Minister, could you please explain the operation of part 12 of schedule 2 of the bill.

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. We'll try and get some more specific information about part 12, but schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to 46 acts in 14 portfolios. The amendments include simple terminology changes such as appealing outdated references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and replacing them with references to the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

Schedule 2 also makes amendments to harmonise and simplify legislative provisions and make technical corrections. These include amendments that prevent decision-makers from altering decisions that are before the Guidance and Appeals Panel, except in accordance with section 31 of the ART Act; repeal specific provisions relating to the timeframes to apply for a review of deemed decisions, ensuring that the standard ART Act provisions apply; ensure provisions account for the new Guidance and Appeals Panel; provide immunity to tribunal members exercising functions in relation to post-entry warrants and delayed notifications of search warrants; remove time limits for applying for internal review or tribunal review of ABSTUDY or assistance for isolated children's debt decisions to facilitate access to these reviews in response to the need of applicants; clearly set out the application's requirements for seeking review of reviewable migration and reviewable protection decisions under the Migration Act; explain the consequences of an application not being properly made; and require the minister to participate in Guidance and Appeals Panel reviews of reviewable migration and protection decisions.

The bill also makes technical amendments to the Migration Act. It clearly sets out the requirements for making a properly made application for a review of migration and protection decisions, removes duplication provisions governing certain notices of decisions and requires the minister to participate in Guidance and Appeals Panel proceedings on an issue of significance to administrative decision-making.

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

Again, Minister, especially as a fellow senator from Queensland, I'll put on the record that I note this is not your portfolio area of responsibility and that was probably a noble response to my question. I'll get more particular, though, with respect to the provisions. Section 347 of the Migration Act, which was put in place by the original trenches of the ART legislation, currently says—this is the law as it currently stands—that an application for review of a decision by the ART must be made within seven days if an applicant is in immigration detention or otherwise within 28 days. As introduced, this bill changes that requirement to explicitly specify that the application, prescribed information and prescribed documents must be provided and a prescribed fee paid within that relevant timeframe. Is that correct?

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

The act also provides that an application for review must be made for applicants in immigration detention within seven days and for all other decisions within 28 days. So, effectively, that's a yes.

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

Minister, why is that clarification necessary?

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

My understanding is that it's to put beyond doubt the existing provisions of the law.

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

Okay. Minister, I note that that's your understanding, but, hopefully, if you obtain any further information from advisers to confirm that that is, in fact, correct, that would be helpful. Again, I note that this isn't your portfolio responsibility area.

I move on to section 348 of the Migration Act. This was put in place by the original tranches of ART legislation and currently says that the ART must review a migration or rejection decision if the application is properly made. As introduced, this bill now amends that provision to expressly state that the ART must not review an application that is not properly made, and it describes the circumstances in which the application is not properly made. Minister, is that a fair summary of the operation?

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

The bill makes technical amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act to clarify what it means for an application to be properly made. It must meet the existing requirements set out in sections 347 and 348 and be made within time. The amendment also makes it explicit that the tribunal cannot review an application that is not properly made. These amendments make sure that the act operates as intended, as it always has, and that applicants clearly understand the requirements for a valid application. That is why they are important.

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

I know that, given the bill as originally introduced, the amendments the government is introducing on sheet GF100 are designed to return the discretion that has long existent in the tribunal where, if there is a minor defect or error in an application such as an error on the date of birth or the failure to include a particular document, the tribunal will still be able to consider those applications. By putting that sheet of amendments through to the bill as originally drafted, it's retaining the discretion that the High Court said was important to allow the tribunal to accept applications even if there is a technical defect in the documentation. That's the effect of the amendments, isn't it?

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

Sorry; I wanted to get some clarity around the point you are making.

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

I know you are reading from the explanatory memorandum of the bill as initially drafted. As a result of the concerns that were raised in the course of the review by the legal and constitutional committee, a number of amendments have been brought, including on sheet GF100. One part of those amendments is to remove some of the initial provisions in the bill. By doing that, the government has listened to and responded to the concerns that have been raised by NGOs and others, particularly the Law Council, who I know Senator Scarr has repeatedly referenced in this debate as an important stakeholder. The Law Council has urged the government to put those amendments forward, and I note the government has listened to those concerns. What that will do is reinstate the discretion that the tribunal has to receive applications even if there is a technical defect—a document may not be attached, a key particular may be in error. It will reinstate the tribunal's discretion in accordance with the submissions from the Law Council, pretty much every other legal body and many other applicants.

