Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister) has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 761, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to the Stronger Communities Program, and a further order to comply as agreed on 11 February 2025;

(b) the minister attend the chamber at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2025 to provide an explanation;

(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and

(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 788, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move:

That—

(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 be divided into two bills and amended, in accordance with the amendments on sheet 3248, to create two bills as follows:

(i) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024—containing Schedules 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 to 11, and

(ii) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Caps and Funding) Bill 2025—containing Schedules 3, 4 and 7;

(b) the bills be printed; and

(c) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Caps and Funding) Bill 2025 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 May 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion 778 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Paul Scarr

I move the opposition's amendment on sheet 3164:

(1)—Schedule 4, page 48 (after line 4), after item 5, insert:

5A At the end of section 237

Add:

Registrar in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory

(3) The Principal Registrar must ensure that at least one registrar is appointed in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.

5B Section 243

Repeal the section, substitute:

243 Registries

The Minister must cause such registries of the Tribunal to be established as the Minister thinks fit, but so that at least one registry shall be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.

Question agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will be opposing this amendment.

Glenn Sterle

Senator Shoebridge, a point of order?

David Shoebridge

The chamber seems to be in some sort of procedural miasma this morning. My understanding is that the amendment just passed on the voices. Then we had the government stand up and say they 'will be' opposing it, as though it's something in the future they're going to do. You just nodded. It's all somewhat confusing for those of us trying to follow what's going on.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, I thought I—Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr

Acting Deputy President, maybe we should just walk through it again for the benefit of everyone.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. Let's go. You've got the call.

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3164:

(1) Schedule 4, page 48 (after line 4), after item 5, insert:

5A At the end of section 237

Add:

Registrar in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory

(3) The Principal Registrar must ensure that at least one registrar is appointed in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.

5B Section 243

Repeal the section, substitute:

243 Registries

The Minister must cause such registries of the Tribunal to be established as the Minister thinks fit, but so that at least one registry shall be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.

Question agreed to.

David Shoebridge

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2882 together:

(1)—Clause 2, page 4 (at the end of the table), add:

(2)—Page 49 (after line 17), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Reconsideration of IAA decisions

1 Definitions

In this Schedule:

ART means the Administrative Review Tribunal.

IAA means the Immigration Assessment Authority, as in existence before the transition time.

Minister means the Minister administering the Migration Act 1958.

new Act means the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

transition time means the time the new Act commences.

2 Reconsideration of decisions on protection visa applications

(1) Subitem (2) applies if, at any time before the transition time:

(a) a person applied for a protection visa (within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958); and

(b) a decision (the original decision) under section 65 of that Act on the person's application had been made to refuse to grant the visa to the person; and

(c) the IAA reviewed and affirmed the original decision; and

(d) the person has not been granted a protection visa since the original decision was made.

(2) The Minister must:

(a) refer the original decision to the ART as soon as practicable after the commencement of this item; and

(b) notify the person in writing that the Minister as referred the original decision.

(3) If the person requests the Minister to withdraw the referral, the Minister must withdraw the referral.

(4) If the Minister refers an original decision to the ART under subitem (2), and the referral is not withdrawn on request of the person:

(a) the person is taken to have made an application to the ART under section 347 of the Migration Act 1958 (as amended by Schedule 2 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024) for a review of a reviewable protection decision; and

(b) the application is taken to have been properly made under sections 347 and 347A of the Migration Act 1958 (as amended by Schedule 2 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024).

(5) The ART must, as soon as practicable after receiving the referral, review the original decision and:

(a) affirm the original decision; or

(b) remit the original decision for reconsideration in accordance with such directions or recommendations of the ART as the ART considers appropriate.

(6) In reviewing the original decision, the ART must:

(a) give the person a reasonable opportunity to provide additional information in relation to the original decision; and

(b) disregard the decision made by the IAA to affirm the original decision.

3 Effect of this Schedule

This Schedule has effect despite any other law of the Commonwealth.

4 Rules

(1) The Minister administering the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters relating to the review by the ART of decisions covered by subitem 2(1).

