Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the minister I indicate the government's position in regard to this disallowance motion. I would agree with Senator Hanson-Young and with the point that Senator Xenophon made that the work of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal is very important. What the evidence points to is that decisions are becoming more complex and are becoming more lengthy and that there are increasing numbers of occasions on which the tribunals are required to make decisions, therefore it is important that the necessary resources be provided to allow them to do their important work. So the government has agreed to changes to the application fees for these tribunals in terms of applications to offset the appropriation for the operations of the tribunals in 2011-12 and in the out-years. Under these funding arrangements, the tribunals would have to incur operating losses in 2011-12 and in the forward years, making them technically insolvent, so the tribunals have insufficient cash reserves and the financial assets to meet their commitments as they fall due in the period of 2011-12.

The fee amendments will fully offset an increase in appropriations to these tribunals and avoid operating losses over the forward estimates period consistent with the operating budget rules. So any disallowance of the fee amendments will have a very negative effect on the government's fiscal projections and, of course, any additional offsets required from the tribunals instead may adversely impact upon the way in which these tribunals are actually able to operate. These changes would enable the two tribunals to avoid operating losses over the forward estimates period and enhance the tribunals' capacity to respond to the significant increase in caseloads and the deterioration in the processing times.

The tribunals incurred operating losses of approximately $10 million between 2008-09 and 2010-11. The operating losses have been funded from accumulated appropriations and this is a position that is not sustainable. The revised funding for the tribunals increases the cost provisions per case taking into account increases in the operating costs such as the members' remuneration increases which have been determined by the Remuneration Tribunal itself. It recognises also increases in the complexity of cases due to the impact of court judgments on the conduct of reviews and the effort needed to resolve cases. The application lodgements for the MRT and the RRT increased by 23 per cent between 2007-08 and 2009-10. The MRT application fee of $1,400 has not increased since the MRT was established in 1999. The RRT application fee, which is only payable post decision if the applicant is found not to be a refugee, has been at $1,400 since 2003.

The proposed changes for increases in the MRT and RRT application fees by 10 per cent from $1,400 to $1,540 will take effect from 1 July 2011. The application fee for the RRT only becomes payable after the review is completed and if the applicant is found not to be a refugee. The retaining of 50 per cent of the MRT application fee, rather than refunding the full application fee, is if the MRT sets aside the primary decision for applications for a review lodged on or before 1 July 2011. No fee is currently payable in relation to MRT applications by persons in immigration detention who are seeking a review of a decision to refuse or cancel a bridging visa, and no change is proposed to this. As to a reduction of a fee of 50 per cent on MRT applicants who are in financial hardship, rather than a full waiver for applications for review lodged on or after 1 July 2011, the $1,400 application fee to the MRT can be waived on the basis that the payment would cause severe financial hardship. There were fee waivers in some 490 cases, or six per cent of the applications lodged in the period of 2010-11, and 338 cases, or five per cent of the applications, in the year 2008-09. It should be noted that the fee will be refunded if the tribunal makes a favourable decision. So these provisions do preserve that arrangement. Automatic adjustment of the MRT and the RRT application fees for CPI increases would apply every two years.

The effect of agreeing to this disallowance would be quite severe. The disallowance of the proposed fee structure would have a quite serious impact on the operations of the tribunals to the tune of about $3½ million, which is based on the proposition that there are some 8,300 cases currently being decided in the period of 2011-12. The disallowance of the partial fee waivers would have a negative impact of some $2.3 million per annum and that is based on the proposition that some 6,000 cases are being decided before the MRT in the period of 2011-12 and with, of course, the MRT only primary decisions setting aside at the rate of 49 per cent.

  The disallowance of this regulation would result in both these tribunals having to internally reallocate funding from other parts of their budgets to provide for payment of the full refunds. These charges are about providing quality decision-making and to give these tribunals the resources they need to ensure that they maintain effective and efficient case resolutions. If this disallowance is agreed to by the Senate it would result in substantial delays in the time taken to review a decision, the impact of which would be felt most acutely by those who are in immigration detention, who, as a consequence of such an action, would remain in detention for much longer periods of time. The proposal that the Greens are advancing here would seriously disadvantage people who are currently in detention.

  Many of the applications that are going to these tribunals are from parents and partners—and, of course, there are some children—who are waiting to join family members in Australia. Disallowing these changes in the fee structure may mean more time is spent separated from families. What the government is proposing is economically responsible and just, and it provides us with the appropriate mechanism to place support with those who are facing severe financial hardship. I seek the support of the Senate in rejecting this disallowance motion.