Michelle Rowland
Greenway · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“Failure to comply with the identity verification requirement in ART proceedings would result in the tribunal being required to dismiss the matter.”
“Courts must retain a high degree of discretion in the management of proceedings. This means that the FCFCOA will also be able to extend time for satisfying the identity verification requirement or dispense with the requirement altogether where appropriate.”
“The bill provides safeguards for vulnerable applicants of the ART and will notapply these changes to reviews relating to social security, veterans entitlements, the National Disability Insurance Scheme or aged care where written reasons may play an important role.”
“Improving ART efficiency and operations The bill makes amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024and other Commonwealth legislation to expand tribunal powers, improve tribunal processes, increase efficiency, avoid administrative delays, and aid the management of caseload surges and backlogs—particularly in migration matters…”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's primary federal merits review body.”
“It will provide an important touchpoint, and a further opportunity to protect the integrity of the merits and judicial review systems through identification checks.”
The complete record
Every one of 366 lines we hold for Michelle Rowland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together: (1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 8), after "person", insert ", and the applicant is seeking to access a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person".”
“The amendments to the cabinet exemption are necessary to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and the workings of cabinet government. Question unresolved.”
“The amendments in relation to anonymous applications will ensure vexatious applicant declarations are unable to be circumvented, discourage applicants from engaging in inappropriate or threatening behaviour and enable agencies to know who they are dealing with. The amendments in relation to the deliberative processes exemption provide greater statutory guidance on the harm the exemption is designed to protect against and reflect that the effective operation of government relies on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence.”
“The government opposes the amendments. The amendments to the objects of the act balance promoting transparent government with the countervailing public interest in protecting essential private interests and the proper functioning of government. The amendments in relation to vexatious requests allow multiple requests to be treated as a single request and will help agencies deal with abusive requests and repeated requests by applicants for the same information. I note that the government has also moved amendments in relation to the anonymous measures in the bill and I'll speak to those later in the debate.”
“Importantly, the deliberative processes exemption remains a conditional exemption, subject to the public interest test, and, in applying the exemption, the decision-maker will still need to weigh the public interest considerations for and against disclosure.”
“The government opposes the amendment. Part 3 of schedule 7 inserts three public interest considerations that would weigh against the disclosure of information under the deliberative processes exemption. The amendments provide greater statutory guidance in respect of the harms the exemption is designed to protect. The amendments reflect the effective operation of government, including the development of high-quality and robust policy, and rely on agencies being able to provide and ministers being able to consider frank and comprehensive advice in confidence. Other like-minded jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand recognise such factors as relevant considerations in assessing the public interest in disclosure.”
“The bill does, however, respond to the royal commissioner's observation that merely describing a document as a cabinet document is not, in itself, sufficient justification to maintain confidentiality of a document. The bill inserts new subsection 34(7) to make clear that the mere presence or absence of any kind of security marking or other feature is not sufficient to determine whether or not the document is exempt under section 34. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:37 to 16:55”
“As outlined in the Australian government's response to the report of the robodebt royal commission, the government believes it is critical that the cabinet, the key decision-making body of government, is comprehensively informed in its deliberations. To achieve this, the cabinet must have the benefit of frank and fearless advice from the minister and senior public servants in question. The principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings, in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front in public when decisions have been reached. For these reasons, the government does not support the repeal of section 34.”
“The change of the reference from 'dominant purpose' to 'substantial purpose' recognises that documents may be created for multiple purposes; however, the cabinet purpose must be of substance, real and not insignificant, trivial or nominal, ensuring the exemption still applies to documents with a genuine cabinet purpose. The government will therefore be opposing both sets of amendments.”
“The amendments are necessarily to more clearly and accurately reflect how the cabinet process works in practice, and to ensure appropriate protections for the full range of documents prepared to support the cabinet process and workings of cabinet government. The amendments would provide appropriate protections for briefings where a matter is presented to cabinet orally and without papers and reflect that, for example, a summary of a cabinet document can be just as revealing of cabinet deliberations as a verbatim copy or an extract.”
“The decision to refuse access is a reviewable decision through internal review and by the information commissioner and the Administrative Review Tribunal. When relying on the provision, the agency or minister provides a statement of reasons for the decision, including that the provision was used and what exemptions were relied on to refuse access. With respect to amendment (4), the government considers the proposed changes to cabinet exemption are required to appropriately protect information central to the cabinet process and support the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.”