(2) Without limiting subitem (1) of this item, rules made for the purposes of that subitem may modify the operation of this Schedule or the new Act, to the extent that the modification is necessary to facilitate the review by the ART of the decisions covered by subitem 2(1).

We had a discussion yesterday about the institutional unfairness that was inherent in the coalition's Immigration Assessment Authority process, and we saw some valiant efforts from Senator Scarr to try to hide the fact that some 460-plus determinations of the Immigration Assessment Authority were reviewed by the Federal Court, found to be unlawful and then referred back to the IAA to be determined in accordance with law. We requested of the government some insight into the countless millions of dollars of Commonwealth money that was spent defending the indefensible in the Federal Court and the extent of the delays that were caused by the grossly and, in fact, intentionally unfair process that was established by the IAA, but we haven't yet had that information provided. I understand the minister's argument that it's not the core issue. The failure of the IAA isn't the actual core issue that he came briefed to deal with today and yesterday, but it remains the fact that the fast-track process was an abuse of process that was intentionally designed to refuse valid asylum claims.

I particularly want to note the unfairness that it visited on the Tamil community. Tamil claims for asylum were rejected at an obscene rate. They were almost guaranteed to be rejected. The country assessment from DFAT, relied upon by the IAA, deliberately minimised the ongoing persecution the Tamil community face and deliberately sought to downplay the ongoing violence towards, disappearances of and exclusions against the Tamil community, and, for that reason, hundreds of claims from the Tamil community for asylum were unfairly and unreasonably rejected.

I want to note that it's not just the Tamil community. The unfair approach was adopted for claims from those seeking asylum from persecution in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan—the list goes on. I was particularly moved by the reports of one young woman, who is now an incredible contributor to our society—a leading international researcher on trying to understand skin cancers. I've got to admit I have skin in the game on that one. She is an extraordinary woman, who only found her way through university through grants and scholarships because she was trapped in the fast-track system. Having come here as a child and graduated from high school with all that promise, she was refused HECS and refused support into university, but, thankfully, universities and the broader community worked together with scholarships and grants, and she completed her studies, completed her postgraduate studies and is now a world-leading researcher and scholar on skin cancers. She is repeatedly invited to international forums to speak about it, but she can't leave the country, because she's trapped in the fast-track process. Her asylum claim was rejected by the unfair IAA process. She can't travel and is caught, like thousands and thousands of others, having been rejected by the IAA and had this government, frustratingly, refuse to provide a safe and viable pathway for permanency.

We've heard stories—and, if the government and the opposition were willing to listen, you'd hear stories—about claimants who put their application in to the IAA. They have researched sometimes for weeks or months, with a maximum five-page covering letter and then sometimes countless pages of documentation identifying their persecution and identifying their well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they fled to Australia for safety.

One case sticks in my mind—this young woman who put together her application, supported by hundreds of pages of documents, and finally submitted it at 10 o'clock one night to the IAA. Having submitted it at 10 o'clock that night, she woke up the next morning, and, at 10 am, she got an email saying it had been rejected. She puts it in at 10 o'clock at night, with hundreds of pages of supporting documentation—it's a hugely considered application—and it's rejected by the coalition's unfair IAA at 10 o'clock the following morning. That was only enough time for the assessing officer to literally open it up. They couldn't have pretended to have considered it. They couldn't have pretended to have looked at it. As a result, she's been caught in 10 years of insecurity and threats of deportation. Surely no government of conscience could let that stand.

Instead, we have this government saying that they're not going to put in a process to reconsider those unfair rejections in the IAA. The only process they have on foot is individual ministerial intervention—literally the feudal lord approach to this. You have to go and beg the minister for an intervention, and he or she may deign to give a tiny handful of people ministerial intervention. Let's be clear: with 7,000 applications for ministerial intervention, if that were actually the approach, considering those matters would be all the minister did for the next decade. It is a pretend solution.

