This bill became law on Jun 3rd, 2024.
Law, justice & rights
Australia replaces the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. with a new review body and restores the Administrative Review CouncilAn oversight body that watches the administrative review system and points out wider problems in how government decisions are made. to watch for wider problems in government decision-making.
The old review system left gaps in independence, consistency and access, including no guaranteed second Tribunal review for social services cases. This bill replaces the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. with a new body, restores oversight, requires merit-based member selection, and expands review and participation rights.
With the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. already handling federal merits reviewA fresh look at whether a government decision was the right one, not just whether the law was followed., criticism had built around delayed and inconsistent decisions, opaque appointments and the lack of a guaranteed second tribunal review for social services cases. The 2024 bill responded by replacing the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. with the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body created to review many government decisions after the AAT is abolished., reviving the Administrative Review CouncilAn oversight body that watches the administrative review system and points out wider problems in how government decisions are made. and tightening merit-based appointments, and after Parliament passed it in May and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in June 2024, those reforms became the basis for a new review system.
The main criticism was that the bill was a rushed and expensive rebuild of the tribunal system, with opponents arguing the government had not justified scrapping the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. instead of fixing it and had not properly scrutinised a package said to cost about $1 billion. These objections were raised mostly by Coalition senators and some crossbenchMembers of Parliament or senators who are not part of the government or the main opposition parties. critics, while the Greens ultimately supported the bill after amendments but still warned it left unfairness in migration and refugee cases.
The government introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbenchMembers of Parliament or senators who are not part of the government or the main opposition parties. members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbenchMembers of Parliament or senators who are not part of the government or the main opposition parties. members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 03 June 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
179 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia replaces the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. with a new review body and restores the Administrative Review CouncilAn oversight body that watches the administrative review system and points out wider problems in how government decisions are made. to watch for wider problems in government decision-making.
Most new Tribunal members must now be picked through a public merit processAn open selection process meant to choose Tribunal members on suitability and experience rather than political ties., and the minister cannot recommend them unless an assessment panelThe panel that checks whether Tribunal member candidates are suitable before the minister can put them forward. has found them suitable.
After the new Tribunal starts, people challenging social services decisions can get a second Tribunal review as of right if they are unhappy with the first review result.
People with disability can take part with help from a litigation supporterA person who helps someone with disability take part in Tribunal proceedings while the law still treats that person as able to make their own decisions., and the law starts from the position that they can make their own decisions.
The new guidance and appeals panel can step in on important Tribunal matters or possible major mistakes, helping make decisions more consistent across government review.
The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (the Bill) would establish a new federal administrative review body (the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal)), provide for the appointment of members to the Tribunal and the powers and procedures of the Tribunal. It would also re‑establish the Administrative Review Council.Administrative Review Tribunal explanatory memorandum
The suitability of prospective members (other than Judicial Deputy Presidents) will be assessed through a thorough, competitive, merit-based and publicly-advertised process. The legislation requires the Minister to establish an assessment panel to conduct this assessment process. The Minister cannot recommend a candidate for appointment to the Tribunal unless they have been assessed as suitable by an assessment panel through a merit-based process.Second reading speech
That is why the legislation provides a pathway to seek second review for parties in social services decisions who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the first review. Second review is intended to support a smoother transition to the new Tribunal for this cohort.Second reading speech
The legislation implements a supported decision-making model for people with a disability. It provides that a person may participate in a proceeding by, or with the support of, a litigation 'supporter' and that parties to a proceeding are assumed to have decision-making ability. This presumption cannot be rebutted solely on the basis that a person has a disability.Second reading speech
The Bill establishes a guidance and appeals panel within the Tribunal to resolve matters raising systemic issues and review Tribunal decisions that may be affected by error. This will promote consistent Tribunal decision making and more rapid responses to emerging issues.Second reading speech
Context
With the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. already handling federal merits reviewA fresh look at whether a government decision was the right one, not just whether the law was followed., criticism had built around delayed and inconsistent decisions, opaque appointments and the lack of a guaranteed second tribunal review for social services cases. The 2024 bill responded by replacing the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. with the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body created to review many government decisions after the AAT is abolished., reviving the Administrative Review CouncilAn oversight body that watches the administrative review system and points out wider problems in how government decisions are made. and tightening merit-based appointments, and after Parliament passed it in May and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in June 2024, those reforms became the basis for a new review system.
Government introduces bill to replace the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page.
