Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Migration Review Tribunal currently has a discretion to waive the $1,540 fee for a review of the decision if it is satisfied that the fee would cause the applicant severe financial hardship. That is a criterion and it seems to be a very fair criterion. It is not something which is done lightly but that discretion exists. Under these regulations, which I call 'mean and tricky regulations', which are the subject of this disallowance motion, the Migration Review Tribunal will only be able to reduce the review fee by 50 per cent. You have to ask: why? And where is the equity of this? It seems to me quite unreal that a person who is deemed to be suffering financial hardship and is unable to pay $1,540 is somehow supposed to be able to pay $770. If we are talking about people who are on the poverty line and are struggling, and for whom every cent counts, $770 is a very significant some of money. If they cannot pay $770 does that mean that the individual will have no access to a review? Furthermore, this fee well exceeds fees for other types of merits reviews of Commonwealth agency decisions. For instance, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal applies no fees if someone wants to appeal a Centrelink decision about entitlements, nor does the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a Commonwealth workers compensation decision. It is $100 to appeal a visa cancellation on character grounds to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and just $77 to appeal a taxation objection decision of less than $5,000 to the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal. So the $1,540 fee for a review of the MRT is exorbitant to begin with and to suggest that someone deemed to be in financial hardship is able to pay even half of that is beyond me. I support this disallowance motion.