It's a nonsolution, so that's why we advanced this amendment, which is a real solution. This amendment would provide for the reconsideration of those unfair IAA decisions. Instead of placing it in the hands of a feudal lord politician, it would actually take the matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It would require the minister to refer to the ART, as soon as practicable, those matters where the circumstances are that there has been a review by the IAA that rejected an asylum claim and the person who was the subject of that review has not been granted a protection visa since that original decision was made.

The minister, having referred them to the ART, obviously gives those individuals the right to seek to have the matter withdrawn. But if they don't, then the ART is required to consider the application, to treat it as a valid application, to then either affirm or reject the decision to review, and, in that process, to allow the person and the department to present whatever additional information is needed, to do the process fairly, to assess the claims in accordance with law and to live up to our commitment to provide a credible, honest and genuine pathway to actually have claims fairly assessed for those thousands of people who were caught in the fast-track process. I urge the government to adopt this. We know the coalition won't, because they specialise in cruelty and they're trying to defend their unfair system.

We repealed the IAA because it was unfair. There are now thousands of people just demanding some fair chance to have their claims assessed—they and others are often protesting out the front of the minister's office. This gives them that fair chance. We urge the government to step up and do the right thing.

Long debate text truncated.

Bridget McKenzie

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the Notice Paper, as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the Notice Paper.

As if the car tax that was exposed yesterday wasn't enough, we now have the fresh food tax. What the coalition is seeking to do today is to have the farmers tax removed from the Notice Paper of Senate debate to give confidence to the 85,000 farmers across this country that this government will not seek to make them pay for the biosecurity arrangements of importers—their competitors. It is absolutely outrageous and really goes to the heart of the Labor Party's attack on rural and regional Australia.

Our farmers are producing the cleanest, greenest product in the world. Our biosecurity arrangements need to be tough and they need to be secure, but you shouldn't be expecting our farmers to be the ones to pay for that, because—guess what—you tax the farmers but they are price takers. You have to pass that tax through. That means that, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, fresh groceries are going to go through the roof for everyday Australians. You're seeing in the UK over this week that farmers right across the UK have taken to the streets of London against their own Labor government installing taxes and increased impost on the agriculture sector there. The agriculture sector here in Australia has made it very clear that they do not want this biosecurity tax, this fresh food tax from Labor. Thanks to the tough stance that they have taken, it's sat on the Notice Paper for 320 days. We haven't dealt with it. Thanks to the National Farmers Federation and their president, David Jochinke, for being so tough, for actually standing up for our primary producers, because what we have seen under Labor is that Australians are now seeing food at the grocery store go up by 12 per cent during the cost-of-living crisis.

So what do they do? They think it's just not high enough for everyday Australians to pay for their fresh food; let's put a tax on farmers. But that's not all they've done to our agricultural sector. They've torn up the agriculture visa, making it harder for our farmers to find a workforce. They've banned the live sheep export trade, putting men and women—shearers—out of work in WA, and they've also cut and delayed regional infrastructure and water projects. The 82 per cent renewable target by 2030 is seeing farmland carpeted with solar panels, wind towers, and transmission lines—tearing up private property rights. The deceitful changes to superannuation, which I'm sure will be slammed through this chamber before we break, that will see farmers taxed on unrealised gains—as if they're going to sell the family farm to pay their tax bill—are absolutely appalling. There is radical industrial relations law. They're signing up to the Global Methane Pledge. Thank you very much, if you're a beef producer! There are potential cultural heritage laws which put private property rights at risk across this country and the onerous scope 3 compulsory emissions, and I could go on.

They talk a big game about supporting rural and regional Australians, the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities. They say that as they're in front of the cameras, as they're standing up in Merimbula even this morning. But look at people's actions. This government's actions are an assault on rural and regional Australians, on what we do. You can't find a doctor in the regions, for love nor money.

They've torn up projects that were supposed to assist us with road safety and productivity gains with freight. They are attacking our farmers. They've instigated a car and ute tax, which will mean rural and regional Australians pay more for the cars we don't just buy because we love them—which we do—but because we need them to do our work and to travel the hundreds of kilometres just to get to footy training on a Thursday night, let alone earn a living. Labor's assault on the regions has to stop and we need to discharge this bill.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this suspension. We'll oppose it because we don't accept that the opposition should be able to rearrange the program every morning, as has become custom in this place.

