Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 17.
“Under this government FOI refusals have risen to 24 per cent, compared to 10 to 18 per cent under the previous government, the average time for reviews by the OAIC has ballooned from six months to 15 months and proposed changes to the FOI laws have just been reintroduced into this chamber with no warning for tomorrow, at the same time as the once-in-a-lifetime environmental laws. It almost seems like the government is trying to slip these through without attention. These reduce transparency. There are more refusal powers, there are no anonymous requests and there are fees. This is not the improvement to the FOI laws that was promised. This government has ignored Senate orders to produce documents and failed to release some really significant critical documents, including the ONI climate report and others.”
“I want to talk about a few of those areas. Firstly, on appointments, the Briggs report was commissioned to improve transparency and merit based processes for public sector appointments. It was given to the government in August 2023. It was not designed to be a secret report, but it has not yet been disclosed. The ALP has continued the 'jobs for mates' culture and refuses to release that report publicly. On freedom of information, the 2021 Labor Party platform committed to strengthening FOI laws.”
“I would like to talk at this point, six months into the new term of government, about the government's record on integrity and transparency. In the last term, this government talked a really big game on integrity and got off to a pretty good start by announcing the National Anti-Corruption Commission. As part of the 2022 election platform the government committed to making government more open and accountable. The NACC was good in concept, but the lack of transparency and public findings have meant that it has had limited effectiveness, and I think it's been a bit of a disappointment. Six months into this term, this government is failing on integrity. The Centre for Public Integrity has given the Albanese government a fail grade on its integrity report card due to secrecy, a failure to curb lobbyists and diminishing accountability.”
“¾ targeted the innocent Islamic Australian women and children whose freedom of religion our government has failed to protect. Comedy is the sheath that conceals the blade of racism and as a Muslim voice in my generation, I believe it's my vocation to ensure that 'it's a joke' is no longer a valid excuse. It's on the government to teach people by renewing the education system, introducing programs like NAIDOC week, ultimately extinguishing the flames of hate speech by embracing diversity. Actions speak louder than words. It's time to break the stereotypes, because there is no room for racism in our country. Thank you, Riyan, for sharing that with the parliament.”
“This is a speech prepared by Riyan Naveed for my Curtin Youth Advisory Group about his experience as a young Muslim man in Australia. He says: I was 6 when I was physically assaulted because of my colour, not by another kid, but by an adult woman. I was 11 when I heard strangers slander my mum behind her back, simply because she chose to cover her hair. I was 13 when I was· first called a terrorist. At that point, I accepted that I would always face the racist stereotypes that poison our society, no matter who I was. It's become repetitive and I'm tired of being the victim. My silence allows hatred to grow and that's not a risk I'm willing to take. Since October 7, reports of lslamophobia have more than doubled … with a 1300% surge in incidents.”
“This is one problem with a simple, straightforward and immediate fix, and I urge the government to address this issue before the next election. It fixes an unpopular and unethical practice that's despised by voters and the AEC. We need to make it stop. I commend the bill to the House and cede the remainder of my time to the member for Kooyong.”
“With this bill in place, parties can still send postal vote application forms to voters to assist them but they cannot include sneaky reply-paid envelopes that direct those forms back to them or their associates—so they can't harvest voter data. The form must be sent to the AEC directly. The AEC can then send the necessary papers so the voter can vote by post. The relationship between the voter and the AEC is protected under this bill without political actors inserting themselves into that relationship for political gain. There are many other areas of electoral reform that need to be addressed, and I'll be dealing with some of those in my submission to the JSCEM inquiry and evidence to that committee.”
“This bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that only voters themselves, not political parties or candidates, can submit postal vote applications to the AEC. It prohibits third parties from on-sending an application for a postal vote on behalf of a voter. It's a straightforward fix. It doesn't cost anything, it doesn't limit political communication and it doesn't interfere with anyone's right to vote. What it does do is protect Australians' personal information. It restores transparency to the postal voting process and it helps rebuild trust in our electoral process—something we should all be working together to strengthen, not exploit.”
“In April 2022, the AEC commissioner, Tom Rogers, wrote to all registered political parties, warning against distributing potentially misleading postal vote applications to residents. He referred to reports of incorrect forms being distributed to voters, the AEC's purple colour being used on some forms and voters being directed to generically named websites en masse with the potential to mislead. In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC said: The distribution and collection of PVAs by candidates and parties creates eligibility confusion and privacy concerns amongst voters. This is not how a healthy democracy should function, and this bill puts a stop to it.”