The bill was introduced with the case that the existing review system had gaps in independence, consistency and access, including no guaranteed second tribunal review for social services decisions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes bill with government amendments
After debate and amendment, the House sent on a package that included the new tribunal structure, merit-based member selection and restored oversight through the Administrative Review CouncilAn oversight body that watches the administrative review system and points out wider problems in how government decisions are made..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate receives revised bill package
When the bill reached the Senate, revised explanatory material set out added access measures including a second review as of rightA built-in right to ask for another Tribunal review of some social services decisions if the first result is not accepted. for social services cases and support for some people with disability to participate.
Hansard ↗Senate debate focuses on AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. delays and appointments
Speakers described the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. as having delayed and inefficient decision-making and criticised appointments they said were politically based, sharpening the case for replacement.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the final text, clearing the way to abolish the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. and establish the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body created to review many government decisions after the AAT is abolished..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. creates the new review framework
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into law so the replacement tribunal and restored council could be put into effect.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (14/12/2023): House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; Committee report (23/02/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesReferred to Committee (08/02/2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 86 to 52.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 34 to 26.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 24.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: Observed text changed from "(a) Division 3 of Part 3 (applying for review of decision);" to "(aa) Division 3 of Part 3 (applying for review of decision); (b) any document or thing relating to the earlier proceedi…".
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill was a rushed and expensive rebuild of the tribunal system, with opponents arguing the government had not justified scrapping the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. instead of fixing it and had not properly scrutinised a package said to cost about $1 billion. These objections were raised mostly by Coalition senators and some crossbenchMembers of Parliament or senators who are not part of the government or the main opposition parties. critics, while the Greens ultimately supported the bill after amendments but still warned it left unfairness in migration and refugee cases.
Criticism was substantial but split between process, cost and some remaining policy gaps rather than one single objection.
Rushed and poorly scrutinised overhaul
Critics said the legislation was forced through too quickly for a long and complex package, with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny and late amendments creating risks for how the new tribunal would work in practice.
Costly rebrand instead of real reform
A central case against the bill was that it would spend about $1 billion abolishing the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. and replacing it with a body doing much the same job, when the existing system should have been repaired rather than rebuilt.
Risk of politicisation and weaker fairness in some cases
Some opponents argued the new structure would let the government replace experienced members with political appointees, while the Greens said that even after improvements the bill still left serious unfairness in migration and refugee matters.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 34 to 24. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 34 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 35 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 86 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated 49 to 87. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a gag-style procedural vote about whether to stop the speaking time, not a vote on the bill's policy.
Defeated 49 to 81. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was another procedural interruption of debate rather than a decision on the bill itself.
Passed 86 to 53. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was agreed.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Government amendments restrict and clarify tribunal procedure by replacing litigation guardian with litigation supporter, making related technical corrections, and creating a second review pathway for eligible social services decisions with updated notice rules.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Passed 35 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a technical but important safeguard so review matters would not automatically end when an applicant could no longer continue.
Defeated 13 to 44. Support came from Greens and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The government kept flexibility over where tribunal offices and staff would be located rather than locking in a minimum presence everywhere.
Senator Shoebridge’s second-reading amendment was defeated on voices and would have added a Senate note about shorter time limits, no ability to extend time, and limited access to legal help in the refugee and migration division.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate defeated Senator Shoebridge’s second-reading amendment raising concerns about refugee and migration review limits.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ruston opposes the bill, saying it is an expensive rebranding exercise that wastes a billion dollars during a cost-of-living crisis and politicises an independent review body.
Read in Hansard ↗Brown supports the bill and says it will abolish the AATThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. and replace it with a stronger, more user-focused tribunal.
