Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme be required to come into the House immediately and withdraw his factually incorrect claims about the issue of media releases concerning the NDIS and fraud under the previous coalition government, and apologise for misleading the House.

This is urgent, because what we have seen is the most cynical and deliberate misleading of this House. I'm going to ask my colleague to—

Milton Dick

Manager of Opposition Business, please resume your seat for a moment. The Leader of the House?

Tony Burke

On a point of order. The word 'deliberate' was just used. It is not possible for that word to be used during a suspension motion. That is highly disorderly and should be withdrawn and ought not be said again during the suspension debate.

Milton Dick

I'll get the manager to withdraw that word and ensure that that's not used—deliberate.

Paul Fletcher

I am happy to withdraw the word 'deliberate'. Let's just remind the House what was said by the minister for the NDIS. He made the factually incorrect claim that none of the seven ministers for the NDIS under the previous coalition government had issued a media release in relation to fraud. He went on to emphasise that statement with the use of words like 'zip' and 'nada', but what he said was completely, factually incorrect.

I want to make the point that on 18 October 2018 a media release was issued by the now Leader of the Opposition, together with me, then Minister for Families and Social Services, and the minister with responsibility for the NDIS at that time, headed 'NDIS taskforce makes first arrest'. It read:

The Coalition Government established the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Fraud Taskforce in July to tackle potential fraud against the NDIS.

Today we can announce that the Taskforce has made a significant arrest.

That was not a one-off. That was not the only media release issued over a period in which a number of coalition ministers had responsibility for the NDIS. For example, on 22 April 2021, a media release was issued by the then Minister for Home Affairs and the then Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That media release was headed 'Morrison government moves to protect NDIS from organised crime'. It read:

Operation Pegasus is a months-long NDIS Fraud Taskforce investigation into an alleged criminal syndicate …

It was an investigation being carried out in relation to alleged fraud against the NDIS, and a media release was issued by two coalition ministers, including the coalition minister then responsible for the NDIS. On 31 July 2021, a media release headered 'Extended crackdown on NDIS fraud' with the then Minister for the NDIS Senator Reynolds said:

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is extending the NDIS Fraud Taskforce …

We had a media release on 15 November 2021, which said:

More than $10 million of incorrect or non-compliant payments from National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers has been identified since July.

The media release spoke of the specialist National Disability Insurance Agency Compliance Response Team. Then, of course, there was a media release on 7 December 2021—again, a joint release between the then Minister for Home Affairs and the then minister with responsibility for the NDIS reporting:

… the Australian Federal Police (AFP) executed search warrants across three premises—

working jointly with the National Disability Insurance Agency fraud team. That is just a handful, a sample, of the releases that were issued by coalition ministers in relation to fraud and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

I inform the House of that to allow the House to then consider the accuracy of the statement that was made by the Minister for the NDIS some 30 or 40 minutes ago here in this place in question time. He had this to say:

I went through my file about when did the ministers of the government start talking about fraud. I went through all of the seven coalition ministers for the NDIS. They never put out one press release on challenging or detecting fraud, not one—zip, nada—

Dan Tehan

'Zilch!'

Paul Fletcher

The Hansard says 'milch', but I think it might be 'zilch'. That statement is completely incorrect. It is entirely incorrect. It's not something that he just made up on the fly. He told us he prepared for this. He told us that he'd gone through his files.

Angus Taylor

His speechwriter has been working at it!

Paul Fletcher

He may well have had the assistance of his $620,000 speechwriter in preparing those remarks, which he has just made in this House!

The fact is that the member for Maribyrnong has form in being highly misleading. The workers of Chiquita Mushrooms, for example, thought that he was acting, in an unqualified way, in their best interests when he was the secretary of the Australian Workers Union. But, in fact, we know that there was a deal done under which Chiquita Mushrooms workers, represented by the AWU, ended up with terms that were not as good as many other workers'. There were unusual payments to the union. The union received a $4,000 payment per month over six months in return for what the union, then led by the current member for Maribyrnong, claimed was for health and safety training.

