Rushed scrutiny
The main procedural criticism was that the government pushed a large tribunal reform package through too quickly, without enough inquiry or parliamentary scrutiny for changes of this scale.
This bill became law on May 31st, 2024.
Law, justice & rights
Australia replaces the old Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. across 138 Commonwealth lawsA federal law of Australia; the bill updates references across 138 of these laws so they point to the new tribunal. with the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT., so people can keep using external merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. when government decisions affect them.
Replacing the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. left 138 Commonwealth lawsA federal law of Australia; the bill updates references across 138 of these laws so they point to the new tribunal. and existing review cases needing updates so external merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. could keep working. This bill swaps in the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT., moves AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. matters across automatically, and keeps special review rules for migration, refugee, tax and charity cases.
Australia’s federal merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. system had long run through the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across., but by 2024 the government argued the AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. was no longer fit for purpose, citing a growing backlog, ageing case-management systems and concerns about appointments, while the replacement tribunal also required dozens of laws to be updated so review rights would keep working. This bill responded by replacing AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. references across 138 Commonwealth acts, moving existing cases into the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT. and folding former Immigration Assessment AuthorityThe older review body for some protection visa cases, which this bill removes so those matters go into the ordinary tribunal path. matters into ordinary tribunal review, before becoming law as part of the wider tribunal overhaul in May 2024.
Critics said the bill either moved too fast for proper parliamentary scrutiny or still kept harsher migration and refugee review rules that could leave some applicants with a less fair process. Those objections came from the Coalition in the House and from crossbench criticism led by Kylea Tink, while most speakers otherwise supported the wider tribunal overhaul.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 31 May 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
176 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia replaces the old Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. across 138 Commonwealth lawsA federal law of Australia; the bill updates references across 138 of these laws so they point to the new tribunal. with the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT., so people can keep using external merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. when government decisions affect them.
Protection visaA visa for people seeking asylum or refugee protection, which is why these cases get special rules in the bill. applicants who were previously sent to the Immigration Assessment AuthorityThe older review body for some protection visa cases, which this bill removes so those matters go into the ordinary tribunal path. will instead get the ordinary tribunal review process, bringing them into the same review stream as other protection visaA visa for people seeking asylum or refugee protection, which is why these cases get special rules in the bill. applicants.
Migration and refugee reviews keep some special rules, including private hearings for protection cases and tighter deadlines in some visa matters, to move cases faster while keeping key fairness protections.
Tax and charity disputes keep stricter tribunal rules, including a 60-day application period and privacy protections, to protect confidential information and avoid disrupting tax administration.
People with current AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. matters will have their cases moved automatically to the new tribunal, and many staff and some members will move across so reviews can continue without people reapplying.
The Consequential Bill supports the ART Bill by repealing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), making consequential amendments across 138 Commonwealth Acts and providing transitional rules which facilitate the smooth transition from the AAT to the Tribunal.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) explanatory memorandum
Repealing Part 7AA, together with the transitional arrangements in Schedule 16, provides that these applicants have access to the usual processes for review of protection decisions in the Tribunal. These provisions promote the right to an effective remedy and a fair and public hearing.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) explanatory memorandum
The schedule repeals Part 7 of the Migration Act to provide for more effective and efficient reviews of migration and protection visa decisions. The amendments in the Schedule do so by providing a single, harmonised process for the review of migration and protection visa decisions in Part 5 of the Act. The provisions retain and enhance special features that are fundamental to the operation of Tribunal review for migration and refugee matters, including provisions that disapply or apply instead of, or in addition to, provisions of the ART Bill. These provisions recognise the distinct nature of these applications and their volume and complexity. The Schedule includes provisions:Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) explanatory memorandum
The amendments retain special provisions that are fundamental to the operation of Tribunal review for tax and charity matters, including provisions that disapply – or apply instead of – provisions of the ART Bill. These provisions ensure the workability of these frameworks, protect tax revenue collection and uphold longstanding core tax principles and practices. The schedule includes provisions:Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) explanatory memorandum
It provides clarity by ensuring that applications that have already been made to the AAT, or proceedings already in progress, will automatically transfer to the new tribunal when it commences operations. Parties with matters in the tribunal at the time of transition will be notified, and will not need to reapply to have their matter continue.Second reading speech
Context
Australia’s federal merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. system had long run through the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across., but by 2024 the government argued the AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. was no longer fit for purpose, citing a growing backlog, ageing case-management systems and concerns about appointments, while the replacement tribunal also required dozens of laws to be updated so review rights would keep working. This bill responded by replacing AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. references across 138 Commonwealth acts, moving existing cases into the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT. and folding former Immigration Assessment AuthorityThe older review body for some protection visa cases, which this bill removes so those matters go into the ordinary tribunal path. matters into ordinary tribunal review, before becoming law as part of the wider tribunal overhaul in May 2024.