Read in Hansard ↗Hollie Hughes opposes the bill, saying it is a costly rebrand of the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body this bill replaces, often shortened to AAT on the page. that will let the government replace experienced members with Labor appointees.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash opposes the bill, arguing it is a rushed, poorly scrutinised $1 billion rebranding that changes the tribunal’s makeup but not its core functions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“This legislation represents an opportunity to significantly improve Australia's administrative review system—a key pillar of our democracy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 8 oppose
“What we've got before us here is $1 billion that is about to be spent on a piece of legislation that has no real purpose. Nothing of any substance will change with this change of legislation. In fact, we'll get an 'R' instead of an 'A'. So we'll end up with the 'ART' instead of the 'AAT'. Other than that, there is no substantive change apart from patting the ego of an Attorney-General who wants to put his name on something with a billion dollar tag attached to it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Do you know what we've got at the moment? We've got an Administrative Appeals Tribunal that reviews government decisions. After this, we're going to have an Administrative Appeals Tribunal called the ART, not the AAT. But we're going to have a tribunal that reviews government decisions. At the moment, Australians can apply at the AAT to have the merits of a decision reviewed. After this legislation, they get to apply—at a higher cost, mind you—to the ART. The one big difference is that, at the moment, we have a tribunal that has people appointed who have experience across range of different areas and issues. Instead, what we're going to have with the ART is a tribunal completely stacked with Labor apparatchiks—”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In terms of the coalition's views on the bills, we've always said we are not opposed in principle to reforms to Australia's system of administrative review. I said when I was in government that there are areas where there is absolutely a legitimate need for reform and that improvements could be made. When you look at the context in terms of what the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does, it is a body that provides reviews of government decisions made under about 400 different pieces of Commonwealth legislation. This is an incredibly complex body. By necessity its remit is complex, wide ranging and reaches into virtually all portfolios. As I said, we have always been upfront. We are not opposed to changes. But, I tell you, not properly scrutinising this body and not properly unpacking the billion dollars—the Australian Greens have decided, 'It's a billion dollars, it's taxpayers' money; we're more than happy to guillotine it and put it through.' I have a problem with that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I generally believe this was unnecessary and unworthy—the loss of office compensation direction of our independent Remuneration Tribunal being overridden by this bill. Our independent Remuneration Tribunal has independently decided that, when something like this happens, this is what someone who loses their office should be paid, and this bill is introducing a different compensation scheme. I don't think that's appropriate. One of our witnesses, a professor of administrative law, said that that's bad public policy. I don't think parliamentarians in this place should be determining the remuneration of officeholders of Commonwealth entities. There's a reason that we have the independent Remuneration Tribunal. I think it's quite unseemly that their independence is being overridden by this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I say again that the case here has not been made for the abolition of the AAT. Certainly there are arguments to be made for its reform and improvement. But, if you look at its performance as measured against its own performance benchmarks, its annual report and the degree of satisfaction from existing stakeholders, the best case you can make is that reforms and incremental improvements can be made. But to undertake a risky process like this—because setting up an entirely new body carries risks—to go to the expense of $1 billion, as announced in the budget last night, and to risk the loss of expertise, jurisprudence speciality and everything else that the AAT has built up over a number of years is an irresponsible and reckless course to be taking. That is why I will be opposing this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let me tell you, Labor, if you think that you're just going to rush this through parliament without adequate scrutiny, you can think again. I'd like to think that the Greens, in order to honour transparency, in the name of transparency, will vote against this bill, will vote against rushing it through parliament, so that we can have a better look. Yet again, a billion dollars is getting wasted on nothing more than a shuffle, a bait and switch. Labor will put their mates on the board. We've seen it with the soon-to-be Governor-General. She's an ex-Keating staffer.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Was the previous AAT perfect? Probably not, but it could probably have been reviewed and repaired, for far less upheaval, far less risk and far less cost than what will be achieved by passing these bills in this place. So, for the sake of Australian taxpayers and for the sake of sensible government, we cannot pass these bills tonight. Let's go back to review and repair.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think when they say they believe in openness, transparency and proper consideration we all now know how thin, how weak, how pathetic those words really are, because here, where we've got something of such import to the Australian people, we are dispensing with the committee process.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will be supporting the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills. It is fair to say that this bill has had a rocky path to getting to its final stages in the Senate. The Greens believe it is critical for public accountability and for fair, effective and impartial oversight of the Commonwealth's administrative action that the parliament gets this reform right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“So the process of coming to where we are with the Administrative Review Tribunal was flawed. Senators Scarr and Shoebridge echoed that. But the changes are needed. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, my team and I have weighed the pros and cons. Based on all of this, I somewhat reluctantly decided to support the bill. Having listened, though, to Senators Scarr and Shoebridge, who are lawyers and whom I respect, I will be reflecting and may change my mind. But, at the moment, we are highly critical of the government's process in developing this bill and putting it through what amounts to less-than-perfect, inadequate scrutiny. I do say the changes are needed at the moment. I reluctantly support the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 86 to 52.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 26.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 34 to 24.
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; Committee report (23/02/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (14 Dec 2023): House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; Committee report (23 Feb 2024)
APH bill page notesSenate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (8 Feb 2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 May 2024)
APH bill page notes
