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 6 of 8.
“There are also circumstances where there are clear factors for a refusal that will take longer than 12 months for an offender to address, such as sex offender treatment programs that take up to 18 months to complete. However, due to the 12-month statutory reconsideration date, a decision-maker is required to reconsider that offender for parole before they've had a chance to complete their treatment. To address these issues, part 1B of the Crimes Act will be amended to provide the board with discretion to: These amendments will provide the board the necessary discretion to manage statutory deadlines. This flexibility will ensure procedural fairness is afforded to federal defenders during the decision-making process.”
“Currently, the Crimes Act requires the decision-maker to consider an offender for parole before the end of the non-parole period set by the court and reconsider an offender within every 12 months after any refusal of parole. There is currently no discretion available for a decision-maker to defer a parole decision for any reason. This can have the perverse effect of delaying or preventing rehabilitation or reintegration outcomes for offenders. For example, currently a decision-maker may be required to make a decision where the offender would otherwise be recommended for parole, but suitable accommodation is not yet finalised. Or a decision-maker may require further information to support a decision but cannot obtain that information ahead of the statutory consideration date and be required to make the decision on insufficient information.”
“This includes the power to make, refuse to make, or amend parole orders for federal offenders, and to deal with other relevant decisions, including release on licence orders, breaches and revocation of parole or licence orders, overseas travel requests, and the ability to amend orders in certain circumstances. Many of the arrangements for the board that are dealt with in the bill would generally apply to the board in the way they currently apply to the Attorney-General. The bill does, however, make some key changes to parole decision-making to align with best-practice approaches in states and territories and internationally. These amendments provide the board with flexibility to ensure that decisions are made effectively and efficiently, while still retaining statutory protections and timeframes for people to be considered for parole.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 makes consequential amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, to support the establishment and functions of the Commonwealth Parole Board. This bill replaces the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for federal offenders, and other detainees, within part 1B of the Crimes Act. The consequential amendments will ensure the board has the key decision-making powers to function effectively and efficiently.”
“This important criminal justice reform will make the community safer by ensuring that parole decisions are made by independent experts who are best placed to make the robust assessments of risk required to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“The review will ensure that the board can continue to make decisions in an efficient and effective manner and ensure the new board can address any unforeseen issues that may arise. Conclusion The bill reflects the Australian government's commitment to strengthening standards of integrity across all public institutions and will support greater public confidence within the broader criminal justice system. It delivers on a commitment made prior to the 2025 election by the former attorney-general, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, and I would like to acknowledge his work in bringing this important reform forward. Parole is a key part of the criminal justice system, and it is well documented that the supervision of offenders in the community under strict controls minimises reoffending.”
“The bill ensures that only the Governor-General can terminate members of the board, and only for serious matters including misbehaviour, incapacity, bankruptcy and extended unexplained absence. This further enshrines the independence of board members and limits political interference in their tenure. To further support the transparency, accountability and independence of the board's functions, the chair will be required to develop an annual report, to be tabled in parliament, on the board's performance and its functions. The bill also provides for a legislative review to commence three years after the board's commencement. The review will consider whether the parole framework is fit for purpose and review the composition, operation and decision-making processes of the board.”
“It is important that the board's membership includes individuals who have a diverse range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of people, and groups of people, significantly affected by the board's decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, expertise in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the effective reintegration of offenders, community issues such as substance abuse or mental health issues, and the impact of offences on victims. Transparency and oversight To reinforce the board's independence, the bill explicitly states that the board is not subject to direction from anyone in performing or exercising its functions or powers. The independence of the board is to ensure decisions made under this bill are not subject to any real or perceived influence from the government or any other persons.”
“At least one of the chair or deputy chair must have significant legal experience, to ensure they have the legal skills and expertise required to ensure that the broad discretion conferred on the board is exercised consistently with the framework in part 1B of the Crimes Act and in accordance with procedural fairness. When recommending appointments to the board, the Attorney-General must also ensure that the board possesses an appropriate mix of qualifications, experience and knowledge and reflects, as closely as possible, the composition of the Australian community at large. Many parts of the Australian community have different experiences of the criminal justice system, either as victims or offenders.”
“Establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board The bill sets out the membership of the board which will consist of a chair, deputy chair and at least three sessional members. All members of the board will be appointed by the Governor-General for up to five-year terms, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. When making these recommendations, the Attorney-General must ensure that members of the board have the appropriate qualifications, experience, or knowledge to make decisions about a federal offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration and the risks they pose to community safety.”
“The purpose of parole will continue to be the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal offenders, and the protection of the community. The board will retain discretion to consider all information that is known and relevant to a decision. The board, and its staff, will have appropriate information-sharing powers to enable them to request and use relevant information to support their decision-making. The board will also make all parole decisions, including in relation to terrorism offenders. The bill will not change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorist offenders. There is a very high threshold that must be met for a terrorism offender to be granted parole, and parole can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the release. That won't change.”
“The reform also brings the federal parole system into step with best practice approaches in the states and territories, as well as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, who all have statutory parole authorities independent from government. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill This Commonwealth Parole Board Bill will establish a Commonwealth Parole Board as a secondary statutory structure in the Attorney-General's portfolio. The members of the board will be independent statutory office holders. The bill sets out the objectives of the Commonwealth Parole Board, which are to: The parole framework and the management of federal offenders will remain largely the same as they currently are in the Crimes Act. The main change is to replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for parole.”
“This will ensure that decisions about the release and management of federal offenders are made by people who have the appropriate skills and experience to make the decisions about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, and ultimately the risks they pose to community safety. There is overwhelming and widespread stakeholder support for an independent parole board. The board responds to and aligns with recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid. It is also welcomed by victims support groups and legal advocacy organisations.”
“Historically, this arrangement has been fit for purpose, due to the small numbers of federal offenders and nature of the cohort, which has traditionally comprised offences against the Commonwealth, such as social services fraud. The makeup and complexity of the federal offender cohort has changed over time. This cohort now includes increasing numbers of offenders who pose a direct risk to community safety, such as terrorists and child sex offenders. That is why the government is establishing an independent Commonwealth Parole Board.”
“Those on parole are subject to strict supervision conditions which are informed by the advice of corrective services and law enforcement agencies. Now is the right time to establish a Commonwealth Parole Board. There are approximately 1,200 federal offenders currently serving sentences across every state and territory in Australia—which is more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined. The number of federal parole decisions has been rising every year. In 2024 to 2025 there were over 530 federal parole or parole related decisions. This number has increased from 463 in 2023 to 2024 and has been increasing at a rate of five to 15 percent per year. Currently, the Attorney-General, and delegates within the Attorney-General's Department, are responsible for making decisions about the release of federal offenders on parole.”
“The board of experts will replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker on whether to release federal offenders on parole. The highest priority for the Commonwealth Parole Board will be community safety. This important reform will strengthen the Australian public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by ensuring that parole decisions are made by experts who are best placed to make robust assessments of risk when considering the protection of the community. We know parole can keep the community safer. It means that mandatory controls and mandatory supervision are in place for an offender in the community, which otherwise might not be available at the end of someone's sentence. Supervision on parole also allows for early detection of reoffending if it does occur.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction Australians rightly expect that the release of offenders from custody into the community will be managed as safely as possible. That is why the Australian government is establishing an independent Commonwealth Parole Board—because decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole, and the conditions under which they are released, should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. The Commonwealth Parole Board will bring together experts from a range of professions and experience, including law, law enforcement, corrective services, victims-of-crime advocates, psychologists and other community safety experts.”
“In introducing and seeking passage of this bill, the government is standing with all Australians against hatred, violence and division, and I urge the entire parliament to do the same. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“I thank both my counterparts and comparable departments and agencies within state and territory jurisdictions for their engagement with the Attorney-General's Department in the formulation of this bill. Conclusion As our security environment changes, it is incumbent on the parliament to respond to new and emerging threats in a firm yet measured manner. This bill achieves that balance. The bill will strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism framework, creating an environment in which it is more difficult, more risky, and more costly for malicious foreign actors to seek to cause Australia and our community harm. It is a warning for any foreign state who seeks to intimidate or coerce us through violence.”