Administrative Appeals TribunalThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. begins operating
The AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. became the main federal body for independent merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed. of government decisions, creating the system this bill later had to replace and carry across.
Hansard ↗Government introduces bill to update 138 Commonwealth lawsA federal law of Australia; the bill updates references across 138 of these laws so they point to the new tribunal.
The second reading speech said the new tribunal could not work properly unless 138 acts were amended and existing AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. matters were transitioned into the replacement body.
Hansard ↗Parliament hears case that the AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. is not fit for purpose
During debate, government speakers said the inherited AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. faced a large backlog, ageing electronic systems and appointment problems, framing the practical pressure for a full replacement rather than minor fixes.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House approved the measure after considering amendments, keeping the broader tribunal replacement package moving and locking in the planned transfer of review pathways and live cases.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing the legislative changes needed to swap AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. references to the new tribunal across most of its caseload.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament. completes the tribunal transition law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into law, allowing existing AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. cases, staff transfers and the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT. review arrangements to proceed under the wider reform.
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.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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.
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: 35 to 25.
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 agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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 bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Critics said the bill either moved too fast for proper parliamentary scrutiny or still kept harsher migration and refugee review rules that could leave some applicants with a less fair process. Those objections came from the Coalition in the House and from crossbench criticism led by Kylea Tink, while most speakers otherwise supported the wider tribunal overhaul.
Most criticism focused on process and retained migration settings, not on ending the old AATThe older tribunal this bill replaces, and whose unfinished cases and references are being moved across. itself.
Rushed scrutiny
The main procedural criticism was that the government pushed a large tribunal reform package through too quickly, without enough inquiry or parliamentary scrutiny for changes of this scale.
Unfair migration and refugee procedures kept
A substantive criticism was that the bill still preserved separate, more restrictive procedures for some migration and refugee matters, instead of putting those applicants fully into the same tribunal process as others.
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 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.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated 13 to 54. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
It was a statement of opposition to keeping a separate migration review code, not a change to the bill text itself.
Defeated 14 to 48. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
It aimed to make migration review notices clearer and more usable for applicants, especially people facing language and accessibility barriers.
Defeated 14 to 43. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
It was a broad technical and transitional package to make the new tribunal framework work across multiple parts of the bill.
Government amendments clarify second review and guidance-and-appeals panel provisions, tighten commencement timing for transitional appointments, and adjust migration notice and assistance rules so the bill operates consistently across the tribunal transition.
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 amended the bill before final passage by adding cross-act confidentiality coverage and a systemic-issues reporting duty.
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.
It was a statement of opposition to keeping a separate migration review code, not a change to the bill text itself.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as defeated on voices.
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
Dreyfus supports the bill, saying it makes the consequential and transitional changes needed to establish the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT. and transfer cases, staff and records smoothly.
Read in Hansard ↗Hollie Hughes opposes the bill, saying it is a costly rebrand of the tribunal backed by a deal with the Greens and designed to clear out non-Labor appointees.