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

Thanks for the confirmation. My understanding is that that is correct. The government will be moving amendments to remove the items of the bill relating to this, and that will enable the government to consider this matter further.

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

Minister, I'd like to obtain some clarity with respect to that issue. What Senator Shoebridge outlined in terms of the technical operation of the amendments would conform with my understanding. Is it the case that the government was proposing particular amendments to those provisions through the initial iteration of the Administrative Review Tribunal amendment bill, but you've now decided to reverse that provision, and the amendments which the government is proposing are actually going to strip those provisions out of the amendment bill? That's the effect, as I read it, of the amendments on sheet GF100. So, to use a very complicated legal term, why did the government flip-flop?

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

I would put it down to a government that does a proper job on consultation, goes through a thorough process, as the Attorney-General does on all his legislation, and listens to stakeholders, which is obviously really important. That is what we've done in this instance.

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

Obviously a result of that thorough process the Attorney has adopted is that we're here debating crucial amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, which was rushed through the Senate with inadequate scrutiny. That's why we're here today actually having that debate. Minister, as I understand it, not only will you remove the requirements through amendment (4) of sheet GF100 but you will actually extend the timeframe for individuals in immigration detention to apply for a review. Is that correct and, if so, why?

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

It might be helpful if I move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet GF100 by leave together, and then I'll provide some answers to those. I seek leave to do that.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (before line 4), before item 65, insert:

64A Subsection 124(3)

Omit "AAT's", substitute "ART's".

(3) Schedule 2, page 35 (after line 11), after item 113, insert:

113A Subsection 245AYK(9) (heading)

Omit "Appeals", substitute "Review".

113B Subsection 245AYK(9)

Omit "Tribunal", substitute "ART".

113C Subsection 245AYK(9) (note)

Omit "Section 27A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975", substitute "Section 266 of the ART Act".

(4) Schedule 2, items 115 to 119, page 35 (line 18) to page 37 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:

115 Paragraph 347(3)(a)

Omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".

(5) Schedule 2, Part 12, page 37 (after line 5), at the end of the Part, add:

120A Paragraph 375A(2)(b)

Omit "Tribunal", substitute "ART".

(6) Schedule 2, Part 13, page 39 (after line 4), at the end of the Part, add:

Wine Australia Act 2013

127A At the end of section 40ZAQ

Add:

Timing of applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal

(4) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may modify the operation of sections 18 and 19 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (which deal with when applications for review may be made) as they apply in relation to a determination made under those regulations.

127B At the end of section 40ZAT

Add:

Timing of applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal

(3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may modify the operation of sections 18 and 19 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (which deal with when applications for review may be made) as they apply in relation to a determination made under those regulations.

(7) Schedule 2, page 40 (before line 3), before the heading specifying New Vehicle Standards Efficiency Act 2024, insert:

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

127C Section 22R (heading)

Omit "AAT", substitute "ART".

127D Section 22R

Omit "Appeals", substitute "Review".

These amendments make several minor amendments to the bill to support the efficient conduct of tribunal review, update outdated references and ensure the legislation operates as intended. Amendments to the Migration Act 1958 extend the timeframe for persons who are in immigration detention to apply to the tribunal for a review of migration and protection decisions from seven days to 14 days. This would ensure that no applicants in immigration detention have less time to apply than they did in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The amendments also remove items 115 to 119 in schedule 2 of the bill. These items would have amended the Migration Act 1958 to clarify the existing law regarding what constitutes a properly made application to the tribunal for a review of migration protection decisions and what the consequences of not making a properly made application are. The items are being deferred to give the government additional time to consider the approach to amending the Migration Act in relation to the requirements for making applications to the tribunal. There are also amendments to the Wine Australia Act 2013, which aim to preserve the longstanding arrangements for review and provide certainty for producers. Finally the amendments update the commencement date of the bill to provide that it commences after royal assent.

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

Minister, I'm confused, and perhaps I should be asking questions of both Senator Shoebridge and you as the minister. Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution to the debate, talked about the withdrawal of those amendments, yet now, Minister, you're talking about deferral of those amendments. Which is it? Is it a withdrawal or a deferral?

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

Obviously I'm the person in here answering for the government.

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

Minister, as the person answering for the government, can you tell me if it's a withdrawal or a deferral?

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

I've already answered that question.

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

I feel as if I'm in a Kafkaesque novel. For the benefit of the chamber and for those listening, could you please provide some clarity and confirmation. Is the government withdrawing those proposed amendments or deferring them?