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator Rennick, a point of order?

Gerard Rennick

I was up before Senator Gallagher. I want to make sure I get a chance to speak to this.

Penny Allman-Payne

The government takes precedence, Senator Rennick. I'll come to you.

Katy Gallagher

Sorry, Senator Rennick, I won't be taking the full five minutes. I'm not going to be lectured by Senator McKenzie around biosecurity. When we came to government, Biosecurity, like other areas of the Public Service, was underfunded and unable to do the job it needed to do.

Bridget McKenzie

Why are you taxing farmers to pay for it?

Katy Gallagher

That is what happened under the former government.

Bridget McKenzie

So pay for it. You're happy to pay for everything else, shovelling hundreds of millions of dollars out the door.

Katy Gallagher

Don't pretend otherwise. You ignored the risks of biosecurity that have massive economic impact on farmers.

Jenny McAllister

A point of order, Acting Deputy President. Senator McKenzie was heard in silence, and it would be appreciated if she would do Senator Gallagher the same courtesy.

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator McKenzie, I will remind you that interjecting during debate is disorderly.

Katy Gallagher

The coalition had left our biosecurity system underfunded and insecure, and we heard that from farmers around the country.

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator McKenzie, again, I remind you that interjections are disorderly.

Katy Gallagher

Their shameful legacy on biosecurity was ignoring demands from farmers for sustainable biosecurity funding. They did absolutely nothing to make importers pay their fair share, for almost a decade. We have worked on trying to find the balance, to find that sustainable biosecurity funding model going forward. We accept that this bill will not be part of that solution.

But we are not going to be lectured on biosecurity by the National Party. They cut it, they didn't invest in it and they left our farmers vulnerable. Not only did they do that for farmers; they also trashed our international relationships to the point that our farmers lost all of that business with our biggest trading partner, China. Under this government, $20 billion in trade has resumed. That is how much we value farmers. That is how much we value the relationships, and that is how much we will advocate on their behalf. We won't take lectures from Senator McKenzie on any of that, because they left it in absolute crisis and disarray. Minister Watt came in and had to fix it, and the ERC had to find resources to deliver the security that our farmers deserve and our community deserves.

We will not support this suspension. We do not believe in Senator McKenzie grandstanding in opposition when she was unable to do anything in government. That is the problem here.

Peter Whish-Wilson

The Greens support discharging the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper. I can understand why the Nationals want to have a bit of debate at one minute to midnight, near the end of the 47th Parliament, to show they're doing something for farmers, when most of their focus in this parliament has been on approving new coal projects and gas projects, fighting culture wars and undermining the path to recognition for our First Nations people. But here you are, having a little bit of a debate and raising points in the Senate to show that you're supporting farmers.

I've got a couple of things to say very briefly about this bill. The Greens made it clear to Labor that we didn't support this bill in its current form. We did listen to the concerns raised with us by numerous stakeholders. But I want to be really clear. The funding in this country for biosecurity, which arguably is one of the biggest threats facing our agriculture sector, is through levies that are paid for agriculture producers and goes to a stance or a framework around reacting to biosecurity outbreaks. That funding is there, and, if we get a biosecurity outbreak, it's there to be spent to try and get on top of a biosecurity outbreak. There isn't any funding to try to prevent biosecurity outbreaks. That comes out of general revenue. This bill was designed to add an extra funding stream to help us better futureproof our agricultural sector against enormous biosecurity risks, and I do believe it is something we still need to work on.

I wanted to get this on record today. I spoke to the National Farmers Federation and other stakeholders, and they made it very clear with me that they were prepared to sit down with the government and find a way forward on this and find a new funding stream and a structure that works for them. In good faith, the Greens said to the government that we wouldn't support this, but we do have an expectation the agricultural sector will work with the government of the day to find a way forward so we can get more funding to prevent biosecurity risks. We've recently seen it with the avian flu. There are so many risks facing our country. We've got to do better. I wanted to get that on record today.