Read in Hansard ↗Hawke says he will not oppose the bill, but argues it is mostly a rebadging exercise that leaves the same backlog and does little real reform.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill and welcomes its creation of the new tribunal and a merit-based appointmentsA process for choosing tribunal members based on qualifications and suitability rather than political favour. process, but says the migration and refugee carve-outs risk creating unfair two-tier rules.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
25 speakers · 27 contributions · 25 support
“I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023. I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The supporting consequential and transition bill will amend 138 Commonwealth acts to ensure that existing legislation supports the intentions of the new tribunal. It will also streamline reviews of migration and refugee decisions by removing the Immigration Assessment Authority so that these processes are more efficient. The bill continues to recognise the unique features of veterans' entitlement law, with maintenance of the merits review in both ART and Veterans' Review Board. To minimise disruption and delay from the changeover from the AAT, active, pending and potential cases and those currently before the courts will be transitioned to the Administrative Review Tribunal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We're picking up recommendations from the royal commission here, and it's important that we do. That's why I'm so supportive of this legislation. Those opposite are a disgrace. They're disingenuous about this legislation. They know the system's not working. They knew it in government, they know it in opposition and they should be supporting the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To conclude, in this House, we are elected to serve and support our constituents, and that means where there is something that is not working or not serving its purpose we should make changes. That's what we're doing with these amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023. All of our constituents deserve a fair review system. Whether it's a Centrelink matter, a NDIS matter, a visa matter or a veteran's matter, constituents must have access to a fair and transparent review process. I commend these bills to the house.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When we came to government, the AAT was in disarray. This bill is an important reform and a really important step towards restoring trust in our institutions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill will also re-create the Administrative Review Council, which Tony Abbott shamefully abolished. All matters before the AAT when the new tribunal is in place will automatically be transferred across. There will be no break in continuity; Australians won't need to relodge their appeals.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is another part of doing just that, and I will expand on this shortly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill creates the environment within which these ideals will be preserved. It is aimed at fixing a number of ills by ensuring a merit based selection, by putting the ART on a sustainable financial basis, by dealing with backlog and avoiding unconscionable delays—delays, too, are injustice—and by improving the case management systems.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill before us today implements this commitment to establish a new federal administrative review body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which will replace the AAT. So the AAT will be replaced by the ART. The establishment of this new administrative review body—which is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair—is a key part of the government's commitment to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is about ensuring that the AAT is replaced by a body that ensures integrity, independence, experience and accountability and builds public trust.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We are not going to allow that to continue to be the case. In barely two years of government we've taken on the clean-up task in a whole range of areas. This is one of them. Australians deserve, and must have, a high-integrity, high-quality, transparent, fair and timely review process that they can have access to when they receive a very impactful decision from a government agency in some of the areas I've mentioned. That is what we are going to ensure is the case by providing the resources for the new Administrative Review Tribunal and, crucially, changing some of the settings around the way in which people are appointed, to make that absolutely a transparent and merit based process to make sure that where possible reviews are reported—I said before that justice delayed is justice denied.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm pleased today to rise to speak in favour of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. These are very important bills that will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a new and improved Administrative Review Tribunal. This is a very important reform in strengthening and improving the federal system of administrative review and is arguably the most important review of this system in some decades.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill implements the Labor government's commitment to establish this new federal administrative review body. The new body will be called the Administrative Review Tribunal and will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which, as we all know, under the former government significantly failed Australians, particularly on the New South Wales Central Coast. The ART Bill builds on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation to establish a tribunal that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. The ART bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee review into the performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system, four recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the government's response to two recommendations from the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Unlike those opposite, the Albanese government is taking decisive action to address these longstanding challenges. We're not leaving this in the too-hard basket. By introducing this bill, we are laying the groundwork for a system that will seek to serve the Australian people. Through these reforms, we are not just changing how the tribunal will operate; we are affirming our commitment to justice, transparency and democracy. I commend them to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The consequential and transitional bill repeals the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to be replaced by the tribunal established by the ART Bill. It amends 138 Commonwealth acts to ensure that existing legislation operates as intended for the new tribunal, updates hundreds of references across the Commonwealth statute book, and streamlines the various regimes that currently apply to review of matters in the tribunal. In particular, the bill retains essential modifications to the operation of the merits review framework for tax and charity matters which ensures the workability of these frameworks and protection of tax revenue collection or otherwise upholds longstanding core tax principles and practices.