Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party, the opposition, to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Upfront, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill. Why will we support it, though? Because, quite frankly, Australians deserve decisions that are made faster and that reduce backlogs, but, more than that, they deserve an administrative review system that is actually able to function in the real world.

Why has this bill been brought before this place? Interestingly, this is not the first time that an ART bill has been brought before this place. The reason this bill is here—I can't remember if it's number three now or number four—is that we are now in the aftermath of a complete policy wrecking exercise by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a minister in the history of government in Australia that has had to return to the chamber as many times as former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, because the legislation that was originally put through was so egregious in terms of its fundamental flaws. But here we are again. Is this the last time? I honestly couldn't tell you.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It won't be the last time.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Scarr. It will not be the last time. As I said, we'll support this, but that's because we are here today to help the Labor Party—to help the government—clean up what I said was a complete policy wrecking exercise by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. In fact, that would be a nice little banner: 'Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. ART. One billion dollars. Complete policy wrecking exercise.'

What actually happened in context of this bill was, if you recall, for purely political reasons, the former attorney-general tore down the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replaced it—and we'll get to the cost shortly—at great cost to the Australian taxpayer: $1 billion. One billion dollars to tear down what was known as the AAT and replace it with the ART. All Australians need to understand this: it cost you $1 billion—$1 billion!—that could have been spent elsewhere, on actually assisting you, to change the name of the body from the AAT to the ART.

What's also happened is—we didn't support this legislation—the changes that the Labor government put forward have meant Australians have paid the price in blowouts, backlogs and dysfunction. I can't wait to hear the government senator try to explain away what this bill is, seriously. These talking points are really going to be talking points for the moment. Let us be very clear. This is a clean-up bill. One might even say it is a legislative mop and bucket. What the Australian Labor Party had sold the Australian people as a new era of integrity and efficiency in administrative review has, in practice—we will go through the figures shortly—delivered delay, backlog, confusion and dysfunction. As I said, we're back here again. I'm with Senator Scarr—I don't think it's going to be the last time that we are forced back into the parliament to fix the consequences of a 'design fail' bill.

Let's have a look at what Labor promised. They promised Australians that the new tribunal would restore trust, speed up outcomes and raise standards. I have to say, if I heard that, at first blush, I'd probably say, 'That sounds pretty good.' The bad news for Australians is this: you don't live in press releases. You live in the real world. The impact on the real world is this, where a decision is delayed for months, and months, and months. That is not integrity. It is a system failing the people who are subject to it. That failure is not theoretical. Outcomes matter more than slogans. The slogans sounded great at the time, but the reality is this. The test of a tribunal is simple: How long does it take to get a decision? Is the process predictable and accessible? And does it support program integrity, particularly when we're talking about migration cases? Or—and this is where we're at—does it become a bottleneck that invites delay and exploitation?

On each of those tests, Labor's model—$1 billion, which changed an A to an R—they are actually failing. This is the reality. These are the numbers. They are damning. The caseload, from the AAT to the $1 billion ART, was 67,000 matters in May 2022, when we left office. For a billion dollars of taxpayers' money, former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has now increased that caseload—it is quite spectacular—by almost 50 per cent to 111,000, Senator Scarr.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's 126,000 now!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's 126,000—there you go! I'm going to speak to my staff on that. It's 126,000 now. It was 67,000 in May 2022. We were meant to be decreasing the caseload. The caseload has almost doubled to 126,000. Worse is this: median case times have blown out. In May 2022 they were around 30 weeks. They are now 68 weeks. Remember that this is a billion dollars of taxpayers' money that was meant to provide more integrity in the system. Worse, student visa appeals have surged from around 2,000 cases in 2022—this is almost unbelievable; in fact, I thought there was a mistake, but it's not—to more than 40,000.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's 48,000.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's 48,000. It keeps on growing. Senator Scarr, if we give this speech next week, it'll go up again. But, again, this is the issue. It costs the Australian taxpayer $1 billion. It's a billion dollars, and they were sold a pup. It's a billion dollars, and they were told, 'We are going to bring all of these waiting times down.' Guess what? These are the statistics. The government cannot resile from them in their talking points, and quite frankly the statistics are an absolute indictment on the government.

This is not a minor administrative inconvenience. This is now a serious problem for the integrity and credibility of Commonwealth decision-making. What is the government trying to do with this bill? I have to say, this is where the irony, quite frankly, is even greater. What we are agreeing to today is something that the Liberal Party had argued for consistently. So what are we doing? We will establish a fast-track on-the-papers review process for certain visa decisions, particularly student visa refusal decisions. Why? It's because we agree that, with the blowout in the wait times and the decision-making, we actually do now need a process that will cut through the backlog and deliver timely outcomes.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But this is the irony, Senator Scarr. We are actually going to, within reason, implement the process that, when we were in government, they vehemently opposed. We, when we were in government, as you know, implemented the Immigration Assessment Authority. It was called the IAA. It was created under the former Liberal government. Why? Australians probably don't want to be reminded of this history, but it was to deal with a backlog and a surge in protection claims that flowed from Labor's border-policy failures during the Rudd-Gillard years. We are a welcoming and generous nation. We all know that. But under the former Liberal government we maintained a strong humanitarian program. The reason we could do so is because the system was carefully managed. It was firm but fair, had stronger borders through security checks and had a review system that did not collapse, as it is currently doing, under its own weight. That balance matters. If you recall that during the Rudd-Gillard period there was chaos—I think it was an influx of 50,000 irregular maritime arrivals at the time—I sat on the relevant committee at the time, the last time we were in opposition. It was a tragic loss at sea. Of course, there was a surge in claims that inevitably fed into the review system.