We're supporting the discharge of this bill, but we have an expectation that, in good faith, the agricultural sector will work with the government to find a solution to this problem.

Dean Smith

So bad is this government that even the Australian Greens have decided to distance themselves from the government's legislation. Senator Whish-Wilson has just confirmed that the Greens will support the discharge of the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper. Congratulation to Senator Whish-Wilson and the Australian Greens for the wisdom that you have shown in this particular instance.

There's no group in the Australian community that the Labor government has not sought to target and undermine. They've undermined the experience of Australian families with their cost-of-living crisis. They've undermined Australia's mining and resources sector with regulatory uncertainty as a result of duplicative environmental laws. There are workplace relations laws that stifle workplaces rather than enliven them, and, of course, Australia's agricultural sector has been at the forefront of Labor's attempts to undermine and attack the very heart and essence of Australia's prosperity.

Let's be very clear about this. The biosecurity protection levy bill was pushed through the House of Representatives in March 2024, almost a year ago, and has sat on the Senate Notice Paper for no fewer than 320 days. The opposition, in the form of the coalition, opposes it. The Australian Greens have now confirmed that they oppose it, so let's wait to see what the crossbench does. Every crossbench senator is now on notice. Do they support Australia's agricultural sector, or do they want to tax it into oblivion?

This fresh food tax or farming tax—whatever you want to call it—is just another attempt by the Labor government to undermine Australians' agricultural sector. What more evidence do Australia's regional communities need to confirm in their own hearts and minds that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers are not on their side? No matter what the government might do in the last 24 to 36 hours while rushing out all these new announcements—'terminal to the teller' and all these fancy slogans—the record of this Labor government in terms of supporting agricultural communities at a time of their greatest need is obvious and bad.

Labor has chosen to tear up the agriculture visa. Labor is attempting ill-advised changes to the PALM scheme. Labor is banning live sheep exports, which is sending shivers through the spines of regional communities in my home state of Western Australia; pushing ahead with water buybacks; signing up to a reckless race to 82 per cent renewables; implementing onerous scope 3 compulsory emissions reporting arrangements; making deceitful changes to superannuation; passing radical industrial relations laws that stifle farming communities; signing up to the Global Methane Pledge; potentially passing cultural heritage laws that put farming communities at risk; delaying red imported fire ant eradication funding; and implementing a new tax on trucks and utes.

The list goes on and on and on, and today this Senate chamber can say to the Australian Labor Party: 'Enough is enough. We're making a stand.' The opposition's motion is supported by the Australian Greens, and now the onus is on the crossbench. Will they stand up to support regional communities, or will they let them wither on the vine?

Long debate text truncated.

Lidia Thorpe

I seek leave to table a document.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.

I've been given some documents that are very important for this parliament to have on record. They're from a number of traditional owners across the country. I think they are relevant to this parliament going forward, given that we've got the totem of the kangaroo in this room and the totem of the emu in this room, and I am unaware of any consent given to utilise totems of our people in the colonial project.

I've been asked by these elders to provide this to the government and to the parliament to have on record official law notice from grandmothers of law—the superior law, law of the land and of the continent known as Terra Australis and Australia. The senior tribal law man, Uncle Juma of the Larrakia, has served notices that are now in silent acquiescence by the Australian corporation. We know the government, which is a corporation, is registered in the US through an ABN. This whole parliament has an ABN, and the government has an ABN, and it's somewhere overseas. That's how the colonial project does its illegal occupation in this country, basically.

This document has fingerprints, and it has customary law notice. It also comes from the United Tribal Countries Land Alliance. It's a custodial tribal law council made up of self-governing original tribal countries from this continent, known as Terra Australis or Australia, that have reconvened their ancient pactums through their shared languages, Dreaming and songlines, which connect all tribes on this continent and beyond. They've re-established the original tribal councils and made public announcements. They are trading with international counterparts and countries as they are recognised as kings and queens of their own tribes, rather than the colonial king that this parliament refers to all the time.