“Not only can they store and use the data for microtargeting, profiling or future campaigning without consent but they can also sell this personal data to third-party data brokers or analytics firms. We have no idea if they currently do this, because there's no oversight, but searches of the PO box that the reply-paid envelopes are directed to show some connections with companies that trade in personal data. We must be particularly careful about what data we let political parties harvest, and whether people are providing that data with full knowledge of how it is being used. The AEC hates this practice. They hate political actors using the postal-voting application process to access personal data.”
“When I explained this practice during the campaign, people were horrified and outraged that this is not only legal but also routine behaviour by the major parties. This loophole is particularly bad because political parties, their contractors and their volunteers are exempt from the Privacy Act, including the Australian Privacy Principles, which regulate how personal data is collected, how it's used and whether it can be disclosed or sold to third parties. This means that political parties can collect, store and use personal data without informing individuals. They're not required to notify voters if their data is breached and there's no legal obligation to secure that data that they collect.”
“The processing centre is not the AEC. If they were being transparent, the processing centre should be called 'the politician's data-harvesting centre'. Unknowingly, the voter is sending to a political entity their name, their address, their date of birth, their phone number, their email, their security question and answer, and a copy of their signature. This data can be stored, used or shared all without the voter's knowledge or consent, and more than 600,000 voters were duped in this way at the last election. I get so many emails from constituents worried about privacy and data breaches, and their data being stolen by online scammers, yet here we are in Australia with our data being harvested by our own political representatives.”
“Currently, political parties and candidates are allowed to distribute postal vote application forms and, crucially, to collect them. It has become common practice during an election campaign for a party to send a bulk mail-out of unsolicited mail to every home in their electorate. Along with campaign materials, the mail-out may contain an application for a postal vote, and it's only if you look very closely that you see that the postal vote application form has a tiny authorisation by a political entity. A reply-paid envelope often addressed to something vague like 'processing centre' is also included, so unsuspecting voters complete the application form, pop it in the reply-paid envelope and post it back to the processing centre. This is when it gets dodgy and when the integrity of the process is weakened.”
“The private members' bill I'm introducing today will fix this problem. It addresses a major complaint to the AEC and implements a majority recommendation from the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I will go through why this matters, what that practice is and how we're going to fix it. Since 2004 the number of Australians voting by post has more than tripled. In 2004 only five per cent of voters voted by post. By 2022 this had increased to 15 per cent. Many people prefer to vote this way because they might have limited mobility, are away from home or just want to avoid the crowds. Postal votes are an increasingly important part of the electoral system, and the integrity of this voting process matters.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Our democracy is precious and fragile, and we need to do everything we can to protect it. One of the reasons I ran for parliament in 2022 was the declining trust in our institutions and in our politicians. People increasingly feel cynical about politicians and their motives. In a rapidly changing world where democracies are being eroded rather than strengthened, we must evolve our democratic rules and processes to protect the public interest. Australians want fair and transparent elections. They place their trust in our election processes, and that includes postal voting. There's a common practice in our postal voting process that makes people suspicious, degrades trust in the AEC and confirms the growing belief that political parties will do anything for power.”
“But who sits on it will determine what it actually does and the scope of its inquiries. So I think the government should guarantee crossbench representation and mandate consultation with Independents, when nominating members, not just recognised political parties. Our defence deserves proper scrutiny and examination. And this isn't a radical ask. There are other committees that specify that the crossbench should be represented on those committees. Putting Independents in the room would certainly be a step in the right direction to ensure genuine engagement—open-minded and fearless engagement—with the issues, and also honour the purpose of committees as an accountability measure in our democracy.”
“Our big spending in this area should be able to stand up to rigorous examination, so I find this deeply, deeply problematic. This is part of the broader political shenanigans that are going on in this place at the moment about committee roles. It makes a farce of the separation of powers and the accountability checks that we are meant to have in our democracy. Committee positions should not be used as treats or weapons for domestic political purposes but as a really important part of our system to ensure we are making good decisions. I would encourage the opposition and also the government to stop their silliness and take on their roles, and recognise that committees play an important and serious accountability role. In closing, I support the creation of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. It is a necessary accountability measure.”
“This is why parliamentary oversight is a good thing and why this oversight needs to involve a genuine and constructive examination of the issues, something the major parties may not deliver for fear of being labelled weak on defence. The opposition has proposed a second reading amendment of this bill requiring that membership of the committee be dependent on holding particular beliefs about spending threats and AUKUS. Even if I happened to hold these beliefs, I see this as being deeply problematic and really quite ridiculous—so much for the separation of powers! The parliament and parliamentary processes are meant to hold the executive to account. The questions that can be asked in these committees should be able to cover and express any range of views.”