The fact is that it may be the case that the member for Maribyrnong is used to operating in environments where he could get away with making statements that are entirely factually wrong and, by consequence, make claims against individuals and indeed people who have had significant positions of responsibility in this nation which are entirely factually incorrect. He may be used to working in environments where he's able to do that. But this is not such an environment.

If you make a statement in this place which is clearly demonstrably and factually wrong, and if you make that statement and preface it with clear evidence that you have prepared making that statement and that you've gone through your files, you can hardly then say, 'It was an accident; I somehow managed to miss the five media releases—' which I was able to find with the assistance of my hardworking staff and other hardworking coalition staff in about 15 minutes. Five media releases—there may very well be more. We haven't found just one that proved that what he said was factually incorrect. We haven't found just two. We haven't found three. We found five in literally a few minutes. I doubt there has been, certainly in this term of parliament and perhaps for a very long time, such an exercise in making a statement which is clearly untrue and which is clearly calculated to provide political advantage.

What the minister was seeking to do was position himself as some kind of holder of virtue on this matter as the person who has solely twigged to the fact that there may be a risk of fraud. He should have twigged to this a very long ago, because he was the genius who created this in the first place. Every one of those coalition ministers worked very hard to try and clean up the mess he created. In the two years that he has been in government, he has done very little about it. The best he can do is make statements which are entirely factually incorrect about the record of coalition ministers. So this minister needs to return and apologise.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack

The motion is absolutely seconded. The suspension of standing and sessional orders is very important because we now have one hour and 15 minutes left of parliament this week and it's so important that the member for Maribyrnong, the Minister for the NDIS, responsible for one of the most important parts of government, comes back into this chamber and explain why he has, accidentally or otherwise, misled the House on this very important issue.

He cannot have gone through his files and found that the coalition, when in government, did nothing about fraud in this important space. To say otherwise is to malign those very good, hardworking ministers of the coalition who did absolutely everything to make sure that any fraudulent activity was not only addressed but brought to heel by the then government. The member for Maribyrnong has been here since 2007. He knows better than to go to that dispatch box and suggest that something otherwise was done. Indeed, we put in place measures to absolutely crack down on fraudulent activity. You heard from the member for Bradfield, who feels slighted by the fact that something else was suggested, that the member for McPherson produced a media release that absolutely said that not only were we cracking down on fraudulent activity but there was a fellow who was arrested for that very thing.

Milton Dick

Order! Member for Hasluck, it doesn't help to have continual interjections.

Michael McCormack

Sont les mots qui vont tres bien ensemble—maybe he's thinking of adventures in gay Paris! Maybe his speechwriter has suggested otherwise and he has his mind on other things, maybe ambassadorial roles. But he knows better than to go to that dispatch box in question time, where the truth is important. The truth is important. When you are a minister, you have to tell the truth. Whether it was an accident or otherwise, we do believe he has absolutely misled this House. It's important that he has an hour and 12 minutes to come back into this chamber. The House Practice absolutely demands he do so. We are requesting that he does so. Convention of the Westminster system absolutely makes it crystal clear that he should come back into this House and explain himself, come back into this House and admit that he was wrong. It's not hard to say you were wrong. It's up to him to say that he was wrong. He knows that he was wrong. He can't suggest that the coalition never put out a media release and his file suggested there were no media releases, because we know and have proven in these statements that the actual fact was otherwise. It is absolutely plain as day. The member for McPherson, the then home affairs minister said:

All Australians suffer when public money is defrauded. That's why this Government—

the coalition government—

is serious about taking strong action to protect against fraud.

It's rather damning to suggest that the coalition when in government did not do anything about fraud in the NDIS space. The minister, the former opposition leader who led Labor to the 2016 and 2019 elections—not quite sure how that went for him!—is very senior. He's been in this place as the member for Maribyrnong since 2007. It's incumbent upon him to come back into this chamber, explain himself, admit that he got it wrong and admit that perhaps that speechwriter to whom we're paying $600,000 worth of taxpayers' money got it wrong. Somebody got it wrong, but the buck stops with him because he was the one who said it. He was the one who erroneously claimed that the now opposition—the then government—did nothing to crack down on fraud in the NDIS. We did, and we've had minister after minister say that very thing. We've got the media releases.