So there have been a number of High Court proceedings in relation to the custodial tribal law council, and this is about putting this on the record to be an official account. It has been sent to the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. It has been acknowledged by that organisation. I think that, for the opposition, or the Libs, to not allow this important information to be tabled is very disrespectful when it's part of truth-telling in this country.

I seek the Senate's support for these elders and these true custodians of this country, in having the respect to provide this information to the Senate and to the parliament for your information. It's a statement of truths and it's a notice to principal in notice to agent. You need to know about the emu and you need to know about the kangaroo that you wear on your lapels and where they come from, the stories that they belong to and the country that they belong to. They certainly don't belong in this place; it's an act of treason and theft.

Ross Cadell

I know that a lot of this is available online on some government sites. The document may have some valid points, and I don't take that away. Overall, as a document, it contains many claims that are not fully tested and maintains all sorts of things that would belong, if this were America, in the sovereign citizen movement. The entire document is not fully coherent. Whilst it does maintain some of the things as a single document, it looks to be the purpose of some of the contributors to this to serve it on the Parliament of Australia rather than to have any deliberative process or thoughts. So that is why we will not be supporting the tabling of this document.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments that have been circulated to this bill.

Paul Scarr

I would like to kick off by looking at the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, noting the minister's reference to the desire to, through these amendments, improve the case management processes and deal with some technical issues. I want to start by looking at the case load, and this is based on the most recent statistics for the new Administrative Review Tribunal, as at 31 December 2024. When the coalition left office, the AAT tribunal had 67,720 cases on hand. At 31 December last year the new Administrative Review Tribunal, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, had 93,756 cases on hand. What went wrong?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Scarr, for the question. We obviously believe there was a strong case for reform of the ART. We had seen under the previous government, which had been in power for 10 years, the politicisation of the AAT at the time. We didn't believe that was serving the nation and its best interests, which is why we announced the significant review. Obviously, the Attorney-General worked consultatively as we went forward to implement the new tribunal.

There has been a significant and sustained surge in applications for the review of student visa refusal decisions. That is obviously due to a significant increase in the rates of student visa application processing by the Department of Home Affairs. Rates of refusal of these applications are linked to changes in the student visa policy, which contributed to an increase in applications for review of these refusals by the tribunal. In 2024, there were 22,158 student visa refusal applications lodged with the tribunal. This represents a significant increase when compared to pre-COVID-19 application rates. For example, in 2018 there were 6,000 and in 2019 there were 6,848. This increase is an even greater when compared to post-COVID rates, from 2,374 applications in 2022 and 3,893 in 2023. As you can see, there's been a significant jump in those cases.

The tribunal has enhanced powers and procedures to ensure that matters are resolved quickly and fairly. There are more powers for registrars, and there is a demand driven funding model which supports the appointment of additional members when needed, meaning that matters such as student visa refusal decisions can be resolved more efficiently. The government is currently conducting a recruitment process for general members, targeting migration and protection skills, which will help the tribunal address this surge.

Paul Scarr

I should note that I acknowledge that this isn't the minister's area of ministerial responsibility, and I certainly wouldn't like to lay at his feet the issues which are arising at the ART under the reforms that were driven by the Attorney. However, the fact remains that you've spoken about the student visa issue, and I appreciate the issues arising there—again, because a Labor government policy is increasing the case load. But the difference in cases we're looking at is between 93,756 as at 31 December 2024 and 67,720 as at the time when the coalition left office. We're looking at 26,000 additional cases. The case load is quite extraordinary.

You mentioned that one of the aims of introducing the Administrative Review Tribunal was to deal with matters as quickly, efficiently and fairly as possible. In terms of efficiency, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a case was 30 weeks. Now the median time to finalise a case is 48 weeks. Again, I ask you: what has gone wrong?

Anthony Chisholm

I disagree with your assessment on that. I don't think pinpointing a period of time will be helpful to having a proper discussion on this. But, as I mentioned before, there has been a significant increase in the number of student visa refusal applications. In 2024 alone, there were 22,158. That's a vast increase from just 2,375 applications when the previous government was in power. As you can see from that one instance alone, there has been a significant increase in the workload of the new ART. We're confident that it is the right move to improve outcomes in this country, and these measures in this bill today will only add to that.

