This bill became law on May 31st, 2024.
Law, justice & rights
People and businesses keep broadly the same federal review rights when the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. is replaced, because 110 Commonwealth laws are updated to point to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits..
Replacing the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. would otherwise leave federal review rights and procedures scattered across many laws pointing to the old body. This bill updates 110 Commonwealth laws to shift reviews to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits., standardises most procedures, and makes a few targeted changes including court review of preventive detention orders.
Australia’s federal merits reviewA review where the decision-maker looks again at the facts, law and policy to decide whether the original government decision was the right one. system had long relied on the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal., but the government said the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. it inherited in 2022 was burdened by backlogs, ageing case-management systems and damaged confidence, so replacing it also meant fixing dozens of laws that still pointed to the old body. After the wider tribunal replacement package was launched in December 2023, this bill was introduced in February 2024 to shift review rights and procedures across 110 Commonwealth laws to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits., and it became law in May 2024.
The main criticism was procedural: opponents said the bill was being pushed through too quickly, with too little scrutiny for a package that rewires review arrangements across many Commonwealth laws. That objection was raised most clearly by the Coalition, while other recorded criticism was limited and did not amount to a broad public case against the bill's policy goal.
Hon Mark Dreyfus KC, 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
114 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People and businesses keep broadly the same federal review rights when the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. is replaced, because 110 Commonwealth laws are updated to point to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits..
Most federal review matters will use the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits.'s standard procedures instead of older special rules scattered through other laws, making the process more consistent and simpler.
People challenging a preventive detention orderAn order that can keep a person in detention for security reasons, with this bill moving review of some decisions about it to the courts. will have to go to a court, because tribunal review is removed and courts keep responsibility for deciding validity and compensation.
People refused an official notice proving their Australian citizenship can now seek an independent merits reviewA review where the decision-maker looks again at the facts, law and policy to decide whether the original government decision was the right one. from the Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits..
Consequential Bill 2 would update terminology across the Commonwealth statute book to replace references to the AAT and AAT Act with references to the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. These amendments would ensure that the Tribunal has the same jurisdiction as the AAT, and that various provisions continue to operate in substantively the same way as the existing law in the AAT.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) explanatory memorandum
The ART Bill would implement a set of standard procedures and powers which the Tribunal can use to resolve matters. Those procedures and powers have been designed to be flexible and adaptable to the Tribunal’s broad caseload, and should be relied upon by Acts conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal as far as possible. Where possible, Consequential Bill 2 would repeal special procedures in other Acts, with the effect that the default provisions in the ART Bill would apply.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) explanatory memorandum
Consequential Bill 2 would remove the administrative review pathway for PDO decisions under section 105.51 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, leaving decisions with respect to the validity of PDO decisions, and the ordering of compensation, entirely within the purview of the courts, pursuant to the exercise of existing judicial review powers. These changes address the risk that sections 105.51(5) and (7) of the Criminal Code could be construed as vesting federal judicial power in a body other than a court, contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) explanatory memorandum
The Bill would also confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions under section 37 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, on whether to provide a person with a notice as evidence of Australian citizenship. Extending the availability of external merits review for these types of decisions would align it with the review pathways available for other citizenship and migration‑related decisions. It would provide applicants with an accessible independent review process.Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s federal merits reviewA review where the decision-maker looks again at the facts, law and policy to decide whether the original government decision was the right one. system had long relied on the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal., but the government said the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. it inherited in 2022 was burdened by backlogs, ageing case-management systems and damaged confidence, so replacing it also meant fixing dozens of laws that still pointed to the old body. After the wider tribunal replacement package was launched in December 2023, this bill was introduced in February 2024 to shift review rights and procedures across 110 Commonwealth laws to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits., and it became law in May 2024.
Administrative Appeals TribunalThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. begins operation
The AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. became the main federal body for independent merits reviewA review where the decision-maker looks again at the facts, law and policy to decide whether the original government decision was the right one. of government decisions, creating the system later legislation had to replace and reconnect.