I hear the member for Watson. We've proven it. We can table those media releases, obviously. The member for Maribyrnong says he hasn't got them in his files, but he would have. He only had to ask his department and they would've produced them. To suggest anything else is breaching convention. It is breaching the Westminster system. It is breaching House of Representatives Practice and it's breaching the good grace of this parliament, where truth is important.

Labor came to office in May 2022 and they said, 'We will restore integrity. We'll let the sunshine in. We'll be transparent.' This minister, today, has not been any of those things, and it's up to him to come back into this chamber now, and if the member for Watson, or whoever is following me in the speech, has even an absolutely slight consideration of how important House Practice is, how important the Westminster system is—and here he is, thankfully! Hopefully, he's going to make that truth be accountable.

Long debate text truncated.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:36): The leader of the Greens had the opportunity for a personal explanation, so I now move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Griffith and the minister for Pacific island affairs are going to cease their conversation.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Griffith, just cool it.

Mr Chandler-Mather interjecting—

The SPEAKER:The member for Griffith is now warned. Anyone sitting in that corner can also show restraint as well.

Mr Bandt:A point of order: the minister made an unparliamentary remark, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: The minister isn't sitting in his correct seat, so that's highly disorderly if he was interjecting during a division. To assist the House, I'll just ask him to withdraw. I don't know what was said; I didn't hear it.

Mr Conroy: To assist the House, I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: I thank the minister. And if the member for Solomon is here—I shall deal with him later. The question before the House is that the member be no longer heard.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:24): The member had the right to issue a personal explanation, so I now move:

That the Member no longer be heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Australian Greens no longer be heard.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Mr Bandt interjecting—

Government members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Australian Greens will cease interjecting.

Government members interjecting—

Mr Bandt interjecting—

The SPEAKER:The Leader of the Australian Greens is now warned, and members on my right will remain silent during the division. The question is that the Leader of the Australian Greens no longer be heard.

Long debate text truncated.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah

Vaping is a pox upon our house—this House and our entire nation. Currently in Australia there are 1.7 million people who regularly vape, and amongst high school students that number is one in six.

Why is vaping so problematic? It's problematic for many reasons. One is that vaping is a gateway drug to nicotine addiction. We know that people who vape on a regular basis are three times as likely to go on to become smokers, and that's a huge problem, because smoking and tobacco use are the No. 1 risk factor for death in Australia. This is based on evidence tabled by the National Tobacco Strategy last year. Tobacco use is the No. 1 cause of death, followed by a range of other risk factors. It's higher than a poor diet, it's higher than physical inactivity, it's higher than alcohol use and it's higher than illicit drugs. At the moment in Australia, smoking prevalence is around 11 to 12 per cent. We want to drive those rates down, and the National Tobacco Strategy discusses that. We are aiming to drive smoking rates down to 10 per cent or less by 2025 and to five per cent or less by 2030. But it's not going to be achievable unless we tackle the scourge of vaping.

Vapes were originally sold as a therapeutic device to help smokers get off the cigarettes. In fact, the reverse has occurred. These devices were so poorly regulated that big tobacco essentially used them as a marketing tool to hook people and turn them into nicotine addicts. They have interesting flavours—a whole variety of flavours, including strawberry. They look like highlighter pens or USBs. The vaping stores have cropped up throughout our streets and suburbs, and most of them are within 50 metres of a school. In fact, big tobacco is aiming to turn a young generation of Australians into nicotine addicts, essentially.

Vapes themselves, however, are not just full of nicotine, they are actually a chemical cocktail. We don't actually know what is in these substances, but we have got evidence that they can cause severe lung injury. There is a condition called EVALI, e-cigarette and vaping acute lung injury, which has been well described in medical literature. It shows that vapes are associated with severe lung injury, which can result in intubation and ventilation in intensive care, as well as lung transplantation for those patients who are lucky enough to get access to lung transplants. There is widespread community concern around this issue. In fact, reforms that we've already tabled with the banning of the importation of vapes in January of this year have been widely supported by the community and by a range of public health experts.