Paul Scarr

I'll move on to another indicator with respect to whether or not the new ART is dealing quickly and fairly with cases that are coming before it, which was one of the aspirations of the Attorney when he introduced this reform. If we look into the migration and protection case loads in particular, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a refugee matter was 113 weeks. The median time to finalise a protection matter under the Administrative Review Tribunal has now blown out to 232 weeks. Again, Minister, I ask you: What went wrong? Why has the timeline doubled?

Anthony Chisholm

Again, I disagree with your assessment on this, Senator Scarr. The work that the tribunal is doing is important. The Liberals left the AAT critically underfunded. We're still getting through the backlog that you left us. There are old cases that we inherited, and, indeed, thousands of the cases that we're dealing with are more than five years old. We're confident that these measures that we are implementing will make a difference. They are an important reform. I would point out that I think the only two people in the country defending the old AAT are you and the former Attorney-General.

Paul Scarr

Minister, I'll take that comment you made about only the former Attorney-General and me defending the old AAT. I should note, in my defence, that I've referred to facts. I've referred to the key performance indicators contained in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's annual reports year after year with respect to satisfaction rates amongst participants—those who've come before the AAT and their advisers appearing before the AAT—and rates of successful appeal. So I've based my defence of the AAT on the basis of facts, on the basis of objective, empirical data, as opposed to sweeping rhetoric about this or that politicisation. I've actually looked at the facts, and it's the facts that I'm referring to in this interrogation with respect to the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which, as you said, Minister, in your opening statement, was intended to quickly and fairly deal with cases coming before it.

In my first question I referred to the fact that the cases on hand have blown out from 67,000 to 93,000. Apparently that's our fault, because it's dealing with the backlog. But the backlog has now blown out by 26,000, so I don't quite follow that. I'll give you another statistic, and this is in relation to the migration part of the AAT's jurisdiction. On 13 October the AAT had 31,310 cases on hand, and a little over two months later the case load has blown out to 38,495. It's only in a little more than two months that the case load has blown out. Again, why is there this extraordinary increase in case numbers on hand?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Scarr. Again, I don't it's accurate to pinpoint two points in time when analysing these matters. What we know from when the AAT was in operation was that it prioritised the easy cases and often left the hard cases to rot. We are now doing those old, hard cases, and they are taking longer to resolve as a result. That's leading to a longer average time to finalisation because of the dereliction of the previous government in dealing with some of those harder cases.

Paul Scarr

With due respect, Minister, I'm not sure how it's unfair to pick two points in time to analyse the performance of a new tribunal. I would have thought it's fair and reasonable. The first point in time is when you got rid of the previous tribunal, and the next point in time is the current case load. I can't think of a more fair way to assess the performance of a new tribunal than to consider what the position was before you introduced the tribunal that the Attorney said would increase speed, efficiency and fairness. Now we're comparing it to the current position in terms of case load. I'm not sure there could be any more reasonable way of assessing the performance of the tribunal.

But I'll try with another statistic, and this is in relation to the protection case load. As at 31 October, there were 41,476 cases on hand, and, under the new tribunal, that number again has blown out to 43,605 cases on hand. That's an increase of more than 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. Again, what has gone wrong?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Scarr. A significant number of the cases on hand now are more than five years old. We are not responsible for those, but that's what we're dealing with. And it highlights, as I mentioned earlier, what we inherited when we came to government.