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, for me, is about restoring integrity in the system. My community expects that. The AAT is one of the bodies that they had no faith in. They had no faith that, if they were a child-support payer or recipient and they took an issue through the processes of the child-support agency and then were dissatisfied with how it was handled and therefore went to the AAT for an independent expert review, what would come out the other end would be fair and just. That was the same for all the different areas that the AAT covers—everything from family assistance, paid parental leave, social security and student assistance to taxation matters, migration and refugee visa issues and visa related decisions, Australian citizenship decisions, bankruptcy decisions, civil aviation matters, freedom-of-information matters and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which would be the one where we, from my office, have seen the greatest flow-through of matters to the AAT. So I think it's vital that this institution is given some credibility again, and I'm very pleased that the legislation and the circulated amendments that are before us are going to provide something that Australians can have faith in and have confidence in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm very proud to speak in support of this today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I encourage those opposite today to support this bill in the House so that good governance can be trusted by the Australian public and so that people in my electorate and electorates around the country will believe, if there is a decision made, that they have a right of appeal to a trusted source where they will get a fair go. It's pretty simple. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone in this House would oppose this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's why it's important that we can all contribute to this important debate. It reaffirms our commitment to providing a simple, affordable and accessible system for the review of government decisions. It's a testament to our dedication to upholding democratic principles. It's a testament to ensuring our accountability in decision-making. It's a testament to Labor's principles to make systems accessible to all: impartiality, fairness and equity. These are all principles that I stand by. These are principles that the Labor Party stands by. In conclusion, I urge all members of the parliament to support these bills. I commend the bills to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does the hard work of rebuilding public trust in our key institutions—the very foundation of our democracy depends on it. Surely that is something that everyone in this place can get behind. For the sake of all Australians, it's time to recognise and reward merit, not mateship.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Under this government's legislation, the tribunal will finally have transparent, merit based appointment processes for the appointment of members. It will be informed by the operational needs of the tribunal to ensure that only the highest-quality members are appointed to these very important roles. This is in stark contrast to the former government, which, as it became evident, believed in jobs for Liberal mates, at the expense of our constituents, fairness and a merit based selection process. This is a welcome contrast—an effective, clear and just difference through the provision of an independent mechanism of a review which is fair and just. It resolves applications in a timely manner and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferrable decision. It is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties. It improves the transparency and quality of decision-making and promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. On those grounds, I commend the bills to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill before us today is a crucial component of this broader reform agenda as it seeks to provide the necessary transitional and consequential provisions to facilitate the smooth transition from the old AAT to the new ART.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Albanese Labor government's Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023. This bill is being debated with two consequential bills in a cognate debate: the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. Collectively, these three bills will abolish the, sadly, now much discredited Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill, saying it makes the consequential and transitional changes needed to establish the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that takes over most external reviews of government decisions from the AAT. and transfer cases, staff and records smoothly. He argues the changes will streamline review processes and make the system more efficient and accessible.
“The consequential and transitional provisions bill makes essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, and outlines robust transitional arrangements needed to support the smooth establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is part of urgent reform to create a better administrative review system. He argues it should pass quickly because it will improve access to independent review and restore trust in merits reviewA review where a separate body looks again at the facts, law and fairness of a government decision, not just whether a rule was followed..
“These bills represent a vital, urgent reform that will have a real and lasting benefit for the lives of thousands of Australians. We have heard a lot from the opposition in this debate about the need for delay. What we haven't heard is any reason to oppose this reform. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has unanimously recommended that the bills pass this place. I urge the parliament to swiftly pass these urgent, critical reforms.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it substantially improves the current migration review system by bringing standard tribunal powers and procedures into that area. He also says the government opposes the second reading amendmentAn amendment moved during the debate on whether the bill should be agreed to in principle, usually to put on record support or criticism. moved against the bill.