Our second tranche of reforms, which is the substance of this bill, will aim to ban the sale and marketing of vapes in the streets and suburbs of our communities. This approach has been endorsed by a range of organisations, including peak medical groups such as the AMA and the RACGP, as well as others. The state and territory health ministers have also endorsed this legislation, so we would urge support from everyone in this House.

But it's not just the peak groups, ordinary Australians arealso very interested and animated by this issue. My own constituents have stated on a local Facebook group: 'As a paediatrician and a parent of teens, I have significant concerns about the impact of vapes. Nicotine and up to 200 other toxic chemicals contained in vapes impact on the current physical and mental health of young people. We see this firsthand in our interactions and consultations with young people. I also have significant concern about the long-term impacts and effects of vaping. If we wait for long-term data, it will be too late. We need to act now. Indeed, there is evidence that vaping on a regular basis has an adverse impact on adolescent brain growth. We also know that it has an adverse effect on pregnancy outcomes and it can contribute to accelerated cardiovascular and respiratory disease.'

Another constituent said: 'Sensible regulation is a strong, positive move towards ending the youth vaping crisis. Regulating retail sales of nicotine vaping products, including strict age verification requirements, will stop the black market in its tracks and keep dodgy products out of the hands of children.' And that's the message that we are hearing loud and clear: the community want action and we are indeed delivering on that.

The legislation that we are tabling will introduce offences and civil penalty provisions designed to protect Australians, particularly young people, from the harms associated with illicit vapes. This will be achieved by banning the importation of vapes, which was done back in January of this year, as well as the domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and marketing of non-therapeutic and disposable single vapes. All vaping advertising on social media or on retail websites and the promotion of vaping goods by influencers on social media will also be banned. Those flashing lights signalling 'vapes sold here' that you drive or walk past in our streets will be gone. They will be made unlawful.

We're also enhancing the quality and safety standards associated with the manufacture of vapes. These commenced back in March of this year. We have limited the flavours to mint, menthol or tobacco, and we are also foreshadowing other standards, such as the requirement to limit the maximum amount of nicotine in the vape, as well as plain pharmaceutical packaging, and very clear labelling. In other words, we are dialling down the flashing lights and dialling down the marketing so that these devices just simply do not look enticing enough to hook people.

The important message here is that we're not taking a punitive approach to the individual. We're not out to target the individual, but we are certainly going for big tobacco. That is why we introduced the ban on the importation of vapes back in January of this year. Since that ban came through, we have seized 1.5 million vapes—1.5 million. It is huge. That's a mountain of vapes. That's 1.5 million fewer vapes in the hands of Australians, including children. We're trying to choke off the supply, but we need to do more.

The issue now, of course, is that we have a group of Australians who are essentially dependent on nicotine. I think it's important to talk a little bit about the kinds of problems that these people may encounter as access to vapes diminishes. Nicotine withdrawal is well described. It's something that I had to deal with in my medical practice in hospital, and it can manifest in many ways. People rarely say that they are withdrawing from nicotine or smokes; they just don't say it. Instead, it manifests as irritability, problems with concentration, difficulty sleeping and, of course, finally aggression. These manifestations can occur not only in adults but also in children. I think it's important, particularly for parents, as well as for schools, teachers and principals, to be aware that there may be children in their midst who are not disclosing that they are regular vapers but who will manifest problems with nicotine withdrawal.

We are committing close to $30 million towards smoking cessation services. That includes bolstering the Quitline. It is also important to understand that access to nicotine replacement therapy is widely available. Nicotine patches, gums and sprays can be purchased over the counter at pharmacies and sometimes even at supermarkets. They are widely available, and they can be used by anyone over the age of 12, depending on the product labelling. But further support is also needed, sometimes with counselling and with psychotherapy. My advice to parents and to persons in authority, like schoolteachers and principals, is to flag these issues early with your organisation. I advise parents to take their children, particularly, to their local doctor for advice on how to manage nicotine withdrawal. GPs are well versed in doing this work. They are professionals. They've done it for decades, fighting the fight against big tobacco.