“Defence formally accepted the findings and recommendations. The ANAO has also found that domestic industry participation has not been maximised. The '25 audit concluded that Defence's arrangements were only partly fit for purpose and did not effectively implement or monitor industry participation commitments in sampled contracts, and Defence agreed to nine recommendations around this. The ANAO also found that public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program was only partly effective. It found that gaps in the framework guiding public reporting on the Integrated Investment Program were a real problem and recommended stronger governance and transparency. These are not isolated blips; they are consistent weaknesses in one of the Commonwealth government's most important functions.”
“We need to ask and answer these questions to have confidence that our $300 billion is actually being directed into a project that will support the defence of our borders. The major parties will not ask questions for fear of exposing their political party, but the crossbench will. Beyond AUKUS, the Australian National Audit Office has found a range of concerning features in defence agencies and expenditure. That demonstrates why real oversight and questions are required. The ANAO has found persistent schedule risk. The 2023-24 NPR reports a 25-month average slippage across major projects. Slippage reduces capability availability and increases cost risk. It has also found procurement governance and probity gaps. The 2025 munitions audit found important governance weaknesses and probity gaps.”
“Independent reporting confirms actual output at about 1.2 boats per year since 2022, with the plan not yet achieved to lift to 2.0 and then 2.3 to cover US needs and AUKUS transfers. That gap is material to our timelines. If the US does not meet its own capability, it does not have an obligation to provide us with our subs. There is a real risk that the US will not even meet its own targets let alone build the summaries for us. Thirdly, even if the US has the capability to double its submarine production, will it deliver the subs to us? It feels really risky to have all our defence eggs in a single basket, especially when the basket is currently controlled by Donald Trump.”
“Let's consider how many uncertainties remain in the AUKUS Pillar I agreement that Australia is spending $300 billion on. These demonstrate why scrutiny is required. Firstly, will the Virginia class submarines actually be effective? There are advantages in being much harder to detect than traditional submarines, but the detection technology will improve significantly by the time we start receiving these subs in the 2030s. How do we know the summaries will be effective if and when they eventually arrive? Some have argued that a larger fleet of traditional submarines may be as, if not more, effective. Secondly, will the US have the capability to deliver the submarines? US Virginia class production is below target.”
“Your average citizen doesn't want or need to know everything about our defence strategy, but they do want and need to know that people acting in the public interest have made the best decisions they can based on the best information available—the right people making the right decisions for the right reasons. They need to know that people who are acting for them, not for political benefit or career progression, are having a good, hard look at it. The Prime Minister's recent White House meeting secured a verbal confirmation from President Trump that it's full steam ahead on AUKUS. That reassurance matters. It lowers near-term sovereign risk and signals allied resolve, but it's not a reason to suspend scrutiny. Even at that meeting, the US Navy secretary said that there were some ambiguities in the deal.”
“I have no problem with the major parties deciding to agreed when it's based on substance, but this was bipartisan support for political reasons not necessarily because AUKUS was the best way to go. Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery, feasibility, conditions attached by allies or opportunity costs— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:51 to 12:03 Neither major party wants to ask hard questions on costs, delivery feasibility, conditions attached by allies, or opportunity costs. Crossbenchers are often willing to ask the hard questions and do the work. AUKUS may well be a good thing, but, to build public trust, rigorous review is needed.”
“Let's remember that in the last election independents and minor parties received 34 per cent of the national primary vote—more than the coalition, on 32 per cent, and just slightly below Labor, on 35 per cent—so it's vital that our committees, which play a crucial role in scrutiny and oversight, reflect the composition of the parliament and the will of the Australian people. The bipartisan bind on AUKUS is the perfect sample of why crossbench scrutiny of Defence decisions is necessary. Let's remember that when AUKUS was unveiled in September 2021 Labor's shadow cabinet backed it within 24 hours of the initial briefing. That is classic evidence of both sides rushing to avoid a political wedge rather than inviting open national debate.”
“The bill sets up a committee with 13 members, seven from the government and six non-government members, but there's no guarantee of crossbench participation amongst the non-government members. The nomination process also requires consultation with 'recognised political parties' but no obligation to consult independents. So, in practice, membership can be stitched up between the two major parties. If parliament is serious about independent oversight, it must include independents in its membership.”
