Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024; In Committee

Shoebridge supported the government amendments, particularly the extension of the review application period for detainees from seven to 14 days. Shoebridge noted that the amendments removed provisions that would have removed tribunal discretion regarding technical defects in applications, aligning with recommendations from the Law Council. Shoebridge also supported an opposition amendment to guarantee a tribunal registry in every state and territory to ensure access to justice.

McLachlan announced the transition to two-minute statements following the consideration of the government amendments. No substantive policy arguments were presented in this contribution.

minister

Chisholm acknowledged the points raised about legal challenges to the Immigration Assessment Authority but stated he had not been briefed on its specific operations. Chisholm agreed to inquire whether the government had considered re-establishing a fast-track review process during the committee stage. Regarding the connection between the bill and the Miller High Court decision, Chisholm noted that the relevant sections had been removed by an earlier amendment. Chisholm urged the chamber to proceed with passing the bill to address administrative burdens on Services Australia staff.

shadow minister

Scarr requested clarification on whether the bill responded to the Miller High Court decision, noting that the Attorney-General's Department had previously stated it did not. Scarr argued that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had met or exceeded performance benchmarks for user satisfaction, transparency, and decision quality prior to its abolition. Scarr contended that the current bill was necessary to fix errors from a rushed legislative process and questioned why a fast-track option was not included given the growing backlog.

Shoebridge questioned the minister on the financial cost to the Commonwealth of defending over 460 Immigration Assessment Authority decisions that were found unlawful and overturned in the Federal Court between 2021-22 and 2022-23. Shoebridge highlighted the waste of public funds and the time taken to resolve these cases through the courts.