“The bill will also make consequential amendments across the statute book to ensure that state sponsored terrorism is treated in a consistent manner to other terrorist acts. Critically, law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be provided with the same powers to respond to, and prevent, state sponsored terrorism as they currently have in relation to terrorism. Noting that the extension of these powers are subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement between all levels of government since the Prime Minister's announcement in late August. This is the federation working at its best to keep Australians safe.”
“These new offences will criminalise engaging in, and making preparations for, a state terrorist act targeting Australia, as well as state sponsors of terrorism providing support to non-state actors that engage in terrorism targeting Australia. New offences will also be introduced which criminalise certain interactions with state sponsors of terrorism, including being a member of those entities, and providing them support or training. These offences will be accompanied by appropriate defences and safeguards, recognising that—given their function as an entity of a state—there may be legitimate circumstances where an individual has no option but to engage with a listed entity.”
“The government has taken the necessary time to get this framework right, working constructively across portfolios and across jurisdictions to establish a robust scheme that is appropriately balanced and targeted. The bill will allow a foreign state entity to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism where they have directly or indirectly engaged in, or otherwise supported or advocated for, the doing of terrorist acts targeted at Australia. The consideration of the listing of particular entities under this framework sits separately to the parliament's consideration of this bill and will be appropriately considered by the responsible minister following passage. This new framework is supported by the introduction of a range of criminal offences, mirroring those that exist for terrorism and in relation to terrorist organisations currently.”
“However—in recognition that terrorism has generally not been the purview of state actors—it has long been understood that the existing listing framework does not apply to a body politic. In response to these recent developments, the law must continue to adapt. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025, which I introduce today, does exactly that. The bill The bill amends the Criminal Code to introduce a new part 5.3A to provide a framework to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism and respond to state sponsored terrorist acts. Responding to the actions of state sponsors of terrorism presents unique security challenges and foreign policy considerations, and therefore requires a framework which is specifically designed, including appropriate safeguards on its operation.”
“It is deliberately targeted to undermine the values we hold dear, intimidate the public, and tear at our social fabric. The threat of terrorism has shaped our national security landscape, global interactions, and our collective sense of safety. That threat continues to evolve, including as a result of the rise of international terrorist organisations and the ease at which hateful ideologies can be disseminated online. State sponsored terrorist acts in Australia add a frightening new complexity to this landscape. But it is one which we must stand against resolutely—as we have with the challenges that have come before. Our national security frameworks for responding to terrorism are strong and have served us well to date.”
“They have absolutely no place in a modern, multicultural and multifaith country like Australia. These two state sponsored attacks targeting Jewish Australians on Australian soil represent a turning point in our experience of terrorism. While these attacks may have been targeted to one part of our community, they were attacks on our sovereignty and our collective way of life. These were attacks against all Australians. The evolving threats against Australia must not go unchallenged. This parliament must respond to them swiftly and unequivocally, unified in our shared understanding that protecting Australians and Australia must be an issue above politics. The terrorism threat Terrorism is unlike any other crime in its ability to impact our community.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government's top priority is to keep our community safe from those who seek to do us harm. On 26 August, the Prime Minister delivered a sobering announcement that Australia is not immune from the actions of malicious foreign actors who seek to undermine our safety, security and social cohesion through state sponsored terrorism. Informed by the expert assessments of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the government announced that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had directed at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil—deliberately seeking to stoke division and undermine the very values all Australians hold dear. These attacks were extraordinary. They were abhorrent.”
“It allows the court to determine separate amounts for the applicants' reasonable legal costs and for the reasonable cost of administering the settlements scheme. While the objective of those opposite was to attack innocent Australians, this government's objective in settling this matter is clear: to get a fair outcome for the victims of robodebt.”
“The Albanese government has been left to clean up this shameful mess left by those opposite, and that's exactly what we're doing. We have made significant progress in implementing the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission, and today the government has agreed to settle the Knox matter, which, subject to approval by the Federal Court, would see the Commonwealth pay $475 million in compensation. This would be the largest class action settlement in Australian history, the size of which reflects the harm caused to vulnerable Australians by the policies of the former government. This settlement would be additional to the compensation paid following the original robodebt class action settlement in late 2020.”