“With respect to amendment (3), the government opposes the amendment. The government considers that this provision is necessary to achieve efficiencies and allow agencies and ministers to more quickly resolve requests of this kind. The government recognises that a similar provision was repealed in the 2010 reforms and that the ALRC's 1997 open government report recommended the repeal. However, the ALRC also acknowledged that repealing the provision may increase the cost of FOI processing. The government respectfully suggests that, in the context of rising FOI costs since the 2010 reforms, the repeal should be reconsidered on that basis. The proposed provision has appropriate safeguards. The provision is only available in certain circumstances.”
“I appreciate the question from the member. As I said, the bill provides for regulations to prescribe fees for FOI applications, internal reviews and information commission reviews. A vast number of FOI requests continue to be for access to personal information, at about 75 per cent. So that would be excluded from those fees. This would all depend, obviously, on the number of requests that are received. Being unable to see into the future, it would be inappropriate to make an estimation.”
“Any fee regulations must provide for waivers or remission in circumstances of financial hardship. The regulations can provide for circumstances in which fees should be refunded. Regulations to establish application fees under the bill will be subject to scrutiny and disallowance. All other Australian jurisdictions except the ACT have application fees for FOI requests.”
“The government opposes the amendments. The cost to government of processing FOI applications is significant and increasing, costing $97.99 million in 2024-25 compared with $36.32 million in 2010-11. Further, vexatious and abusive requests and repeat requests by applicants for the same information impact on the ability of agencies and ministers to process other FOI requests in a timely manner. The ability to reduce these FOI requests will assist to manage these issues. The bill includes a regulation-making power to impose application fees for FOI requests and review processes. It also includes appropriate safeguards. The bill expressly prevents application fees from being imposed in relation to requests for an individual's own personal information.”
“The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Information Commission Act 2010 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to support the changes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill provides important updates to the Commonwealth's freedom-of-information framework, with a focus on modernisation, reducing system inefficiencies and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information. It recognises the importance of a well-functioning system of information access balanced with an efficient and effective government. I commend the bill to the House.”
“This bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to reflect the modern environment. It will improve the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law and addressing abusive processes that impact on people's right to access information. The amendments achieve this by clarifying the scope and objects of the Freedom of Information Act, streamlining processes relating to information access requests and reviews, establishing mechanisms to address improper use of the FOI system, enabling application fees and clarifying the operation of certain exemptions and treatment of official documents of the minister.”
“More broadly, we have been listening to evidence provided as part of the Senate committee inquiry, and the government will keep an open mind and continue to engage in good faith on the final form of these important reforms. We all agree on the need to get on with fixing what is currently a broken freedom of information system. What we know is that every stakeholder says the current FOI system isn't working and there are significant delays in having FOI requests processed. The fact is that the government's freedom of information laws will create efficiencies in the system to ensure it works better for all users of the system. This will allow genuine FOI requests to be prioritised and taxpayers' money to be better utilised. The Albanese government and our FOI reforms are focused on delivering for the Australian people.”
“However, some stakeholders and those opposite have expressed concern that the proposed ban might discourage individuals or organisations with legitimate reasons for seeking anonymity, such as whistleblowers, from making FOI requests. Today I will be moving an amendment to address this concern by allowing applicants to make requests for non-personal information without having to disclose whether a request is being made on behalf of another person. This change will mean that a person with a legitimate reason for seeking anonymity can ask a member of parliament, a journalist, a lawyer, a friend or any other person to make a request for non-personal information on their behalf while maintaining their anonymity.”
“The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 will ensure our freedom of information framework is fit for purpose in 2025 and beyond by upholding and promoting core democratic principles that underpin freedom of information laws and addressing issues that in practice undermine a more effective and balanced framework. The government remains committed to delivering meaningful freedom of information reform. We remain ready and willing to engage across to parliament on possible amendments, given the importance of getting this right. One of the important measures in this bill is the ban on anonymous requests. This will provide greater transparency about who is seeking to access information held by the Australian government, ensuring our FOI system cannot be exploited by those who may seek to do Australia or Australians harm.”
“I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The Albanese government recognises that an effective freedom of information system is vital to fostering citizens' trust in government decision-making and to supporting participation in Australia's civic and democratic processes. Australia's current freedom of information framework was established over 40 years ago and does not reflect our world today, including the opportunities and challenges presented by modern technology. Outdated provisions divert resources and cost taxpayers money while delaying responding to genuine requests. Complex procedural and technical rules contribute to system inefficiencies without benefits to Australians or Australia's democracy.”
