Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Shoebridge indicated the Greens would support the bill following government amendments in committee that removed provisions requiring strict compliance for migration applications. Shoebridge credited NGOs for raising concerns that the original draft would have rejected applications with minor defects, denying vulnerable people review rights. Shoebridge welcomed amendments extending the time to lodge migration applications from seven to 14 days, though he noted this remained less than the 28 days allowed for other matters. Shoebridge also supported a coalition amendment guaranteeing at least one tribunal registry per state and moved amendments to provide a pathway for permanency for those rejected under previous fast-track systems.

Scarr expressed deep concern about the insufficient time allowed for scrutiny of the original legislation, which led to the safety risks in child support matters described by Cash. Scarr argued that the rushed process forced public servants into an intensive manual review process that could inadvertently trigger domestic violence incidents. Scarr stated that the objective evidence did not support abolishing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and criticised the government for departing from independent remuneration advice regarding terminated members. Scarr supported the coalition's amendment to ensure tribunal registries in every state and territory.