“But, when this government came to office, we established a royal commission which heard tragic stories of people being hounded by their own government to repay debts they did not even owe. None of us should forget former minister Alan Tudge saying to vulnerable Australians, 'We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.' The royal commission's findings were damning. Commissioner Holmes found that robodebt was 'a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal' and 'a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms'. The robodebt scheme has cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, and yet the most significant cost of robodebt cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It can only be measured in human terms, because the robodebt scheme destroyed lives.”
“I thank the honourable member for her question. Today the Albanese government reached an historic agreement to settle Knox v The Commonwealth, an appeal from the original robodebt class action settlement in 2020. Today's settlement demonstrates this government's commitment to addressing the harms caused to so many Australians by the former Liberal government through their disastrous and illegal robodebt scheme. When the unfairness, the illegality and the cruelty of robodebt became apparent, the approach of those opposite was to double down, to go on the attack against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all.”
“That is why, in the previous term of this government, we announced significant measures that go towards the protection of young people, including the age restrictions on social media and including, as has only recently been announced, our decision to bring forward appropriate amendments to deal in the criminal context with some of these apps. So I look forward, and the government looks forward, to working with the honourable member and all like-minded members of parliament to make sure that we have these protections in place.”
“I can confirm to the member that this has been openly discussed at the first meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, which met only a couple of weeks ago, and I can assure the member, the House and all Australians that this is a matter of bipartisanship for Commonwealth and state and territory attorneys-general. We are determined to put in place the right policy settings that are fit for purpose and forward looking, when we think about the danger of some of these technologies and the importance of ensuring that we have appropriate guardrails.”
“My second point is that, as has been made very clear by this government, not only are we considering those issues very closely but also we have announced that we will take steps in relation to these apps, which have no place. There is no person who can justify having technology that causes a person to be nudified or otherwise denigrated and that causes that to be disseminated and to cause the harm that it is causing. The third point that I would make is that, when we consider criminal sanctions, they of course require careful consideration and discussion with states and territories.”
“I thank the member for her question and the very constructive engagement we have had on this matter. Of course, it is absolutely of great concern not only to the government but to all of civil society that some of the applications we have seen and some of the technology that we have seen developed is so harmful not only to people generally in our society but to young people in particular. And, of course, we know that the member has presented a bill which will, of course, be given due consideration by the government. But I will make three key points. This is precisely the reason this government, in the last term, brought forward the Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021 by a year. We have now had the release of that review's report brought forward by the Minister for Communications, in terms of the government's response.”
“The government will also conduct a statutory review of the private-sector whistleblower laws, and we will consult with stakeholders on this in due course. I very much look forward to working with the honourable member for Clark as the government pursues these reforms, which he knows are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law.”
“In addition, the government proposes to establish a new whistleblower ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which would be the most significant addition to the federal integrity landscape since the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The whistleblower ombudsman would provide strong oversight of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure disclosures are being made and responded to appropriately. The ombudsman would also have new dispute resolution functions and the power to investigate reprisals. These reforms will build on the government's significant improvements to whistleblower laws implemented in 2023 and provide a comprehensive response to the 2016 independent review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM.”
“What I can say to the honourable member is that the Albanese government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for public-sector whistleblowers through reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. That's why yesterday we announced that a public consultation process on exposure draft legislation will commence next week on a second stage of reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We want meaningful engagement on this. We want to bring forward a package of reforms that will improve the accessibility, operation and administration of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The government's reforms will be designed to clarify and strengthen protections for whistleblowers, simplify the procedures for making and handling public interest disclosures, and strengthen the scrutiny and oversight of the system.”
“I thank the member for Clark for his question and I acknowledge his ongoing advocacy, over many decades, in this important area. Last week the District Court of South Australia sentenced Mr Boyle in relation to four charges under the Commonwealth Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the South Australia Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972. I understand the court did not record a conviction, and imposed a 12-month good-behaviour bond. I will not otherwise comment on the specifics of Mr Boyle's case. The decision to prosecute Mr Boyle is a matter for the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.”
“The Albanese government is committed to progressing reforms that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our integrity frameworks.”
“The government will refer its FOI legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for scrutiny and continue to engage with stakeholders and across the parliament on these reforms. FOI also forms part of a broader transparency and integrity framework which this government is continuing to strengthen. The government is delivering on its commitment to continue to enhance Australia's public sector whistleblowing framework. These reforms will establish a new whistleblower ombudsman, which will be the most significant addition to the federal integrity landscape since this government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Following consultation, we intend to introduce legislation into the parliament as soon as possible.”
