Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask the minister about the case that I'm trying to make in relation to vulnerable Australians who go to the ART to be heard on issues outside of student visas. The fact is that the government has given itself the ability to do this via a regulation to exclude entire classes and to include other groups of applicants who would no longer be able to ever be heard in front of the ART themselves. Consider, particularly, the breadth of vulnerability of some of those people who might be included in that

Why does the government feel it appropriate to do this from a regulatory point of view, as opposed to coming to this parliament and making the case for it? I would love the minister to engage on the question of why the government even drafted and determined the ART in its current form, if it is willing to so quickly go back and say, 'People should no longer have a hearing and we give ourselves, the government, the opportunity to pass regulations on that basis—that whole groups of people no longer have the opportunity to have a hearing.' This is when the ART professionals, looking at the merits of the case, say: 'I have additional questions here. These are important questions. I would like to be able to put them to the applicant. But, under the legislation, this is no longer going to be possible.'

I want to understand which vulnerable groups the government has considered, because the acknowledgement that it's excluded temporary protection visas goes to the point that the government recognises that there are some people who should not be able to be considered only 'on the papers'. My question is: what about those other vulnerable people in those other classes? Why should they not be able to have the opportunity to, at least, be considered for a verbal hearing rather than being excluded by regulation 'on the papers'?

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

See this speech in context