The Commonwealth has also committed an additional $25 million to the Australian Border Force and $56 million to the Therapeutic Goods Administration over the next two years to enforce this work. A National Vaping Working Group was formed in November 2023, comprising the Commonwealth, state and territory health and police departments, the AFP and Australian Border Force. It's really important that this work continues in a very collaborative fashion, because obviously the Commonwealth can create the legislation but it needs to be operationalised, and big tobacco are sneaky. These illicit operators will try to find any weakness in order to ply their trade. We need to ensure that all our agencies in our state and federal governments, as well as other groups, are working collaboratively, and that is something we are supporting with this funding.

Finally, I would also like to say that, once upon a time, Australia led the world when it came to tobacco control and smoking cessation. Indeed, it was a Labor government, the Rudd and Gillard governments, and a Labor health minister, Nicola Roxon, who took on big tobacco, with plain packaging. We are now picking up that baton. It is commendable that this minister, Minister Mark Butler, is willing to take on this scourge and do something about it. I commend this bill to the House.

Long debate text truncated.

Dan Tehan

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (after line 15), after section 199E, insert:

199EA Statement about each removal pathway direction

Minister must prepare statement

(1) The Minister must prepare a statement about each removal pathway non-citizen who is given a removal pathway direction.

Note: Statements about 2 or more removal pathway non-citizens could be included in the same document.

Information included in the statement

(2) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must include the following:

(a) the non-citizen's country of origin;

(b) the class of visa (if any) held by the non-citizen at the time the removal pathway direction was given;

(c) the number and classes of visas (if any) previously held by the non-citizen;

(d) whether the non-citizen is a serious offender (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code) and, if so, any offences for which the non-citizen has been convicted;

(e) whether the non-citizen is, or has been, the subject of a community safety order (within the meaning of that Division) and, if so, the details of that order;

(f) whether, in the absence of compliance with the removal pathway direction, there would be no real prospect of the removal of the non-citizen from Australia under section 198 becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.

(3) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must not include:

(a) the non-citizen's name, date of birth or residential address; or

(b) information that would otherwise reveal the non-citizen's identity; or

(c) information the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth.

Preparation within 7 days and tabling on the next sitting day

(4) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must be prepared within the 7-day period starting on the day the removal pathway direction is given.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the end of that 7-day period.

Natural justice hearing rule

(6) The Minister is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in exercising a power or performing a function under this section.

We need greater transparency when it comes to this piece of legislation. This marathon of incompetence is turning into an ultramarathon of incompetence. We have never seen the like of this: a hopeless and hapless minister with a supervising minister who is equally hopeless and hapless. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve to know what is going on, and that is why we need greater transparency—so that Australians have some idea that the government is at least attempting to do its No. 1 job, which is keeping the Australian people safe.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wannon be agreed to.

Zoe Daniel

I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:

(3) Schedule 2, item 160, page 67 (lines 1 to 6), omit the item.

This amendment is not dissimilar in theme or tone to the previous amendment from the member for Clark or the amendment moved by the member for North Sydney. However, this amendment goes to information that is required or not required to be given to an applicant for comment.

I did move the amendment. Thank you for the advice, Attorney-General. I did move the amendment as circulated in my name.

This amendment goes to the issue that, under this legislation, the ART is not required to notify the applicant of information that it intends to rely on to affirm the decision under review if this information is included in the original decision. Arguably, this is a significant departure from procedural fairness requirements where the tribunal is required to notify applicants of adverse information in the decision under review which it intends to rely on. As written, the legislation will permit the ART to refuse an application based on material mentioned in the applicant's department decision, even where this material wasn't relied on by the department in making its decision, without providing any notice to the applicant that it intends to rely on this material in a different manner to the department.