When we came into government, what did we do? We established the IAA. Why? It was because we wanted to clean up the backlog. Guess what? It actually worked. We resolved this backlog. Cases were being decided in weeks not months or years. But at the time Labor hated it. They called us every name under the sun. They opposed this efficiency in the system bitterly. They knew that every case that came before the IAA was a reminder of the consequence of their policy setting failures and that a fast-track on-the-papers review was necessary to get through the migration mess that they had created. In fact, they hated it so much, despite the fact that we're here today doing what the Liberal Party had done in government, they even put in their national platform that it should be abolished.

So it's going to be interesting to listen to the speeches on the other side justifying something that they opposed last time they were in opposition, something that, in their national platform, they said should be abolished, when here we are today because the $1 billion of taxpayers' money that was spent to produce a fairer and more equitable system has fundamentally failed Australians. They are introducing what we, as the Liberal government, introduced—just under a different name. That is the reality. Once again, Labor is in power. Once again, the migration system has blown out. And, once again, as has happened previously, the government is reaching for Liberal backed mechanisms to slice through the backlog.

What were the main features of the IAA that were necessary to deal with Labor's mismanagement of our migration program? There was a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog—and it did; the statistics don't lie. What are we actually debating today? What's the main feature in the bill that is currently before the Senate? That would be a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog. Well,    quite frankly, if it looks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. That's why we're supporting it: because you're implementing Liberal Party policy that you opposed the last time you were in opposition and put into your platform that you never wanted to see. Yet here we are today, because you spent a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. You have failed the Australian taxpayer completely, so you've had to adopt Liberal Party policy to clean up your mess. In fact, Senator Scarr, the last time we spoke about the IAA in the chamber you made the point that IAA decisions were upheld at rates directly comparable to a full merits review in the AAT and that those decisions were made in around seven weeks, not seven months. You were right. This body is necessary. It was an efficient body. It is going to be an efficient body. It was needed back then to clean up Labor's migration mess.

So, whilst I despair that the former Attorney-General of this country spent one billion dollars of Australian taxpayers' money changing an 'A' to an 'R' and in the process delivering to them chaos, dysfunction and delay—that is, unfortunately, backed up; those on the other side can say what they like, but the statistics do not lie: backlog, delay and dysfunction—I'm glad that this government has finally come to its senses. I'm glad that, despite the billion-dollar waste—in fact, it's more than a billion dollars now, because of the waste—the Labor government has again realised that we do need a process, like the Liberal government introduced, to cut through the backlog and restore basic functionality. That's why the Liberal Party is very happy to support the re-establishment of that type of mechanism in this bill.

When you get to the heart of the issue, when it comes to running migration and keeping administrative review moving, Labor creates the mess—the mess is now there for all to see; the statistics are there—and then comes back into the parliament and asks the Liberal Party to help clean it up, which we will do, because the Australian taxpayer deserves better. As I said, policy failure by the former Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, tore down a tribunal that was operating and implemented, at a cost of a billion dollars, a model that's been slower, more costly and totally overwhelmed, with unprecedented blowouts and case load and months and months and months of delay.

As I said, the Liberal Party will back this bill. We will do so in the interest of all Australians, because we want to get matters moving, we want to reduce the backlogs and we want to restore a system that—just like when we were in government—actually works in practice.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to express my support for the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Improving the efficiency of the Administrative Review Tribunal is an incredibly important issue for many people and also for me as the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Albanese Labor government is committed to merits review. It's a fundamental feature of our legal system. A quick, efficient and informal merits review improves government decision-making and helps build and maintain public confidence in our institutions. That is why we abolished the deeply, deeply dysfunctional Administrative Appeals Tribunal, after years of mismanagement by those opposite and political stacking by those opposite. The Albanese government inherited an outdated system with a significant backlog. But, unlike those opposite, we are a government that take action and—

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators Cash and Scarr, you were heard in silence. You will show respect to Senator Stewart.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we are determined to make the tribunal more efficient and fairer for all.

The tribunal, in its current form, began operating in October 2024. By bringing in a sustainable funding model and merit based appointments, we have strengthened the tribunal's integrity. However, what is clear from all accounts is that the current model is far from perfect. We are not shying away from that. There are significant operational issues that are hindering the efficiency of the tribunal. We know that the current procedures are not flexible enough. We know that there are significant delays and backlogs. Applicants are left in limbo for months and even years, waiting for what should be a quick merits review. This bill will change that.