“The amendments are not intended to impact current licensing arrangements, which also play a vital role in Australia's education system. Other minor measures Finally, I turn to the other minor measures in the bill. The bill will make a number of minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act to improve its operation. These include: Conclusion The bill will strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act by: Debate adjourned.”
“Questions also arise about the application of the provision when parents and other community members are involved in the class. Scope of amendments The bill proposes to amend section 28 to clarify that it applies when: The proposed reforms clarify that the rules in the Copyright Act apply consistently, regardless of whether a lesson is taking place in person or online. This recognises that not everyone involved in lessons may be able to attend in person. They also acknowledge the educational value of parental and community involvement in classes. By allowing parents, carers and others to assist students with their lessons or deliver the educational instruction, the changes promote stronger partnerships in educational settings.”
“This includes the ability to negotiate reasonable payment for the use and seek injunctive relief in relation to continuing use of the work. Remote learning ( s chedule 2) Current law I turn now to the remote learning measures in schedule 2. Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently permits teachers and students to perform or communicate copyright material in the course of educational instruction, without it being considered a public performance or communication to the public, as long as other relevant conditions are met. The effect of this provision is that the performance or communication does not require permission or payment under the act. With the rise of digital learning, uncertainty has grown over whether this provision extends to online and hybrid classes.”
“In doing so, the proposed scheme will facilitate the use of orphan works by providing greater legal certainty for users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, and allowing more Australians to enjoy the important benefits of the large amounts of orphaned material held by Australia's cultural institutions. There may be some circumstances in which, despite a reasonable search being conducted to try to identify a copyright owner prior to relying on the scheme, a copyright owner later comes forward. Given the nature of orphan works and the conditions that must be met prior to use of the scheme, it is anticipated that such instances will be rare. However, should this occur, the bill provides copyright owners with the ability to assert their rights following the use of an orphan work.”
“I turn now to each of the measures in the bill in more detail. Orphan Works ( s chedule 1) First is the orphan works scheme in schedule 1. Current law An 'orphan work' refers to copyright material for which the owner cannot be identified or located to seek their permission to legally re-utilise it. Copyright generally requires someone to seek the permission of the copyright owner before using copyright material. This cannot occur if the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located, and it means that where copyright material has been 'orphaned' it cannot be used for socially and creatively beneficial purposes, without legal risk. Introduction of an orphan works scheme The bill proposes the introduction of an orphan works scheme that would limit liability for those seeking to rely on it, if the conditions in the bill are met.”
“The scheme will also protect the interests of rights holders, including by providing a means by which they can assert their rights should they later be identified. This bill also clarifies that the Copyright Act applies consistently to physical, online and hybrid classes. It makes clear that parents can assist students with their lessons and that persons other than a member of school staff (such as members of the local community) can be involved in classes without impacting applicable copyright rules. This measure will provide greater legal certainty to those providing education, without disturbing the licensing frameworks that support the creative and media sectors' important contribution to teaching and learning. The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to clarify and update the Copyright Act.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Copyright Amendment Bill incorporates two important reforms to facilitate the use of copyright materials for public benefit, while also continuing to provide support to those working in the creative and media industries who rely on copyright for their work. First, the bill establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. The scheme will support use of 'orphaned' copyright materials for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located by limiting the remedies available for infringing use. This will provide prospective users with greater legal certainty and will open up access to a larger collection of material held by our institutions for the benefit of the Australian community.”
“I thank the member for her contribution. The government will not be supporting these amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The government considers the regulation-making power necessary to ensure that the government can support the Administrative Review Tribunal to appropriately respond to changes in its case load in a more flexible way. As a regulation it would, of course, be subject to disallowance by the parliament, as is appropriate. Importantly, the ability to apply the 'on the papers' process to other visa types could only apply to reviewable migration decisions, expressly excluding protection visa matters in recognition that these are, generally, more complex.”
“Ultimately that is in the interests of all our constituents as well as of the rule of law and access to justice overall. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time.”
“I thank all members who have made a contribution to this debate, especially for bringing to light some of the experiences of their own constituents and circumstances that are very much about the human experience with the tribunal system. I was pleased to hear some of the contributions from the members for Sturt and Makin, who again highlighted the fact that there needs to be a balancing between the efficiency of the tribunal system and ensuring that access to justice is served. It is through consultation with impacted parties, the tribunal itself and relevant stakeholders that we have arrived at this position of being able to bring forward proposals to make the ART much more responsive and to ensure that we address those backlogs where they are occurring.”
