Division Description Changes — Bills — Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021; Second Reading — 14th Feb 2022

Change	Division
representatives vote 2022-02-14#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-02-24 10:45:31	Title Bills — Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021; Second Reading Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - For merit-based appointments Description ~~<p class="speaker">James Stevens</p>~~ <p>I rise to support the second reading, though not the amendment, of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. This is obviously a bill that has a number of technical changes and adjustments to the way in which we deal with administrative law and justice in this country. I suppose I would like to start by taking the opportunity to make a few general comments about the value of having the system that we have, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal system.</p> <p>There is a very common expression in law, going way back, that it's important that punishment fits the crime. I equally think it is important that access to justice is fairly weighted against the significance of its cost and the need for people to seek avenues to reflect and perhaps even appeal decisions that we as a government make. It is vital to our democracy, particularly in administrative law. Particularly when it comes to the executive of our government, it is quite important, in my view, that citizens have fair and reasonable opportunity to appeal and seek review of those decisions. We all know as members of parliament that a lot of decisions made can be at a level that is not worthwhile, and it would be very difficult to pursue them through the superior court system if that were the only opportunity you had. So if you applied for a visa and it was unsuccessful, or if you had an issue with a determination that had been made about your eligibility for a government entitlement, it's obviously not reasonable, and it would be unjust, if people's only recourse against those decisions were to go through an expensive process of potentially going to the Federal Court, say, or beyond. If we didn't have other avenues, a lot of people would have decisions that they felt should have the right to be reviewed and, in their view, changed, but they wouldn't have that access without a burden of cost that would make it impossible for a lot of them to pursue.</p> <p>As members of parliament, we have constituents come to us all the time who have these sorts of issues. Whilst we're clearly, as parliamentarians, not in a position to give opinions or adjudicate over decisions that a constituent has been given and that they may believe is unjust or should be changed—and nor should we; equally, it's important that we support them in pursuing an avenue where they can seek to have that decision reviewed, and to see that occur in a way that's accessible to them. Most of the things that we're changing through this bill are relevant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is exactly that body that gives people access to an appropriate level of decision-making review for the standard of the issue that they have that shouldn't cost them an inordinate amount of money to seek rectification against.</p> <p>If memory serves me well, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal first came into effect in the 1970s. It was for the purpose of ensuring that people had the avenue that meant they didn't have to go to the superior courts for matters that would be expensive to pursue there, and of course would also potentially overwhelm the superior courts, like the Federal Court, and even on appeal from there. So the Administrative Appeals Tribunal achieves that quite effectively. It means that people can go at a lower cost. It means they can get a quicker decision outcome. And it means that decisions that are made—by our administration, by the executive, by people with delegated authority, by agencies et cetera—can be appropriately reviewed by people who have the capability and the expertise to understand whether or not the correct law has been applied in each circumstance.</p> <p>It's not surprising that on a regular basis we need to review and modernise and change the way in which the AAT and other elements of administrative legal appeal functions are structured because, of course, things change on a regular basis as far as the types of matters and the types of issues that may be raised at the AAT and others are concerned. Equally, we can ensure that we have efficiency. Much like case law improves the understanding of statutes and the principles and fundamentals of different areas of our law, exactly the same principle applies with the AAT and the way in which they adjudicate over cases and determine whether or not a matter that has been brought to them is in fact a decision that should be overturned or a decision that should be kept in place.</p> <p>One of the changes that is being made here is to make that a little more efficient, allowing for AAT and others to make decisions with a different burden of reasoning on the decision made, and so to determine that if there is no general principle that needs to be given a view on, then some decisions can be a little more efficient and quicker so that people get their decisions as quickly as possible. We want that. I think that's very important. I know when I've dealt with matters that are on appeal to the AAT and other bodies, it has been the case that at times those decisions can take a little while. And when it is perhaps someone appealing a decision that has been made regarding a visa or an entitlement through social security and other services, veterans' entitlements et cetera, it's just as important not what the decision is but that the decision is made in a timely way, because speed of justice and speed of decision-making is vitally important for people in those circumstances as well.</p> <p>I note with interest that there are also a couple of adjustments being made in the bill regarding the way in which certain immunities et cetera exist for foreign governments when it comes to, in some cases, quite ancient treaties that we have in place with their status and their potential immunities in our legal system. I have to confess that I do not have a deep enough understanding of some of the complexity of that. I think there were some matters mentioned in the notes that I read regarding a case between a foreign government and a corporation here in Australia. But, clearly, it makes sense for us to embrace and implement sensible suggestions that are made by those who do understand the legal ramifications of certain decisions made in law that can improve things through the change in statute that we are making here.</p> <p>In conclusion, it is pleasing to see opportunities to make the AAT and other avenues of access to justice for all Australians cleaner, clearer and modernised. We always want to see and ensure that in this country everyone has equal access to justice and review of decision-making. We don't want to be in a situation where anyone that might have fair and reasonable grounds to seek review of or appeal a decision of government, or a decision of the administration, finds that they can't pursue that or don't find it in their interests to pursue it because the cost or time of doing so becomes prohibitive to them. We want to ensure that there are appropriate avenues for this. The AAT has achieved this for many, many decades. What we see in this bill now is an opportunity to enhance the way in which the AAT and similarly other federal avenues of appeal on decisions are administered. I commend the bill to the House.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ *The majority voted in favour of disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). The usual second reading motion is "this bill* be *now read a second time," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because this vote was successful, the amendment failed and the second reading motion will remain unchanged. ### Amendment text** > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: > *> (1) notes t*hat the current Government has: > *>> (a) appointed at least 79 former Liberal Party politicians, failed Liberal Party candidates and former Liberal Party staffers to** the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;* >> *>> (b) used the Tribunal to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates rather than the interests of the** Australian people; and* >> *>> (c) in doing so, brou*ght the Tribunal into disrepute; and > *> (2) calls on** the Government to implement a merit-based selection process for Tribunal members."*

~~James Stevens~~
I rise to support the second reading, though not the amendment, of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. This is obviously a bill that has a number of technical changes and adjustments to the way in which we deal with administrative law and justice in this country. I suppose I would like to start by taking the opportunity to make a few general comments about the value of having the system that we have, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal system.
