Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The creation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1975 stands as a significant achievement in Labor's legacy. The Whitlam Labor government recognised the importance of having an impartial institution to oversee the review decisions made by ministers and, indeed, government departments. It was a pioneering development 50 years ago, one that today continues to embody a fundamental principle of democracy: governments must be accountable to the people.

The AAT was designed to empower individuals to question government decisions and ensure that actions taken under Commonwealth law were fair and equitable. This is about accountability, fairness, transparency and processes of review. The AAT evolved over the decades. In July 2015 the former coalition government merged the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal into the AAT. Unfortunately, this consolidation was poorly executed and left behind a problematic legacy, including financial instability. When Labor came into government in 2022, we inherited an AAT that was labouring under a host of serious issues. The coalition left behind a tribunal that was overwhelmed by a massive backlog of cases and outdated digital systems that were ill equipped for modern demands, but these weren't the only changes.

The tribunal was heavily influenced by political appointments. The former government appointed up to 85 individuals with direct ties to the Liberal Party, including former MPs, former candidates, staffers and close affiliates. Research by the Grattan Institute in 2022 revealed that a staggering 20 per cent of the AAT's 320 members had political connections to the appointing government. Worse still, many of these appointments bypassed merit-based selection processes. Some appointees lacked the necessary qualifications or experience. It was obvious that a body structured in this way could not credibly claim to be impartial or competent in reviewing government decisions.

Labor came to government committed to providing the Australian people with an administrative review body that operated independently, free from political interference. After thorough consultation with the public, the Administrative Review Expert Advisory Group and multiple parliamentary committees, the Albanese Labor government legislated to replace the compromised and mismanaged AAT with a new body that Australians could trust: the Administrative Review Tribunal, or the ART.

The important word here is 'trust'. Labor knew it was vital to restore public trust and confidence in our independent merits review system. Accordingly, one of the features of the new ART was a transparent, merit-based appointment process, independent of political influence, because people want to know that the process of merits review is fair and robust. People want to know that the process of merits review works in this country.

The new ART outlined stringent qualification requirements. The President of the Administrative Review Tribunal must be a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, and judicial deputy presidents must be a judge of either the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Other appointments must be enrolled lawyers with varying degrees of substantial experience, specialised training or experience in relevant subject matter. This is important because the tribunal's work is absolutely vital. Its members are tasked with reviewing decisions made by government agencies, ensuring that laws and policies are applied correctly but also fairly. Every year, tens of thousands of Australians depend on this process to challenge decisions that can profoundly affect their lives, their families' lives and their futures—decisions that determine whether someone receives a permanent visa, qualifies for the pension, secures veterans compensation or obtains essential NDIS support. That is why public trust in the tribunal is a non-negotiable. It's an absolute must. It's fundamental.

In terms of this bill, the ART has been operational since October 2024. During this time it has become apparent that some of its procedures require more flexibility. This bill addresses these matters and will lead to the timely resolution of emerging delays. This is mainly occurring with reviews concerning temporary migration. We don't want applicants left waiting without an answer for months, particularly when an efficient merits review would provide a response. Put simply, people need clarity. People need clarity because clarity allows them to plan their future, plan for their family and plan what they are going to do next.

Currently, oral hearings are required in the majority of circumstances, even when matters could be investigated and resolved through written submissions. Written submissions which rely on objective facts, such as the presentation of a specific document or the eligibility for a visa, demonstrate how a matter can be reviewed efficiently 'on the papers', meaning no oral hearing is required. We're talking about sensible efficiency here—efficiency that can be achieved without sacrificing the robustness of process or procedural fairness that is inherent in the work of the ART.

The measures contained in this bill were informed by the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System in 2023, otherwise known as the Nixon review. As a result, all student visa refusal matters will undergo this new, on-the-papers process. Student visas are appropriate for on-the-papers reviews due to the nature of the issues under review, the temporary nature of the visa and the low volume of relevant documentation. The tribunal will still be required to give applicants the opportunity to make written submissions, as well as giving applicants certain adverse information and requesting return comment. The tribunal can also continue to request additional information regarding the matter at hand. These amendments to the Migration Act 1958 are a reasonable and efficient approach to take with student visas, which are short term and in relatively low volume. These adjustments will help clear the review's backlog, give genuine applicants peace of mind and deter people who aren't genuine from using the system to just stay longer.

It will be possible to add additional temporary visa types to this category in the future, but it is important to note that permanent and protection visas will not be assessed in this way. These matters are inherently more complex and, in the case of protection visas, often concern a more vulnerable cohort.

The bill also amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to give the tribunal more power to choose to make a decision based on written materials rather than an oral hearing on other processes regarding temporary visas. Safeguards in place include that the matter at hand be determinable without an oral hearing, that it is reasonable to rely on written submissions and that all parties to the matter have been able to make submissions as to whether an oral hearing is, indeed, required. These changes to the functions of the ART mean that the highly experienced and expert ART members will be able to spend more of their time assessing the content and circumstances of applications as opposed to sitting in hearings and managing caseload processes. This means faster processing time for applicants, and it means that people who are seeking to make these kinds of applications will have answers more quickly.

Fundamentally, the ART is about ensuring a fair merits review process, with an opportunity to have one's case heard. It is about making sure that people are treated with procedural fairness. An important part of that process is people getting answers within a reasonable amount of time. The efficiencies that are put forward in this bill are all about making sure that people get an answer as soon as possible. Administrative review continues to be an important feature of our legal system. While part of the system, the ART is not a court and does not have the same legal, procedural and evidential rules. It is designed to enable quick and fair decision-making and timely outcomes for applicants.

This bill does not stop applicants from putting a comprehensive case before the ART. What it does do is give the tribunal the tools to process cases efficiently and fairly, and it upholds the merits review system, which is absolutely critical to Australian legal processes. It also bolsters public confidence in the ART and strengthens the integrity of our visa and migration system. Tribunal decisions on the basis of written reviews will increase efficiency and save money, meaning more applicants will be able to have their matters considered. It will also efficiently and reliably address the unprecedented increase in applications for student visas. In 2024-25 student visa refusal matters accounted for almost 40 per cent of all lodgements to the ART.

This bill is an example of responsive and responsible leadership by the Albanese Labor government. It will ensure a fit-for-purpose ART and provide greater efficiency and certainty for applicants. If we go back to 1975, when the AAT was created—by a Labor government—and look at the fundamental principles that sat behind the creation of the original tribunal, that is what this bill is about. The AAT was created to make sure that merits review was fair and that, when it came to decisions of government, people had a place to go to put their case forward for review. This bill upholds those fundamental principles and makes the ART fit for purpose so that we have fairness, transparency and a clear review process that deals with people's issues efficiently every single day. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context