Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to ask some questions that relate to the judicial review processes and options under this bill. In some sense they go to amendments that have been moved by either the Greens or Labor, and I'm genuinely trying to get an understanding of whether or not it's worth supporting those particular amendments. Just to give perhaps anyone who is listening a common level of understanding, in relation to decisions made by the minister—

An honourable senator: You're an optimist!

Okay! In relation to decisions made by ministers, there are normally different ways in which they can be challenged. The simplest one for a litigant, particularly a litigant in person—an individual—is through the AAT, for a $930 fee, and they would then seek to have that decision reviewed in a quasi-judicial environment. Perhaps the next level up is through a court, either the FCC or the Federal Court, using the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or some other provision in an act that permitted that. And then the final stage, which of course can't be legislated out, is a review by way of constitutional writ of prohibition or mandamus or such things. I'm just trying to work out the logic behind—actually, I understand the logic behind it—not wanting to have a review that goes to national security matters or national interest matters necessarily played out. At the moment, the only option is a constitutional review. I wonder what the difference is in terms of burden for an entity to initiate that constitutional review versus something under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. In some sense that will inform the chamber as to why you sought to cut out the AD(JR) Act.