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

What I said is that the items are being deferred to give the government additional time to consider the approach to amending the Migration Act in relation to the requirements for making applications to the tribunal.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to move up to the other end of the chamber, if you would like that, Senator Scarr.

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

I anticipate my colleague will have a question, and I'm quite happy to defer to him.

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

I might, first of all, just put on the record the Greens position on these amendments. The Greens will be supporting these amendments. We're supporting the amendments to increase the period that people who are in immigration detention have to challenge adverse migration determinations in the tribunal from seven to 14 days. This has been a longstanding demand now from organisations like the Law Council, pretty much every legal body in the country, NGOs and refugee advocacy organisations for well over a decade.

As you would know, Acting Deputy President Hughes, people in immigration detention have very limited access to legal assistance. Indeed, it was the coalition that initially removed legal assistance for people in immigration detention. Measures such as mobile phone bans and other bans were put in place by this parliament last year to make it even harder for people in immigration detention to potentially communicate with the outside. Indeed, the very process of being in immigration detention, not because you've committed an offence but because there's an issue with your migration status, puts people at extreme disadvantage when they're seeking to make an application to challenge a decision.

Even with these amendments moving the period in which to do the application from seven to 14 days, people in migration detention will still face an arbitrary timeframe which is half that for standard applications in the ART and, even with these changes, which are positive, there is still no broad discretion for the tribunal to extend the timeframe, so people in immigration detention will still be treated more harshly than people outside of immigration detention. However, the move from seven to 14 days recognises the longstanding demands from the Law Council and others. It recognises the need for a measure of justice in this space, and we're advised from organisations like ASRC and others that it will have meaningful and positive change, and we support it. Indeed, we appreciate the active engagement of the government with my party and those organisations to have this change.

The amendments will remove those original provisions in the bill that were in response to a High Court decision that actually interpreted longstanding legislation that was originally put into parliament by the coalition about when and how an application is made. It's coalition legislation that the High Court reviewed. The High Court found that, notwithstanding there was language that, on the face of it, looked mandatory about the provisions that needed to be contained in an application, once an application had been brought to a tribunal, even if it didn't contain each and every one of those elements, there was a discretion in the tribunal to still consider the application—to do justice, basically.

As I said, that was an interpretation of legislation initially drafted by the coalition. The bill as originally presented sought to address that High Court decision, make it expressly mandatory and remove a discretion in the tribunal to even consider an application if it had some procedural or documentary defect. Again, I want to commend the government for listening to the unanimous position from NGOs, legal organisations and groups like the Law Council, who said that that was unfair and inappropriate and that it wasn't the right response to the High Court decision. These amendments will strip those provisions out of the bill, and the Greens will be supporting those amendments because they provide a small measure of justice in the space.

It is not clear what the government means by saying, 'They're under review,' so I would be interested in, if there were a review process of those parts of the act, whether the government could indicate what the nature of the review is, who they're speaking with, whether there is a timeframe and whether there will be a formal discussion paper. You can see from what happened in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's review of this that it's really important to engage with stakeholders and that it's important to be transparent about this, because, otherwise, you can make an unintentional error, like the original draft bill did.

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

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge, for that contribution. You're correct—the result of the amendments is that the provisions do not remain in the bill. We will consider them further, whether you call it a deferral or otherwise. The amendments that we've been referring to will not form part of the bill if the government amendments are supported. That would obviously be a matter for the Attorney-General, in terms of how he handles that in the future.

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

Is it therefore correct to say, taking on board Senator Shoebridge's legitimate questions in relation to what process the government's going to adopt with respect to those amendments that are being stripped out of this bill and which you say have now been deferred—deferred, to me, indicates that there's going to be some further work undertaken. And then, at some later stage, the amendments will be reintroduced—that is, they're deferred. They're not considered today; they're considered sometime in the future. Can you give us any indication as to what's going to happen between today and when those amendments are to be reintroduced, such as the proposed timetable or the consultation that is going to occur with stakeholders? Do you have any transparency or visibility with respect to that process?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. All I can say is the government intends to consider the amendments at a later date, following further consultation with stakeholders.

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

In terms of the deferral process and the work which the government is going to undertake, we note—and I noted previously in this debate—that the timeframe for finalising protection decisions has already doubled since the coalition left office. What impact would reintroducing the amendments or not introducing the amendments have with respect to the management of that case load? Has there been any work undertaken with respect to the impact on case load of those amendments being deferred?

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

Obviously, I'd be confident that that would be a matter that the Attorney-General would consider as part of his further consultation on that issue.