There are several issues with this. One is the potentially unjust outcome for applicants who will be denied an opportunity to comment on that adverse information before a tribunal decision is made. Also, it forces applicants into a position where they will have to address every single issue in their department decision without knowing which bit of that decision is or is not being relied on to make an adverse decision. This will mean more lengthy submissions, voluminous materials to the tribunal, and potentially higher legal fees for the preparation of these materials. So there's potentially an inefficiency factor for the tribunal.

By way of case study—and I am in part, like the previous speakers, relying on advice from the ASRC, which has done amazing work in providing examples and case studies of people who have been affected by these sorts of rules—this case study goes to Jibrail, a Hazara man from Afghanistan, who sought asylum in Australia and applied for a protection visa but was refused one by the Department of Home Affairs. Jibrail sought a review of his department decision. As the department accepted he couldn't return to his hometown or Mazar-i-Sharif, Jibrail focused his submissions to the tribunal on why he could not return to Kabul. The tribunal then notified Jibrail that it considered he could safely return to Mazar-i-Sharif, and Jibrail had an opportunity to address this matter before the tribunal. If the subsection as written in this new iteration of the legislation had been in place, arguably Jibrail would have been denied the opportunity to respond to the adverse information the tribunal intended to rely on regarding relocation to Mazar-i-Sharif as the matter was considered in the department decision, even though the department reached a different finding.

The issue I'm trying to get to here is that these are life-and-death decisions for people. I know that the Attorney-General understands that, and that that's the whole point of what we're trying to do here, but the crux of the matter is that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our community who are facing immense pressure, immense anxiety, financial issues, language issues and a whole range of barriers as they work through these processes. These issues of procedural fairness are really critical, and we need to get this right.

I will finish by saying that, in conversations with the Attorney-General, he has made the point about not wanting to overlegislate in order to give the tribunal the flexibility to do its job. I hear that completely. But we also don't want to underlegislate when what we're trying to do is protect due process for some of the most vulnerable people who interact with the system.

Mark Dreyfus

The government does not support these amendments. I thank the member for Goldstein for withdrawing her earlier amendment because of the interaction with the government amendments. On this amendment, with respect to the member for Goldstein and those who provided her with the example she gave, there seems to be some misconception about what these new paragraphs, 359A(4)(d) and (e), of the Migration Act will do. What they do is clarify that the tribunal is not required to give to the applicant information that was included or referred to in the written statement of the decision that's under review or that's prescribed by the regulations. Because the written statement of the decision is the primary document that is relevant to the decision under review, applicants will already be aware of the contents of the written statement. They will have the opportunity to respond to any of that information during the review process, particularly at the hearing. It's not actually necessary for the tribunal to separately draw this to an applicant's attention. Very importantly, proposed section 359A does not prevent the tribunal member from putting information to an applicant if they consider it necessary and conducive to the review process.

The government and I accept the vulnerability of many applicants in migration review processes, but, as far as possible, I can assure the member for Goldstein that, contrary to her suggestion to the House that this might lead to longer decisions or hearings, or her suggestion that applicants were somehow being denied the right to put submissions, that is not what this provision deals with.

This provision is a very narrow procedural provision. It relieves the tribunal from any obligation to give information to the applicant that's already included or referred to in the written statement of the decision. This narrow procedural provision won't lead to longer decisions. It won't lead to longer hearings. It won't deny applicants the right to put submissions on any matter that they believe is relevant to their situation. It's a very narrow procedural provision, and I would suggest to the House that it is likely to improve the way in which the decision-making process takes place in the tribunal.

Question negatived.

Dai Le

I move my amendment:

(1) Schedule 2, item 171, page 69 (line 15), at the end of subsection 368(1), add:

; and (e) inform the applicant, where possible, of any further steps needed to be taken by the applicant in order to have their matter finalised.

As we've heard this morning from the member for North Sydney, the government's Administrative Review Tribunal Bill is actually a great improvement on the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal legislation. I have previously shared the experience of my constituents' woes with the AAT. There are recurring issues that derive from their experiences where they've struggled with accessibility due to language barriers, cost and the stress of waiting for correspondence without knowing if they would get a favourable outcome or not.