“Hardworking taxpayers, who already fund over a million hours of FOI processing a year, would expect eSafety to be focused on their task of protecting children rather than processing a mountain of frivolous FOI requests from online trolls. The Albanese government will also not continue to tolerate a framework which allows offshore actors whose capabilities are enhanced with artificial intelligence to anonymously lodge FOI requests seeking information held by the Australian government. The idea that our laws could permit a foreign state to anonymously seek access to information about recent government decisions without us even knowing it is simply untenable.”
“That is why the legislation introduced today seeks to ban anonymous requests, stop abuses of the framework by vexatious and frivolous requests, make the law clearer when it comes to cabinet and deliberative material exemptions, and establish procedures for the handling of the records of former ministers. Let me give you an example of why the current system is broken. In one instance, a small agency received nearly 600 FOI requests, in a short period of time, from an automated generator. This resulted in the diversion of an entire Public Service team from their work for more than three months. Mr Speaker, you may ask which agency that was. That agency was eSafety, whose core mission is to keep Australian children safe online.”
“I thank the member for his question. Today the Albanese government introduced new legislation to reform the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Freedom of information is a vital feature of our democracy. It provides transparency and accountability of government and enables Australians to access their personal information. However, it is absolutely the case, as the Prime Minister has said, that the Freedom of Information Act remains stuck in the 1980s—well before the widespread use of email or more recent advances in artificial intelligence. You will not find a stakeholder who says the system works well, so reform is clearly needed.”
“This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner, while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“This new discretion will ensure that simple matters with straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible, enabling a proportionate allocation of tribunal resources. An important safeguard is that, before deciding to dispense with an oral hearing, the tribunal must consult the parties about this and take the parties' submissions into account. Conclusion The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. This bill will support the tailoring of the tribunal's procedures in a way that is proportionate to the matters and issues before the ART. This government is committed to merits review and maintaining public trust in the ART.”
“Amendments to the ART Act This bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal additional flexibility about how it makes decisions in relation to other kinds of cases. The bill expands the circumstances in which the tribunal can choose to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing. The tribunal would be able to do so if it appears to the tribunal that: This recognises that procedural fairness does not require that an oral hearing is required in every case. What is required to conduct a fair review will hinge on the facts of each matter. In light of this, it is appropriate that members have discretion to adapt tribunal procedure to achieve fair and just review in a manner that is efficient and proportionate to the complexity of the matter before them, across the tribunal's varied jurisdiction.”
“There would be no limit to the information applicants would be able to present to the tribunal in support of their case, and nothing to constrain an applicant from making their full and forthright case in writing. Key features of the review procedure include: To be clear: the bill is not a reaction to the current migration case load facing the tribunal. That case load is a symptom of the inflexibility of the current framework, a policy issue that this bill seeks to cure. The bill would also empower the Governor-General to prescribe other temporary visa types that should be considered on the papers. As an important safeguard, the parliament would of course retain its ability to disallow regulations if it judged it appropriate to do so.”
“Informed by the Nixon review, which noted that the merits review process should be proportionate, the government believes it is appropriate that reviews of student visas be determined 'on the papers', having regard to: These amendments would establish an efficient and proportionate method of review, while ensuring that applicants are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Applications which would be required to be reviewed 'on the papers' would be subject to a new review procedure set out in the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials, without the tribunal holding an oral hearing.”
“Amendments to the Migration Act 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. This will specifically include decisions to refuse to grant a student visa, and could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other kinds of temporary visas. Critically, permanent and protection visas are excluded from this regime in recognition that the matters in contention can be more complex—and in the case of protection matters—generally involves a more vulnerable cohort of applicant.”
“The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill enhances the tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure the tribunal can achieve this objective. In particular, the bill expands the tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials, without holding an oral hearing. Currently, the tribunal is required to conduct an oral hearing in all proceedings before it, unless narrow exceptions apply. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. A one-size-fits-all approach that requires that oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid. The bill would give the tribunal additional flexibility and ensure that review procedures are proportionate to the circumstances of the case.”