The tribunal currently requires oral hearings in most circumstances, even for simple matters which could be resolved through written submissions. That does not reflect the actual needs of matters before the tribunal. This bill would ensure that merits review is proportionate and has been informed by recommendations from Christine Nixon's Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system. This bill will expand the tribunal's ability to make decisions 'on the papers', which means without conducting an oral hearing, in appropriate cases. That is what this bill is all about—allowing the tribunal to adapt to the circumstances, where appropriate.

This supports the government's commitment to ensuring the tribunal has the tools that it needs to deliver effective and efficient merits review and address its significant case load of applicants for review. These measures are appropriate and reasonable given the low volume and complexity of relevant materials. The tribunal would be required to seek submissions from applicants, and it must consider those submissions before coming to its decision.

It is also important to note that the bill specifically excludes permanent and protection visa matters. This is because these matters generally include more complex information and, in the case of protection visa applications, a more vulnerable cohort of applicants. We have been listening to feedback from genuine applicants and understand how stressful long waiting times and uncertainty can be for them. These delays reduce their access to justice, and the case overload means they are sometimes waiting months or years for a decision. That isn't fair or reasonable. This bill would reduce the backlog at the tribunal stage and allow those genuine applicants to know the outcome of their review faster.

But we also acknowledge that, as a government, we have the important task of protecting our nation's migration system. We want to ensure that non-genuine applicants aren't given a chance to exploit our merits review system to prolong their stay. We know that onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse the granting of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. We need to be pragmatic about the risks of this nuance of the merits review process and take action to prevent non-genuine applicants from gaming the system. This bill will remove that incentive and safeguard the integrity of merits review. Increased efficiency does not mean that we'll disregard quality decision-making, and we must strike a balance between the two. The decisions made at the tribunal have a real-life impact on those people who come before it. The Albanese government recognises that not every review is the same. That is why the tribunal should be empowered to provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the matter. The time and resources expended to determine a matter should always reflect the complexity of the issues and the importance of what is at stake.

Let me be clear: nothing in this bill will stop an applicant from putting forward a full and forthright case to the tribunal. The Albanese government is committed to merits review and to maintaining public trust in the tribunal. Merits review is absolutely a critical part of our legal system, and that is not changing. But it should also be proportionate. The tribunal has a crucial role to play in enabling fair, quick and inexpensive reviews of government decisions. This bill will help adapt the tribunal's procedures, which are no longer fit for purpose, in a way that is best suited to the matters and issues that come before the tribunal.

This bill is bringing in balanced and targeted measures to ensure that the tribunal has the tools that it needs to manage its case load efficiently and fairly. While we further empower the tribunal to make efficient and timely decisions, we also ensure applicants have a meaningful opportunity to make their case to the tribunal. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and after hearing submissions and expert evidence, I strongly support this bill.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation, the Greens will be opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I was on the review by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I listened to multiple witnesses from a variety of different organisations who gave clear evidence about why this bill should not be supported, how it will take away important procedural rights, how it is unfairly targeted at migrants and how, potentially, it is going to give significantly expanded powers to the government of the day to remove even more rights from reviews in migration matters.

I also heard, because I listened, the evidence about the real failures causing the backlog not being in the Administrative Review Tribunal—although I accept that they're underresourced and they don't have the appointments they should have to deal with the work. The real reason the backlog is happening in the ART is the poor behaviour of Home Affairs and its automatic refusal of tens of thousands of visa applications because people haven't got all their documentation together at a particular point in time. The surge of refusals from Home Affairs explains a large part of the backlogs in the ART.

What I find remarkable, having listened carefully to Senator Cash and then to Senator Stewart, is that not one of them referred to the multiple compelling submissions from stakeholders and people engaged in the space who said that this bill should not be supported. Not one of them made any reference to those, so no wonder those stakeholders are asking themselves, 'What is the process for—this sham process where the government presents a piece of legislation which is largely reheating the coalition's previous attacks on procedural fairness rights in the ART?' To that extent, Senator Cash was right that this is legislation from the Labor Party trying to put into the microwave some failed efforts from the coalition previously. That part of Senator Cash's analysis was right. What Senator Cash failed to address, of course, is that the intent of the coalition at the time and the intent of Labor now, no doubt with the support of One Nation, is to remove rights from people when they say that their visa application has been unfairly or wrongly refused by Home Affairs. If the government were serious about reform to address the backlog that the ART is facing, it should do two things: it should properly and adequately resource the ART, putting in the members who are needed to do the job, and it should look to Home Affairs and its poor behaviour—its 'refuse first, ask questions later' behaviour—that is driving tens of thousands of applications into the ART. But, of course, that would require putting the hard word on Home Affairs, not punching down on migrants.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. You will be in continuation. It being 1.30, we will now proceed to two-minute statements.