I'm very pleased to be here to ask the Attorney-General to outline the importance of making sure the Administrative Review Tribunal is properly funded to fully support Australians who rely on our system of administrative review. The former government trashed the ART's predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is the body that reviews decisions of other government departments and agencies, critical decisions that impact on people's lives really profoundly. But, when the coalition was in government, it appointed 85 former Liberal MPs, staffers, candidates and mates to the AAT. Administrative review is an important part of our legal system. It's not a coalition consolation prize—something to be bestowed on people who may be past their use-by date in any other forum. The coalition didn't fund the AAT, and they didn't care about the AAT. They simply saw it as an opportunity for employment for their failed Liberal and National candidates—the hacks, the cronies, the mates. We saw this clearly, and that made the AAT dysfunctional. It did not give Australians confidence that their rights of review were being properly upheld.
Complaints from my constituents about how the AAT operated included the lengthy unacceptable delays, with some cases taking years to resolve, and a massive backlog awaiting hearing and consideration. In late 2022, the Albanese Labor government announced that we would completely transform Australia's system of administrative review by abolishing the AAT and creating the new ART. The ART reform progressed throughout 2023, and the new body commenced operations on 14 October 2024, almost a year ago today. The new tribunal has been designed to make sure that there is improved accessibility for users, that funding responds to demand and that there are more flexible procedures and more consistent processes across different case types. Mechanisms to effectively identify and deal with widespread issues are embedded in it, and there's funding for a new case management system.
I need to point out that appointments to the ART are also done very differently. Each recommended appointee has to be assessed as suitable for appointment by an independent assessment panel, through a transparent and merits based process conducted in accordance with guidelines for appointments to the tribunal. I was very much involved in this important reform and, along with the member for Curtin, who's in the chamber, I chaired the House committee that led one of the inquiries into the legislation. In a series of hearings, we took evidence about the need for the changes but also how the changes would work, and we examined how the legislation would meet the policy ambition.
The ART is built on more than 50 years of experience, learning and consultation. It draws on what we know works in a tribunal and it looked at what doesn't work. It fulfilled recommendations from the Robodebt royal commission and several other inquiries, including the one I led and the 30 detailed submissions we considered.
I want to give one example of the feedback that the new ART has received. Now, no-one is suggesting that the process is flawless, but this comment came from Victoria Legal Aid during Refugee Week. They described it as providing fairer and more transparent decision-making. Victorian Legal Aid said:
Through the ART, all asylum seekers now have the opportunity to be heard. And importantly, all asylum seekers have the same rights as every other person to seek a full review of the merit of immigration decisions made about them.
Our Migration team has seen the immense impact of the establishment of the ART and investment in legal
assistance on the lives of refugees and asylum seekers.
Building a merits review system that is fair, efficient and proportionate to the issues in contention is in Australia's best interest. Attorney-General, why were these reforms so important, and what is the government doing to progress further reform to ensure the efficiency of the ART?