“The bill would also amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to enable the tribunal to dispense with an oral hearing if it appears that the issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties and it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing. This new discretion will ensure that simple matters and straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible while still providing a fair and just review. The tribunal would be required to consult the parties about this and take their submissions into account. This bill reflects the ongoing commitment of the government to ensuring the tribunal is able to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.”
“The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions—specifically student visa refusals. This aims to address the significant surge in applications for review of student visa refusal decisions experienced by the tribunal since early 2024. These reviews will be subject to a new review procedure conducted entirely on the basis of written materials. Applicants would be given the opportunity to present their case in writing and present information to the tribunal in support of their case. This procedure could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other temporary visa types but not protection visas or permanent visas.”
“The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 equips the tribunal with the tools it needs to ensure that it can continue to provide a fair, quick and efficient merits review. In particular, the bill expands the tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials without holding an oral hearing. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. The bill recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach that requires oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid. The bill would enhance the tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure that review procedures are efficient and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.”
“It will have a renewed focus on three priority areas: firstly, encouraging fair, legal avenues for using copyright material in AI; secondly, exploring opportunities to clarify how copyright law applies to material generated through the use of AI; and, thirdly, examining avenues for less costly enforcement of copyright infringement. We encourage the tech industry and the creative sector to come together now and find sensible and workable solutions to support innovation while ensuring creators are fairly compensated.”
“It's as simple as that.' That's what the government has confirmed with this announcement. Australian singer-songwriter, Holly Rankin, better known as Jack River, said: We are on the right side of history on this—people should be paid for their work. And the great Kate Ceberano said, 'It's a day to celebrate.' I couldn't agree more. Work is underway to ensure that Australia is prepared for future copyright challenges emerging from AI. That's why I've made the decision to reconvene the copyright and AI reference group over the next two days.”
“Under such a proposal, artificial intelligence developers would be able to use the works of Australian creators, for free and without permission, to train AI systems. The government stands behind Australia's creative industries. That is why we have ruled out a text and data mining exception, and that's to provide certainty for Australian creators. We welcome the support that has been expressed right across the creative industries. Annabelle Herd, the CEO of ARIA, said: It's absolutely a critical step in the right direction. She also said: It is a win for creativity and Australian culture, including First Nations culture, but it's also a win for common sense. Australian Society of Authors CEO, Lucy Hayward, said: 'People deserve to be paid for their work.”
“I thank the member for her question. A core Labor value is supporting Australian voices, Australian culture and Australian stories. And, of course, this government has two great champions for the arts in our Prime Minister and in the Leader of the House and Minister for the Arts. Artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities for Australia and our economy. However, it's important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too. Australian creatives are not only world class but also the lifeblood of Australian culture. We must ensure that the right legal protections are in place. The Albanese government has consistently said there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI. Some in the technology sector have called for the introduction of a broad text and data mining exception.”
“This, in turn, requires that opinions expressed in the cabinet and cabinet committees, including in documents and any correspondence, are treated as confidential.”
“I want to make it clear, because the honourable member has asked about robodebt, that the government accepted or accepted in principle all 56 recommendations made by the royal commission. In relation to the closing observation made by the royal commission about the cabinet exemption, the government stated that it is critical that the cabinet, a key decision-making body of government, is comprehensively informed in all its deliberations because the decisions taken by the cabinet are collective and the principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in cabinet meetings in the expectation they can argue freely in private while maintaining unity in public when those decisions have been reached.”
“That is to make sure they are consistent with their original policy intent, so that they are applied where they should be applied and cannot be applied where they shouldn't be applied. The cabinet exemption has been amended to clarify its operation and ensure it appropriately protects information central to the cabinet process, which is consistent with its original intent. Speaking of robodebt, to address a concern that was raised in the 2023 royal commission into robodebt, the amendments would also make it absolutely clear that merely labelling something 'cabinet-in-confidence' does not make it so. That is a fundamental part of this legislation that is proposed. I would also point out that the proposed amendments are consistent with provisions that already exist in a number of state jurisdictions.”