Paul Scarr

I'm just looking at the facts, and the facts say that there's been a blowout of 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. That's what the facts are telling us. I refer to what the Attorney-General said on the record as justification for his decision to abolish the AAT:

The Albanese Government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays and an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications and that is operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems …

The sad truth, though, is that under Mr Dreyfus's watch, under the Attorney's watch, expenditure has blown out to the point that your budget papers reflect a billion-dollar spend on the ART and we're getting this blowout in case numbers. All that's been achieved is a massive increase in the case load of more than 26,000 cases and an enormous blowout in wait times from 30 to 48 weeks. These processes are important, and it is important, as you said previously, that matters are dealt with quickly and fairly. The ART you have established and are attempting to fix now with this legislation has been an expensive failure, hasn't it?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I completely reject your assertion there. As I mentioned earlier, we know that there are only two people in the country defending the old AAT: you and the former Attorney-General. I understand what it's like being the loyal servant of the party that you are, but the reality is that the AAT that we inherited when we came to government was a complete mess. It had been used as a stacking exercise for the Liberal and National parties. We wanted to reform that. We think it's an important reform that's in the long-term interest of the country.

Paul Scarr

Minister, whilst I appreciate your flattery—I am a loyal servant of my party—can I say, again, the defence that was mounted in relation to the AAT was based on the statistics and the key performance indicators, which anyone listening to this debate can look at by going to the annual reports of the AAT. They indicate that the AAT consistently met its key performance indicators with respect to successful appeal rates and also to user satisfaction—that's the satisfaction of the Australians actually appearing before the AAT and, even more importantly and perhaps even more persuasively, of the lawyers and representatives who advocated on behalf of those Australians.

When the ART legislation passed the Senate roughly half of all ART members had been appointed by the current government. Now that the AAT has been abolished and replaced by the ART, all of the new tribunal members have been appointed by the current government. There can be no more excuses about this politicisation et cetera. All the members of the existing ART have been appointed by this government. The only difference we're now seeing in terms of performance is a massive increase and blowout in wait times in exchange for much more money. A billion dollars has been invested into this new ART. Why should Australians pay a billion dollars for a tribunal that performs worse than its predecessor, on the basis of objective data, when the only real difference is that the members were appointed by the Albanese Labor government?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I obviously disagree with your assessment. What I've talked through this morning as we've been dealing with this legislation is a significant number of increases that we've seen in regard to student visa refusal appeals, which were up at 22,158 last year, a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2022 and almost a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2023.

We also identified that, under the previous government, the AAT prioritised the easy cases and left those hard cases that the new tribunal is now having to deal with. You have a sorry record. I also respect that you acknowledge you did stack the AAT with political appointees as well; at least that is a bit of honesty on your part. But this is an important reform, and it is one that we think will serve the long-term interests of the country.

Paul Scarr

I'm not sure if there's a doppelganger giving a speech in another place who said the words that the minister attributed to me, but I don't think I acknowledged that the previous government had stacked the AAT—quite the contrary. If it was stacked, it was stacked with members who actually performed quite well in relation to the objective KPIs which I'm referring to in the course of this debate.

Minister, I do want to go to some of the particulars of the bill, and I do acknowledge that this bill doesn't fall within your bailiwick as a minister, so you may well need to get some advice from those members of the department and advisers who are there to assist you and who are, no doubt, hanging on my first question. If I can take you to schedule 4, item 2, from my perspective, as I understand it, this item is dealing with a very serious unintended consequence arising from the introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. Can I ask you the reason for that proposed amendment?

Long debate text truncated.

Hollie Hughes

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that just before the Senate suspended this morning a division was called on the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cox. We will proceed to that division now.

Hollie Hughes

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Cox be agreed to.

Dean Smith

I move:

That, if the Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 has not been finally considered by the adjournment on Tuesday, 11 February 2025, then:

(a) the bill be listed as the first item of government business on Wednesday, 12 February 2025;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 11.30am; and

(c) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chamber is that the motion moved by Senator Smith, notice of motion No. 766, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

We now come to amendments (2) and (4) to (9) on sheet 3259, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that the remaining Senator Thorpe amendments on sheet 3259 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 1, at the end of item 10A, at the end of section 80.2A of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(4) Schedule 1, at the end of item 18A, at the end of section 80.2B of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(5) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BA(7), insert:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(7A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person if person is under the age of 14.

(6) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BB(8), insert:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(7) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BC of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(9) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(8) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BD of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(10) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.

(9) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BE of the Criminal Code, add:

Offences do not apply to persons under 14

(8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.