Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

For Australians out there, the Administrative Review Tribunal, also known as the ART, is the old AAT. They just took one of the A's out and replaced it with an R because, over time, political appointments were once again made in this place, and the ART was stacked with people who probably weren't qualified for and shouldn't have been in those chairs. However, when you remove people and change your name, you may want to put in place people who are qualified to be there. That would have been a good start. I have to say, your new attorney-general's been in there for seven or eight months, and we still have not stacked that in with members who need to be in there. I'm sure there are plenty of retired judges who would be happy to come in and do a few hours a week to get it down.

My other problem is with Home Affairs and the 'ticking and flicking'. If I'm hearing right, doesn't Home Affairs write back to applicants and say, 'I'm sorry, but, for us to process this application, we need more documents,' or do they just say a straight no'? Honestly, if it's not giving them a chance to say yes, then that's why you're filling up the ART. Maybe they need more discretion. Instead of just saying no to the visa, maybe they should tell the person why and explain that they would need further material to assess their application.

The ART is currently managing a significant backlog—I think we've heard about that. It's estimated to be around 112,000 to 127,000 matters. Nearly half of those are student visa decisions, which are about 38 per cent—or higher, as we've heard this morning—of the tribunal's total caseload.

This bill is to help clear the apparent backlog. Instead of having oral hearings, the ART would review this backlog on the papers. I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with expanding the circumstances when it comes to complex issues, whether it's the NDIS, Centrelink or veterans, especially when we're talking about medical conditions, psychiatric reports and things like that. I'm sorry, but, firstly, if you have to deal with DVA, you can guarantee that, whatever they're supplying the ART, they're only supplying what they need to. But sometimes the papers you want to supply don't get in there. We can't take our own lawyers into the ART. We have the Veterans' Review Board that comes under that and we're not allowed to take our own lawyers in there. The Commonwealth can have its lawyers, but we can't. We can take in an advocate. We're already disadvantaged when it comes to the Veterans' Review Board. It's very unfair. To enforce decisions on us when we go through the AAT without having all of that, without hearing us out, is not on. I imagine it's the same with people who have complex medical conditions under the NDIS and, of course, Centrelink.

In other words, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that the bill's provisions permitting the ART to determine matters on the papers without oral hearings are targeted and applied to certain areas, not to all of them. Sure, do it with student visas. They should be pretty straightforward; they shouldn't be complex issues. Either you want a visa or you don't. If you haven't supplied enough information, then get Home Affairs to ask them for more information if that's not the way it's working.

I also have an amendment that seeks to remove the power of the minister to make regulations to expand the scope of matters to be determined without an oral hearing. It seems like I'm not the only one who's a bit unsatisfied with that from the government. Like I said, it's not just student visas this legislation would capture. It also includes over 400 Commonwealth acts, ranging from taxation, Centrelink disputes and NDIS entitlements to workers comp matters. You're going to tick and flick this on the papers, are you? Yeah, I'll tell you what: it hasn't worked well in Veterans' Affairs and, at times, with the VRB.

Again, I have no problem with clearing a backlog, but this bill, in its current form, has the ability to remove natural justice from the applicants. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills stated:

… the conduct of oral hearings enhance public confidence, transparency, efficiency and the accessibility of proceedings and may, in some cases, be required for procedural fairness.

We've seen the transparency from this government. It's already been determined, it's out there in paper and it's black and white. You are the worst when it comes to transparency. You are worse than these guys were for those 10 years by double the amount. You are absolutely shocking. You fibbed to the Australian people that you would give us more transparency, and you did not. That is disgraceful and shameful on your behalf.

Given your government's very poor record on transparency over there so far in the past four years, you would think that you wouldn't want to do anything that further undermines Australia's public confidence in an important institution like the ART. I ask you to have a look at this and I ask you also to target it because this is not going to be uniform right across the bill. It just won't. It won't work in some areas. You're asking for trouble. Seriously, I have to say about the load on student visas, my goodness, is the right hand not talking to the left hand or something? What's new in this place?