Continued the debate
Scarr argued that the bill was required to correct mistakes arising from the rushed legislative process for the original Administrative Review Tribunal Act. Scarr noted that the committee had insufficient time to scrutinise the original 550-page legislation, leading to the need for these corrective measures. Scarr highlighted a specific issue regarding item 2 of schedule 4, which addresses the burden on decision-makers to repeatedly lodge and redact documents in child support cases. Scarr maintained that the original tribunal could have been reformed rather than abolished, and criticised the compensation arrangements for former tribunal members.