“I thank the member for her question and the way in which she has engaged on this matter. I must respectfully say that the premise of the honourable member's question is not correct. I would point out for the benefit of the House that it was this government that initiated a royal commission into robodebt because we understand the importance of restoring integrity to what was an illegal scheme that destroyed lives. Secondly, only weeks ago, we as a government announced the single largest class action settlement in Australian history to bring that sordid matter to a close. But I will say in relation to the cabinet exemption about which the honourable member asks that these changes are designed to clarify existing exemptions.”
“Decisions about parole should be made by panels of independent experts, not by politicians or bureaucrats. I look forward to the parliament supporting that. In the short time I have available, I will continue to engage, as I am always very happy to do with the honourable member when it comes to the matters that she's raised. My colleagues from the opposition who asked other questions aren't here to hear the answers, but I will take that up with them separately. Thank you very much. Proposed expenditure agreed to.”
“Australians rightly expect the release of offenders from custody into the community will be managed as safely as possible, and this measure that I have introduced will make the community safer. It will strengthen the Australian public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by ensuring that decisions are made by experts who are best placed to make assessments of risks when considering the protection of the community, and that will be the highest priority for the board. For the information of the House, there are actually around 1,200 federal offenders serving sentences right across every state and territory, and that is actually more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined. We are the last jurisdiction, as the Commonwealth, to have an independent adult-parole board, and the time for that has come.”
“It allows the minister to prescribe other temporary visa classes for review on the papers, but I would note that reviewable protection decisions are expressly excluded. It provides the tribunal with a new broad discretion to dispense with oral hearings subject to a number of important caveats. These measures will seek to provide the tribunal with the operational tools and flexibility it needs to progress merits reviews in a fair and efficient way. I would again point out that we are only now nearing the first anniversary of the operation of the ART. I'm sure that in the years to come we will see even more substantial outcomes as a result of those changes. Finally I want to touch on another important reform that I introduced to parliament this morning. That is the establishment of a Commonwealth parole board.”
“I also thank the member for Macquarie for her questions on the Administrative Review Tribunal, because as she rightly points out unlike the former government the Albanese government has done the hard work to clean up our system of administrative review by establishing the ART and restoring probity to the appointments process. There is a restoration at last on integrity into merits review. However its operational experience since October last year has shown that measures can be taken to further improve its efficiency while still preserving the ability of applicants to make their case. That's why I've brought forward amendments to the ART Act and the Migration Act to do a number of things, including requiring that student-visa refusal matters are considered by the tribunal on the papers—that is, without the need for an oral hearing.”
“On 1 July this year, the Albanese government's $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership commenced, and that's delivering critical support for frontline legal assistance services. It is the single biggest Commonwealth investment in legal assistance ever, representing a funding increase of nearly $800 million over five years for legal assistance. It is a landmark agreement. It will help to drive critical reforms in the legal assistance sector. It will also strengthen data capability and maturity of the sector, create a stronger and more sustainable workforce, and establish a robust framework to help progress actions towards closing the gap.”
“Along with my long-time friend the member for Macquarie, keeping our most vulnerable safe is a top priority, which is why we have engaged with her local community on important matters to do with the online environment and that space. It is absolutely correct, I'm sure you'll agree, that access to justice should not be determined by your postcode or your position in society. I want to foreshadow that I'll take a particular interest in the upcoming 12 months in particular in visiting rural and parts of Australia and understanding their specific needs when it comes to legal assistance. I will be delighted to visit the members electorate, if that can be accommodated, to understand those needs.”
“It is an incredible privilege to be here as first law officer in my first debate on the appropriations bill, and I do so with a profound sense of responsibility. At a time when democracy is being challenged, trust in our legal institutions and upholding the rule of law has never been more important. I thank the member for Hasluck for her questions and her comments on the National Access to Justice Partnership. I know she cares deeply about support for her community. I want to comment for the information of the House that my first actual public facing engagement I wanted to be at a community legal centre, which I did up the road in Fremantle. I was delighted to do that. Shortly after, with the member for Melbourne, I visited a women's advocacy centre which also assists with legal rights.”
“This includes providing the offender the opportunity to address factors or provide further information that, without this new discretion, may have resulted in a refusal decision on their application. These changes to the existing parole framework strike the balance between providing the board with the flexibility to manage parole consideration timeframes effectively and efficiently, while maintaining the statutory protection of regular parole reconsiderations for offenders. The bill also includes transitional provisions to ensure the transfer of parole decision-making functions from the Attorney-General to the new Commonwealth Parole Board occurs seamlessly and does not impact the operations of state and territory corrective services or law enforcement agencies. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”