The introduction of the ART is an expensive exercise and it must be done right. In considering the experience of my constituents, my proposal for this amendment is to address the lack of notification. We often get constituents coming to our office and English is their second language, as the member for Brisbane initially mentioned. The AAT deals a lot with people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and in my electorate of Fowler, where 70 per cent of the population have a parent or two parents born overseas, English is often a second language. Therefore, in seeking this amendment, I'm really just asking the government to consider that people need to know and to be informed about what's happening with the decision so that they can actually plan ahead. This is about procedural fairness and, basically, giving people the opportunity to plan to know what to do, and communication, as we know, is very important.

The ART, the new executive body, is a big beast, and I appreciate the cases that the ART will face and will have to consider. But I think it's a matter of fair process to just inform the review applicant of what they have to do and what they need to present to the AAT. We've been talking about the review process this morning. We've been talking about decisions being made, but are those decisions and review processes being given to clients, in particular to people of non-English-speaking backgrounds? We make legislation in this House all the time, and the legislation we make is in English and predominantly, if not 100 per cent of the time, aimed towards people whose first language is English. My hope is that the ART, as we progress to implement this legislation, will ensure that the tribunal is cognisant of the needs of multicultural communities and of those who are fronting the ART. Often, when you go into these institutions, there's a lot of stress and there are a lot of fears, because language is such a big barrier. Not being informed about what's happening with their case then adds to further stress.

As I said, there have been so many cases of people coming to see me at my office not knowing what the AAT's position is. They have not heard from the AAT. They've been waiting for years—12 months, two years or three years—without a simple notification of what's required of them or even a notification saying: 'You've been rejected. The case is concluded.' I really don't think a simple notification is too much to ask the tribunal to include in their decision.

I know that the minister will stand up and reject this amendment, but I really urge the government to consider our multicultural communities in making legislation, and such important legislation as the ART, especially in the reviewing process. Thank you.

Mark Dreyfus

The member for Fowler's amendment would alter section 368 of the Migration Act so as to require the tribunal's notice of decisions and statement of reasons to clearly outline 'next steps and action required' for applicants.

I can say directly that the government does not support the proposed amendment but not because we don't share entirely the objectives of the member for Fowler in making the processes of the Administrative Review Tribunal and administrative decision-making in respect of Migration Act matters as accessible, clear and available to applicants as they can possibly be.

We accept entirely the observations of the member for Fowler about the difficulty that is faced by many applicants, created by cultural and language barriers in their lives, to accessing the processes of the tribunal. It's for that reason that the provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the consequential bill that is now before the House require that applicants be given written notice when a tribunal case event is scheduled or where the tribunal has given a direction for something to be done. That requirement is already there in the legislation as proposed. This ensures that applicants understand what they're required to do and the time frames for doing so.

The particular section of the Migration Act to which the member for Fowler's amendment would attach is section 368. It applies to the tribunal's final decision in a migration or protection matter—that is, not procedural decisions and not directions in running but the decision whether to affirm, overturn or remit the original decision-maker's decision.

Section 368 of the Migration Act modifies section 111 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill to require that tribunal decisions provide additional information for reviewable migration and protection decisions. In particular, the decision must include the time and the date of the decision, which are essential to meet the need for certainty here. I referred to that need for certainty earlier in this debate about Migration Act processes. It's essential to meet the need for certainty about when a decision on a review of these decisions is final.

I can assure the member for Fowler that, in the government's view, not only does the legislation already require that there be clarity given to applicants and that applicants have the effect of a decision absolutely clearly spelled out for them, as well as the time and the date of a decision, but the government intends to work with the new tribunal over coming months to ensure that all communications with all parties to a review are clear, are accessible and are comprehensive.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.

Sharon Claydon

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment to the motion moved to the second reading of the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Forde MP Bert Van Manen (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the name of the bill.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024".

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Menzies MP Keith Wolahan (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the name of the bill.

Motion text

(2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 ", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024".