Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to focus on one group who will be disproportionately affected by this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and that is migrants who speak English as a second or additional language. There is no question that improving the efficiency of government processes is important. A system that works faster and uses public resources wisely benefits everyone. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, nor can it come at the cost of transparency and accountability. A review system that is faster but inaccessible or that shifts responsibility onto others is not efficiency; it's a failure. This bill proposes the removal of oral hearings, replacing them with reviews conducted largely on the papers. We are told this is about streamlining process, yet, for many migrants navigating the system in a second language, written-only processes are not faster; they are inaccessible. Oral hearings matter. They allow individuals to explain their circumstances in their own voice with interpreters present and give decision-makers the opportunity to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. Limiting that safeguard may save time on paper, but it risks unjust outcomes. Efficiency must not replace fairness.

The most serious flaw in this bill is not only who it disadvantages but where the burden is being shifted to. By moving to reviews that are conducted on the papers, the government is not actually reducing work; it is transferring it onto migrant and refugee services, community legal centres, settlement organisations and NGOs. These organisations are already underfunded, overstretched and operating at capacity. This is not an unintended consequence; it is entirely foreseeable. When people are denied oral hearings, they do not suddenly gain the skills to prepare complex written submissions in a second language. They'll return to community organisations for help drafting submissions, translating documents and navigating procedural requirements. That's not reform; that is cost shifting. It's the government quietly outsourcing its procedural responsibilities to the community sector without providing additional funding or support.

So I ask: has the government modelled the increased demand this bill will place on migrant and community services? Has it consulted with the NGOs expected to absorb the workload? And, if it has, why is there no funding allocated? A system that relies on unpaid labour to function is not efficient; it's irresponsible.

This bill also forms part of a broader pattern. Only recently, under legislation passed in the context of hate speech laws, this parliament removed the right of migrants to seek review of visa cancellation decisions made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs. Independent review is being curtailed, and access to oral hearings is being wound back. These are core accountability mechanisms being dismantled, not minor procedural adjustments.

The same problem appears in this bill's delegation of power. It allows the expansion of 'on the papers' reviews by regulation rather than legislation. That means that future decisions to limit oral hearings could be made by the executive, with minimal scrutiny, rather than being debated in this parliament. Any extension beyond the categories currently proposed should be subject to proper consultation, transparency and the possibility of a disallowance. Efficiency cannot justify bypassing parliament or undermining procedural safeguards.

This must also be seen in the context of broader transparency concerns. Proposed changes to freedom-of-information laws would require people to pay to access government documents. For Australians on low incomes, that cost is a true barrier. If you cannot afford to know how a decision was made, accountability becomes theoretical. If oral hearings are removed, we must be honest about who will be affected. It will not be well-resourced applicants with legal teams. It will be migrants trying to navigate a complex system in a second language while working, raising families and relying on community organisations that are already stretched to breaking point.

Finally, what consultation has been undertaken with migrant communities and service providers? Were their concerns heard? If the feedback exists, it should be tabled. If it does not, this legislation has been developed without regard for those who will be forced to make it work. Administrative review is meant to safeguard fairness and accountability. It's not supposed to shield government decisions from scrutiny or offload responsibility onto charities and community organisations. Efficiency is important, but it must strengthen the system, not erode it. I urge the government to reconsider these measures and to ensure that any efficiencies achieved do not come at the expense of fairness, transparency or the integrity of the review process.