“I want to briefly address the second reading amendment that has been moved by the member for North Sydney. The government opposes this second reading amendment, and I want to make some general comments about these bills. The ART bills substantially harmonise procedural arrangements for review of decisions under the Migration Act, which is a very substantial improvement compared with the current system.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“It is entirely appropriate that the Attorney-General has consulted widely and that the Attorney-General has taken action to put together what will be a new reformed body. In passing this legislation through this House, we, as a parliament, are saying that Australians should expect better, that Australians should be confident that this type of institution is free from political interference and is set up to serve the interests of people who most need it, and that is what people will get through this bill and through this work that the government is doing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 1 support · 6 oppose · 1 mixed
“So, while we are not opposing this bill, there are some great features here in terms of the ability of the president to make further performance reviews available to members and also deal with members who are not doing their job.”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 ↗
“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.”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 ↗
“The coalition is not opposed in principle to review of the system—we should review it regularly and make sure it is fit for purpose and that it is an institution that has all the legislation requirements it needs in order to give an accessible and fair system of merits review.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I conclude that the coalition will not be supporting these bills in this place if they go to a vote this week, I can tell you that. The process has been a farce, and we are not prepared to sign off on any major reforms without appropriate scrutiny. We will reserve our position in the Senate, and I thank the House.”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've got up in this place many times and talked about the importance of the committee process and the importance of the scrutiny role of the Senate in particular with regard to government legislation. It is something that is vitally important, so to see it now being truncated by Labor in alliance with others is I think very telling as to what the priorities of both this government and those of the crossbench are.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 3 support · 1 unclear
“It's not perfect. The process is inadequate, but we've got to a point where it's supportable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These are a number of concerns we have. We would be very interested to hear the Attorney-General's response.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As noted above, this is a generational reform and we need to take the time to ensure it is right. While supporting the bill and not opposing the amendments in this House, the Greens reserve their position in the Senate. To that end we will continue to be guided by the valuable input of stakeholders and two core principles—that this reform must leave no-one behind and must leave no door open for a future government to undermine its integrity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As noted above, this is a generational reform and we need to take the time to get this right. While we will be supporting the bill and not opposing any government amendments in this House, we reserve our position in the Senate. To that end, we will continue to be guided by the valuable input of stakeholders and by two core principles— that this reform must leave no-one behind and must leave no door open for future governments to undermine its integrity.”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 ↗
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Allegra Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Tink opposes the bill in its current form. She supports parts of the reform package, but says the changes fall short because they keep unfair and restrictive rules for migrant and refugee applicants, and she will move a second reading amendmentAn amendment moved during the debate on whether the bill should be agreed to in principle, usually to put on record support or criticism..
“Ultimately, while these bills seek to strengthen integrity and improve accessibility to the ART, I hold serious concerns that they fall well short of that goal.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Spender supports the bill and welcomes its creation of the new tribunal and a merit-based appointmentsA process for choosing tribunal members based on qualifications and suitability rather than political favour. process, but says the migration and refugee carve-outs risk creating unfair two-tier rules. She wants those problems fixed through amendments, especially the removal of the presumption of disbelief and better access to legal assistance.
“You should be appointed based on your merits, not based on your political persuasion. I therefore welcome the provisions in this act to legislate for a truly merit based appointments process to the new ART. There are further improvements that should be made to this process, including that merit based selection panels be mandatory.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Although the bill aims to provide more accessible and responsive support for people who require additional and tailored support, there are still some gaps and pain points that I would like to address. In particular, the bill falls short of meeting its objective for migrant and visa applicants. It is especially concerning for me that the objective under the new legislation is more concerned with being efficient and quick rather than being fair, just and economical, like the AAT. There must be a balance in this. I appreciate that the government is attempting to address the overdue system, but I call on the government to consider the barriers to access and the equity issues for migrants, refugees and asylum-seeking applicants. It is these applicants who are most in need of greater flexibility and dedicated measures to improve accessibility.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In the briefing that I had last night with the Attorney-General's Department, I was assured that this glaring problem will be remedied. But here's my dilemma: until these amendments are circulated and moved by the government, at this moment in this debate we have no guarantees that the bill clears this key and critical hurdle. The Attorney-General has offered assurances that proposed amendments will address my concerns, so I will now wait for these amendments to come to the House. I must reserve my position on this bill until I have them here in the House. I cannot give a position on incomplete legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In short, there is some work to do on this bill for it to be ready to pass. I acknowledge that the government has a large package of amendments that it is yet to move, and I would add here that better practice would have been to finish the draft bill, including the amendments, before this debate, rather than all of us having a debate on a bill that is not final.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:”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 debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
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: 35 to 25.
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 · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 24.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 bill passed by Parliament 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