There is a very common expression in law, going way back, that it's important that punishment fits the crime. I equally think it is important that access to justice is fairly weighted against the significance of its cost and the need for people to seek avenues to reflect and perhaps even appeal decisions that we as a government make. It is vital to our democracy, particularly in administrative law. Particularly when it comes to the executive of our government, it is quite important, in my view, that citizens have fair and reasonable opportunity to appeal and seek review of those decisions. We all know as members of parliament that a lot of decisions made can be at a level that is not worthwhile, and it would be very difficult to pursue them through the superior court system if that were the only opportunity you had. So if you applied for a visa and it was unsuccessful, or if you had an issue with a determination that had been made about your eligibility for a government entitlement, it's obviously not reasonable, and it would be unjust, if people's only recourse against those decisions were to go through an expensive process of potentially going to the Federal Court, say, or beyond. If we didn't have other avenues, a lot of people would have decisions that they felt should have the right to be reviewed and, in their view, changed, but they wouldn't have that access without a burden of cost that would make it impossible for a lot of them to pursue.
As members of parliament, we have constituents come to us all the time who have these sorts of issues. Whilst we're clearly, as parliamentarians, not in a position to give opinions or adjudicate over decisions that a constituent has been given and that they may believe is unjust or should be changed—and nor should we; equally, it's important that we support them in pursuing an avenue where they can seek to have that decision reviewed, and to see that occur in a way that's accessible to them. Most of the things that we're changing through this bill are relevant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is exactly that body that gives people access to an appropriate level of decision-making review for the standard of the issue that they have that shouldn't cost them an inordinate amount of money to seek rectification against.
If memory serves me well, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal first came into effect in the 1970s. It was for the purpose of ensuring that people had the avenue that meant they didn't have to go to the superior courts for matters that would be expensive to pursue there, and of course would also potentially overwhelm the superior courts, like the Federal Court, and even on appeal from there. So the Administrative Appeals Tribunal achieves that quite effectively. It means that people can go at a lower cost. It means they can get a quicker decision outcome. And it means that decisions that are made—by our administration, by the executive, by people with delegated authority, by agencies et cetera—can be appropriately reviewed by people who have the capability and the expertise to understand whether or not the correct law has been applied in each circumstance.
It's not surprising that on a regular basis we need to review and modernise and change the way in which the AAT and other elements of administrative legal appeal functions are structured because, of course, things change on a regular basis as far as the types of matters and the types of issues that may be raised at the AAT and others are concerned. Equally, we can ensure that we have efficiency. Much like case law improves the understanding of statutes and the principles and fundamentals of different areas of our law, exactly the same principle applies with the AAT and the way in which they adjudicate over cases and determine whether or not a matter that has been brought to them is in fact a decision that should be overturned or a decision that should be kept in place.
One of the changes that is being made here is to make that a little more efficient, allowing for AAT and others to make decisions with a different burden of reasoning on the decision made, and so to determine that if there is no general principle that needs to be given a view on, then some decisions can be a little more efficient and quicker so that people get their decisions as quickly as possible. We want that. I think that's very important. I know when I've dealt with matters that are on appeal to the AAT and other bodies, it has been the case that at times those decisions can take a little while. And when it is perhaps someone appealing a decision that has been made regarding a visa or an entitlement through social security and other services, veterans' entitlements et cetera, it's just as important not what the decision is but that the decision is made in a timely way, because speed of justice and speed of decision-making is vitally important for people in those circumstances as well.
I note with interest that there are also a couple of adjustments being made in the bill regarding the way in which certain immunities et cetera exist for foreign governments when it comes to, in some cases, quite ancient treaties that we have in place with their status and their potential immunities in our legal system. I have to confess that I do not have a deep enough understanding of some of the complexity of that. I think there were some matters mentioned in the notes that I read regarding a case between a foreign government and a corporation here in Australia. But, clearly, it makes sense for us to embrace and implement sensible suggestions that are made by those who do understand the legal ramifications of certain decisions made in law that can improve things through the change in statute that we are making here.
In conclusion, it is pleasing to see opportunities to make the AAT and other avenues of access to justice for all Australians cleaner, clearer and modernised. We always want to see and ensure that in this country everyone has equal access to justice and review of decision-making. We don't want to be in a situation where anyone that might have fair and reasonable grounds to seek review of or appeal a decision of government, or a decision of the administration, finds that they can't pursue that or don't find it in their interests to pursue it because the cost or time of doing so becomes prohibitive to them. We want to ensure that there are appropriate avenues for this. The AAT has achieved this for many, many decades. What we see in this bill now is an opportunity to enhance the way in which the AAT and similarly other federal avenues of appeal on decisions are administered. I commend the bill to the House.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). The usual second reading motion is "*this bill be now read a second time,*" which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because this vote was successful, the amendment failed and the second reading motion will remain unchanged.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:*
>
> *(1) notes that the current Government has:*
>
>> *(a) appointed at least 79 former Liberal Party politicians, failed Liberal Party candidates and former Liberal Party staffers to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;*
>>
>> *(b) used the Tribunal to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates rather than the interests of the Australian people; and*
>>
>> *(c) in doing so, brought the Tribunal into disrepute; and*
>
> *(2) calls on the Government to implement a merit-based selection process for Tribunal members."*