Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report : Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Inquiry into the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No . 1 ) Bill 2021

The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the provisions of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment Bill (2021 Measure No. 1) Bill 2021.

The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation and notes that the Bill was passed by the Senate with amendments moved by the Opposition (as noted below) on 2 September 2021.

Minority Report — Labor Senators

Recommendation 1:

Labor senators recommend that the bill be amended to remove:

Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Federal Court ofAustralia Act 1976

Recommendation 2:

Following the implementation of Recommendation 1, Labor Senators recommend that the Senate pass the Bill.

Response:

The Government notes that the Bill was passed, including three Opposition amendments to reflect Recommendation 1, in the Senate on 2 September 2021.

Dissenting Report - Australian Greens

Recommendation 1:

The Australian Greens recommend that the government reject the proposed amendments to subsections 7(2)(c) and 7(3)(b) of the AdministrativeAppeals TribunalAct 1975 from the bill to remove the role of the Governor-General in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) appointment processes. Instead the government should abolish the IAA and establish a fairer process for persons seeking asylum.

Response:

The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to subsection 7(2)(c) and 7(3)(b) of the AdministrativeAppeals TribunalAct 1975 from the Bill.

The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) provides automatic review of fast track reviewable decisions. Fast track reviewable decisions are those decisions made by the Minister for Immigration, or delegate, to refuse to grant a protection visa to a fast track applicant. The IAA must conduct a review that is efficient, quick, free of bias and consistent with the procedural requirements set out in Division 3 of Part 7AA of the MigrationAct 1958.

The review process employed by the IAA is rigorous and includes:

The IAA's efficiency in reviewing fast track matters is clear. The median time for a matter to be finalised in the IAA in 2020-2021 was between 4-6 weeks as opposed to 99 weeks in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the same period. This recognises that fast track applicants are facing challenging personal and financial circumstances that warrant fast and fair decisions. Further, the IAA remits approximately 10% of decisions to the DHA for reconsideration and its decisions remain subject to judicial review. The option to seek judicial review remains open to applicants after the IAA process.

The Government therefore does not agree with the position that the IAA should be abolished and a fairer process be established for persons seeking asylum.

Recommendation 2:

The Australian Greens recommend that the Senate reject proposed amendments to section 60 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from the bill to grant High Court judge privileges and immunities to IAA reviewers.

Response:

The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to section 60 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Recommendation 3:

The Australian Greens recommend that the Senate reject proposed amendment to section 28(5) of the Federal Court ofAustralia Act 1976, which would allow the Federal Court to provide short form judgments. Instead, the Government should properly resource the AAT, and appoint more relevantly qualified and experienced AAT members to address the current backlogs.

Response:

The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to section 28(5) of the Federal Court ofAustralia Act 1976.

The Government recognises the significant backlogs which exist in the AAT, primarily in the Migration and Refugee Division (MRD). As at 31 May 2021, the AAT had approximately 66,000 existing matters on hand, of which approximately 57,000 were within the MRD.

The Government acknowledges the work of the AAT in addressing the backlogs in the MRD, finalising over 20,000 matters per year over the last three years. The Government has provided $18.9M in additional funding to the AAT from 2021-22 through 2024-25 to finalise an additional 2,000 matters per year in the MRD.

The Government acknowledges that additional funding and members will only go so far and recognises that applications without merit are contributing to the backlog, especially in the MRD. The Government is committed to ensuring that the migration review system in Australia is not subject to abuse and that meritorious applicants have appropriate access to justice.

The Government therefore does not agree with the position that the AAT is not properly resourced and notes efforts to appoint more relevantly qualified and experienced AAT members to address the current backlogs.

Recommendation 4:

The Australian Greens recommend that the government create an independent body to make AAT appointments to strengthen the independence of the AAT appointment process and ensure that only relevantly experienced and qualified people are appointed.

Response:

The Government is committed to ensuring the AAT has the resources it needs to provide high quality merits review with minimum delay.

In accordance with the Protocolfor Appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal 2019, an Expression of Interest process is run each year for appointments to the AAT. The President of the AAT considers the suitability of applicants who have provided expressions to the register and provides recommendations to the Attorney-General as to what positions need to be filled, suitable candidates and advice about members whose appointment is expiring and whether they should be reappointed.

The Attorney-General will then recommend potential appointments to Cabinet. When recommending appointments, the Attorney-General certifies (where required) that the appointees are qualified under sections 7(2)(b) and 7(3)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 by virtue of having specialist skills and relevant knowledge. Following Cabinet consideration, the proposed appointments are considered by the Executive Council and ultimately made by the Governor-General.

The existing process is rigorous with a number of checks to ensure its integrity and that the most suitable candidates are appointed to the AAT.

The Government does not agree with the position that an independent body should be established to make AAT appointments.

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 197: Minamata Convention on Mercury

Response

The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Minamata Convention on Mercury and provides the following response to the Committee's recommendations:

Recommendation 2

The Committee supports the Minamata Convention on Mercury and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.

Response:

The Government welcomes the Committee's agreement that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the Minamata Convention and commits to move swiftly to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends the Government reassess the need to seek an exemption to allow for the continued importation of High Pressure Mercury Vapour (HPMV) lamps into Australia, considering such an exemption to be reputationally damaging and of limited practical benefit.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Following publication of JSCOT Report 197, the Australian Government further consulted the streetlighting sector regarding the implications of phasing out HPMV lamps.

Feedback from the sector indicated that while the proposed exemption would assist some providers, there is heightened awareness across the sector of the need to complete the transition to other kinds of streetlights as soon as possible. This is driven both by an understanding of the need to prepare for Australia's impending ratification of the Minamata Convention, and by the rapidly diminishing global supplies of HPMV lamps (due to the effectiveness of the Convention).

Noting industry feedback that phase out of HPMV lamp use in the short term is considered achievable, the Government will not pursue an exemption for the continued importation of HPMV lamps.

The Government will continue to work with affected stakeholders to ensure they are aware of the timing and implications of ratification and minimise potential impacts to service provision.