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

Similarly, has any work been undertaken with respect to the impact on case load of the extension of time provided for applications to be made? Presumably, if you extend the time for an application to be made, more people are going to take advantage of that opportunity to lodge cases. Has any analysis been undertaken in that regard?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I've been advised that it's not anticipated that there will be an increase in the work of the tribunal as a result, if it were to increase to 14 days.

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

And what's that anticipation based on?

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

My understanding is consultation with the tribunal.

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

What reasons did the tribunal give in the course of that consultation to evidence that anticipation that there will be no increase in case load? What objective facts did the tribunal provide to the government to found that conclusion?

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

That's not a level of detail that I have available to me today, which I'm sure you understand. But, again, I'm confident you'll have the opportunity to ask questions in Senate estimates.

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

We would have appreciated the opportunity to consider those issues whilst the bill was going through the scrutiny processes of this chamber and before it was passed. Be that as it may, I asked a few questions earlier in relation to that very delicate issue around section 25—the misconceived original drafting of section 25. When did the government become aware that staff at Services Australia were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of documents in order to avoid potential incidents of family violence? Have you got that information?

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

In the time available, the department advises that the issue was brought to the department's attention around July or August. The government responded by addressing the issue in this bill, and it was introduced shortly after that. I believe this bill was introduced in August last year.

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

Minister, is it now February 2025?

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

Again, I remind you, Senator Scarr, that the only person delaying this bill so far is you.

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

Minister, one of the reasons to have this legislation passed today—indeed, if we can, before 1.30—is to address that workload and to try and have that smooth operation so that the information can be provided in a timely fashion, those rights are respected and Services Australia can focus on the work at hand. That's why we want to pass this by 1.30, isn't it?

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

That's absolutely the case, Senator Shoebridge.

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

Certainly, the coalition supports the passage of this legislation. But I would say—through you, Temporary Chair Hughes—to Senator Shoebridge that I am absolutely aghast that this issue came to the attention of the government in July or August last year and we are now here, in February, in the context where, when it suits the government's priorities, they're prepared to move legislation on the basis of extraordinarily limited scrutiny, and we're now forced to consider this issue after a delay of over six months. It's quite extraordinary. The issue was not brought to the attention of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, on which both Senator Shoebridge and I sit, and no-one would have been aware of this issue but for the fact that public servants within Services Australia brought this matter to the attention of the opposition. That's how aghast they were by the situation. The government has given these anodyne summaries of the provisions and hasn't given any insight with respect to the seriousness of these provisions during the course of this legislative process. That is an appalling state of affairs.

I would like to move on to another issue, one dealing with the location of registries. From the coalition's perspective, the Administrative Review Tribunal provides, in registries, important review and appeal processes for the Australian people. It should provide access to those processes to all Australians across the whole of Australia, yet the fact of the matter is that the Administrative Review Tribunal bill, when it was initially presented by the Attorney, did not provide for a basic obligation that there be an Administrative Review Tribunal registry in each capital or in each state or territory of Australia. Why was that the case, Minister? Why did the original legislation not provide that there should be a registry in every capital city of every state and every territory of this country? Why did the bill omit such an obvious obligation?

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

Senator Scarr, I'll go to your first points, which were basically political points. It's hard to keep up with Senator Scarr when it comes to consistency. On one hand he's saying that there hasn't been a proper process regarding this bill and that he want it slowed down, and, on the other hand, now he's saying we haven't done it quick enough. I can't work out the point he's making. I'd also point out that in your record in government, Senator Scarr, there was robodebt. The way you treated the public servants when it came to robodebt was exposed during the royal commission, and that is actually the next bill that, hopefully, we'll be dealing with today. That is your record in terms of how you actually responded to, and treated, public servants when you were in government.

In regard to a registrar in each state and territory, the ART Act allows the CEO and principal registrar to appoint registrars depending on the needs of the tribunal. The ART already has one or more registrars in each jurisdiction. It is also focused on delivering a broader range of services and information in each jurisdiction to provide to people who do not live within reasonable travelling distance of a registry. Including more detailed requirements in the legislation may unnecessarily limit the principal registrar's ability to manage the administrative affairs of the tribunal and restrict their capacity to fulfil these responsibilities under the legislation, including by limiting how the tribunal flexibly responds to surges in case loads through registry services.

