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".

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Hume MP Angus Taylor (Liberal).

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 notes:

(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;

(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;

(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;

(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and

(5) the Coalition's package will:

a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;

b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;

c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and

d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Brisbane MP Stephen Bates (Greens) to an original amendment, which means the original amendment will remain unchanged.

Amendment

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "

(1) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:

(a) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker;

(b) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy half the total value of the tax cuts;

(c) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men; and

(d) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and

(2) calls on the government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax free threshold in this cost of living crisis".

Original amendment

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 notes:

(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;

(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;

(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;

(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and

(5) the Coalition's package will:

a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;

b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;

c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and

d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".

The majority voted against a motion:

That the member [i.e., Watson MP Tony Burke (Labor)] be no longer heard.

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading amendment, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This amendment was introduced by Deakin MP Michael Sukkar (Liberal).

Motion 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:

(a) the Coalition's strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave;

(b) the former Government's commitment to supporting women's participation in the workforce saw women's participation reach record highs;

(c) at both the 2010 and 2013 federal elections, the Coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver 26 weeks paid parental leave based on actual wage;

(d) both Labor and the Greens opposed the Coalition's paid parental leave policy; and

(e) the current paid parental leave scheme disproportionately adversely impacts smaller businesses, imposing an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the Government's paid parental leave scheme; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the Secretary, as defined by the Act, to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to employees of small businesses except in cases where a small business opts to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to an employee".