Hansard ↗Government says it inherited a backlog-heavy and compromised AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal.
Speakers backing the reform said the tribunal had long delays, ageing electronic systems and weakened confidence, which set up the case for replacing it rather than just patching it.
Hansard ↗Government launches the package to abolish the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. and create the ARTThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits.
The Attorney-General later told Parliament that the main Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits. Bill 2023 and the first consequential bill were introduced on this date as the core reform package.
Hansard ↗Bill introduced to update 110 laws for the new tribunal
This bill was introduced to preserve review rights and move most matters from scattered AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal.-specific rules into the new tribunal’s standard procedures.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill, completing the legislative step needed to redirect reviews and related procedures from the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. to the ARTThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits. across many Commonwealth laws.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law. completes the legal changeover
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of law. turned the bill into law, allowing the consequential and transitional changes for the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits. to take 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 (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 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 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 law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was procedural: opponents said the bill was being pushed through too quickly, with too little scrutiny for a package that rewires review arrangements across many Commonwealth laws. That objection was raised most clearly by the Coalition, while other recorded criticism was limited and did not amount to a broad public case against the bill's policy goal.
Criticism was narrow and mainly about process, not the bill's core transition changes.
Rushed and under-scrutinised process
The strongest recorded case against the bill was that Parliament was being asked to pass it before proper committee scrutiny was complete. Critics warned that a large consequential package affecting many laws should not be rushed through a truncated process.
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. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
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 motion, not a vote on the bill’s substance.
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 a gag motion, not a vote on the bill’s substance.
Senate
The Senate defeated a second-reading amendment on voices during the cognate debate; it did not change the bill text.
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 and says it is needed to complete the move from the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits..
Read in Hansard ↗Ruston opposes the bill, saying it is a rushed and expensive rebranding exercise that spends about $1 billion for little real change while Australia is in a cost-of-living crisis.
Read in Hansard ↗Hawke says the opposition will not oppose the bill, but argues it is mostly a rebadging exercise that fails to fix the real problems in the tribunal system.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill as part of overdue tribunal reform, especially the move to a merit-based appointments process, but says it still leaves unfair carve-outs for migrants and refugees that should be fixed.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
24 speakers · 25 contributions · 23 support · 1 unclear
“Consequential Bill 2 makes technical and essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, ensuring a smooth transition to the new Tribunal. The Bill completes the package of legislation that is required to establish a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal—the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades.”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.”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 ↗
“But the Albanese Labor government is cleaning up this mess. In 2022, the government announced its decision to abolish the AAT and replace it with a new federal administrative review body. That is what we are debating today, a very significant reform. The new Administrative Review Tribunal will build on 50 years of experience, learning and broad consultation which will ensure that it is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. The ART Bill implements all three recommendations from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's review into performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system. It implements four recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and two recommendations from the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I really commend the Attorney-General on the precise work—surgical work—that he has done in these bills. It will improve the lives of tens of thousands of Australians when they can again—finally—seek quick, efficient, fair, effective redress for government decisions with which they don't agree.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese's government is committed, in every step we take, to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review, beginning with the establishment of the new administrative review body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. It is intended to lead to better government and better government decision-making. With this legislation, this government is seeking to restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of merits review. I commend this legislation to the House.”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 ↗
“I rise today in support of two bills before the House: the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Bill 2023. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on these bills, which represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is to ensure that people who require it—people who may need compensation for being a veteran, NDIS participants and people accessing all of the other range of government services or decisions that are required as part of this tribunal—will be able to access it in an appropriate and timely manner. That is an objective worth supporting because, as the previous speaker mentioned, institutions matter in this country. The way we govern those institutions matters and it reflects on all of us in this place. I for one am proud that we are ensuring that the ART will be there for the Australian people, filled with experienced, independent administrators, and I commend this bill to the House.”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.”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.”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 ↗