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

Let's deal with the issue of registries. From my perspective, as a Queensland senator, it is not about what the view of the CEO of the ART has with respect to where registries should be located; it is about the Australian people having access to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It's about the Australian people because there are decisions are impacting millions of Australians on a whole raft of matters—social security payments, veterans' matters, immigration matters, taxation matters, child support matters and NDIS matters—which go on appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

It shouldn't be a question of what the CEO considers with respect to where the registries should be located. Every single Australian in every state and every territory should have reasonable access to government services, and that includes access to the Administrative Review Tribunal registries. That means that, if you're a veteran in Tasmania and you've got a veterans affairs issue that you want to take on appeal to the ART, you should be able to access a registry in Tasmania. Indeed, this point was first alluded to by Senator McKim as a senator for Tasmania: the original bill did not contain a requirement that there would be a registry so that people impacted by veterans decisions, NDIS decisions and child support decisions could have reasonable access to a registry in their home jurisdiction.

That isn't a matter for the Chief Executive Officer of the Administrative Review Tribunal. It's a matter for this Senate to make sure we pass legislation that provides access to such a basic service as a right of appeal with respect to government decisions which have great significance upon their lives. Every single Australian should have access to a registry of the Administrative Review Tribunal because every single Australian deserves access to a process whereby they can have decisions made which have a huge impact on their lives and their families' lives. Every single Australian deserves access to that review process. If you don't have access to a registry within driving distance—or within a reasonable distance—where you can lodge paperwork and get some guidance and if you don't have an avenue where you can go and get your appeal heard, then you're going to be deprived of full access to the tribunal. It shouldn't matter whether you live in Hobart, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Canberra or wherever; you should have access to a registry of the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Minister, can you please explain to me on what possible basis the Chief Executive Officer of the ART could make a decision that there shouldn't be a registry in every state and every territory of Australia? On what possible basis could that decision be made?

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

Thanks, Senator Scarr. Now we're on to wasting time around issues that actually don't exist at the moment. What Senator Scarr didn't acknowledge is that there is currently a registry in every state around the country and in the ACT. In addition, the tribunal has a senior member based in Darwin, and the government expects that to increase as more members are employed and undertake that work. Including more detailed requirements in the legislation is not necessary. It may introduce unnecessary inflexibility. What has become clear is that, unlike the opposition, we respect the independence of the tribunal and allow them to operate accordingly.

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

To speed matters up, I'll treat this contribution as the Greens' contribution to the opposition's amendment on sheet 3164. It is an amendment to effectively reinstate the status quo under section 64 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which required the AAT to have a registry in each state as well as one in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I think that's the amendment Senator Scarr is speaking to, at least obliquely, in this contribution—the absence of that provision in the ART bill.

I want to thank my colleague Senator McKim for raising this issue. He has been an ongoing champion of ensuring that Tasmania is not forgotten and that it's guaranteed there will be a registry in Tasmania. I'll leave it up to Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson to argue about whether it should be in Launceston or Hobart. Perhaps they'll agree on Campbell Town. Senator Whish-Wilson? I don't know, but we Greens strongly—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bicheno.

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

Bicheno, is it? We are strong proponents of ensuring that there's a registry in each state and territory across the country, to ensure there is guaranteed access to what is a critical Commonwealth tribunal. For that reason, we'll be supporting the amendment.

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

I do acknowledge Senator Shoebridge for that contribution, as I acknowledged, when I originally raised the issue, Senator McKim's concern that a registry be maintained in the state of Tasmania. From my reading of the legislation and from the answers which have been given by the minister, who correctly, I should say, referred to the current Administrative Review Tribunal Act, it's up to the CEO as to whether or not a registry remains, for example, in Tasmania. The CEO could change their mind and say, 'I've decided, for efficiency purposes, I'm going to close the registry in Tasmania.' It's completely unacceptable that a chief executive officer of the Administrative Review Tribunal should have the discretion to close a registry in any of our states or territories. It is incredibly important that those registries are maintained in every state and territory across Australia.

I am happy for us to proceed with the question on the government's amendments but I would ask that we deal with one of the items separately, namely amendment (4).

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr—just for the ease of the chamber—you're happy for amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) to be moved together and amendment (4) to be put separately?

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

Correct.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chamber at the moment is that the amendments be agreed to. We'll do amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) first. All in favour say 'aye', against 'no'. A division is required. Ring the bells for four minutes.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

We're happy to support amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7), so I think the division could be cancelled.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the division is cancelled—sorry, Senator Shoebridge?

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

I thought the coalition was supporting this.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, so we're happy to cancel the division?

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

It's item 4 we're opposing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Cancel the division, and we'll try that again. The question before the chamber is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) on sheet GF100 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

The question before the committee is from sheet GF100 and is amendment (4), and the question is that that amendment be agreed to.

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

We will now move to two-minute statements.