“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 will transition the old AAT to a new system as smoothly as possible. Matters that are currently heard by the AAT will remain unaffected. Current staff will transition to the new body, and existing members of the AAT will be invited to apply for positions in accordance with the new merit based appointment system, which probably should have always been in place. That merit based selection process, which will be publicly advertised, will be based on a specific set of criteria, not on how close a mate you are to someone sitting among those opposite. We will evaluate the extent to which prospective applicants possess the necessary skills, expertise, experience and knowledge for tribunal duties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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 ↗
“In conclusion, the ART Bill represents a leap forward in our ongoing efforts to strengthen Australia's administrative review system. By ushering in a new era of transparency, accountability and efficiency, this bill reaffirms our government's commitment to upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of all Australians. I urge all members in this chamber to support this passage of this bill and demonstrate our collective commitment to delivering a fair and accessible administrative review process for the benefit of all Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We were left with no choice, really, but to demand the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to replace it with a new federal administrative review body—one that is in line with our commitment to proper merits based appointment processes and proper due process being followed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is needed to complete the move from the AATThe old federal review body that this reform replaces, so existing laws had to be rewritten to point to the new tribunal. to the new Administrative Review TribunalThe new federal body that replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and hears many challenges to government decisions on the merits.. He argues it makes technical but essential consequential changes to ensure a smooth transition and preserve the tribunal's functions.
“In conclusion, consequential bill No. 2 makes technical and essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, ensuring a smooth transition to the new tribunal. The bill completes the package of legislation that is required to establish a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal—the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it is an urgent reform that will improve Australia’s merits reviewA review where the decision-maker looks again at the facts, law and policy to decide whether the original government decision was the right one. system, with amendments to strengthen appointments, review and social security review settings. He urges Parliament to pass the package quickly and says there is no reason to delay it.
“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 ↗
“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 ↗
10 speakers · 1 support · 9 oppose
“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 ↗
“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. Every Australian should be asking the question of what a billion dollars has bought them in this legislation. As I said, right now we've got the AAT, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At the end of this passage of legislation, assuming these bills go through, we'll have the Administrative Review Tribunal. That doesn't seem to be worth $1 billion to me.”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 ↗
“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 ↗
“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 ↗
“Added to that, there's the waste—the sheer and utter waste—of spending a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to abolish a functioning body and replace it with effectively the same body, just with new appointees. We'd better run a microscope over those new appointees and make sure not one of them has had any association with the Labor Party. If that is our measure—that you can't have an association with a political party—we'd better run a microscope over the new appointments. A billion dollars was spent on new letterhead, a new logo and new appointments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are three bills here. They abolish a system that provides merits review across the entire Commonwealth statute book and reaches into virtually all portfolios. We're now looking at 692 pages of new primary legislation, with 760 pages of explanatory materials. What has been rushed before this chamber is a package establishing an entirely new administrative review body, plus 33 schedules of amending legislation. These changes literally affect hundreds of Commonwealth acts. It is complex legislation, the impacts of which cannot be known at this point. They cannot. It is simply impossible to know, when you're dealing with legislative change of this nature, the unintended consequences. And, therefore, the potential for negative flow-on effects on the 67,000 cases that are currently on foot could be extraordinary—67,000 cases. That would be hundreds of thousands of individual Australians potentially impacted in a negative way by these changes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“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 ↗
“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 ↗
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 ↗
4 speakers · 1 support · 2 mixed · 1 unclear
“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 the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While these bills have the potential to pave the way for a fairer and more efficient operation of Australia's administrative review system, in their current form they do not achieve that outcome.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So it was with great optimism that I listened to this government commit to creating an administrative review body that the public could trust—one based on integrity, transparency and accountability. But, as the bills currently stand, they do not uphold these principles. I understand the government is drafting amendments to improve the bill; in fact, I met with government representatives only last night to discuss these amendments. But they are yet to be circulated and yet to be moved. Until they are moved in this place, I will be reserving my position on this bill.”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 ↗
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
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 · 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 law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate 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