“This provides a secure statutory forum so the parliament can see classified material on capability, schedules and risks, something that Senate estimates cannot reliably provide. It provides an end-to-end remit across strategy, capability, acquisition and operation so the committee can trace decisions from concept to delivery. It provides continuity across parliaments for multidecade programs, like AUKUS and shipbuilding, with safeguards against inappropriate disclosure. It provides oversight of independent regulators, such as the Inspector-General of the ADF, so integrity and safety can't be sidelined. There is a strong argument that this bill doesn't go far enough on transparency. Let's set that aside for now; it is at minimum a step in the right direction. The bill has one serious problem. It has no guaranteed crossbench representation.”
“The bill amends the Defence Act to establish a parliamentary joint committee on defence with powers to: review administration and expenditure of Australian defence agencies; scrutinise capability development and acquisitions; consider strategy and planning documents; examine operations in war and significant non-conflict operations; request briefings from the heads of defence agencies, the Inspector-General of the ADF and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence; inquire into other matters relating to Australia's defence agencies under the committee's own initiatives; and report to the minister and to both houses. Let's start with the good things about these changes.”
“This bipartisan alignment minimises sensible debate. AUKUS is a case in point—a multidecade $300 billion undertaking that will define our defence strategy for decades to come. That kind of commitment deserves rigorous testing of assumptions, trade-offs and alternatives, not silence. AUKUS may well be the best defence strategy for Australia to pursue, but the only way we can test those assumptions is through investigation and oversight.”
“The government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 is a welcome step towards meaningful parliamentary oversight of our defence. But, unless the committee guarantees crossbench representation, it risks becoming an echo chamber rather than an opportunity for scrutiny and oversight. Defence decisions are among the most consequential decisions we make. They shape our security, our economy and our sovereignty for decades. When stakes are that high, Australians expect rigorous scrutiny. They expect evidence based decision-making and clear accountability. But, often when it comes to defence, we see the major parties unwilling to probe and much more likely to go along with the other side without asking questions. Why? No-one wants to be labelled weak on defence.”
“Yes, some tech is at an early stage, but investment from our mining majors will bring these technologies down the cost curve. Importantly, this simply isn't a good reason to keep a policy that means taxpayers forgo $3 billion a year to help our large mining companies keep burning fossil fuels. If we want to hit our 2035 and 2050 targets, if we want a strong, sustainable mining sector in WA and around Australia and if we want taxpayers' money working for the future rather than the past, we must align our fiscal settings with our climate ambitions. Let's convert this support for fossil fuels into a clean tech investment incentive so every dollar invested pushes us forward.”
“Some will say we should get rid of this effective subsidy altogether, but, for now, this model presents a sensible step that creates the right incentives without driving up the cost of food or transport. Some will say that fuel tax shouldn't be paid on diesel used off road because the tax pays for the roads, but that hasn't been the case for decades. The hypothecation of fuel taxes for road funding was abolished in 1959, and, since 1992, there's been no formal link between fuel excise and road funding. Today the fuel excise is simply a revenue measure, and spending on roads is a completely separate expenditure. We will need to rethink whether we ask users to pay for roads as transport goes electric, but that work could be done in parallel. Some will say that the tech to replace diesel isn't ready.”
“Weaning them off diesel subsidies and incentivising them to decarbonise is the best way to meet the expectations of the millions of Australians who are committed to climate action and ensure a smoother transition for the mining industry. That's why I support the clean energy finance reform proposal, which is to introduce a $50 million cap on the diesel fuel tax credit paid. Above that cap, any credits would be retained by the company, but only if they are reinvested in decarbonisation. In other words, we can convert a fossil fuel subsidy into a clean tech investment incentive. On last year's numbers, this affects only 15 companies. No farmers or small businesses would be impacted. The credits given to big mining companies would be invested in futureproofing these companies by breaking their reliance on fossil fuels.”
“So, if you are a large mining company, the subsidy that you get when you stick with diesel is five times the size of the penalty that you pay for emitting too much. Why would you decarbonise? This crazy policy means companies are having to choose between the right thing for the country and better returns for shareholders. We need to line those incentives up so companies can make the best decisions for shareholders and the country. As a Western Australian, I know the importance of the mining industry and I know mining companies are not a bottomless pit of money. Government should be supporting them through the energy transition so they can continue to drive Australian prosperity as the world changes, but propping up fossil fuel use is not the best way to do this.”
“In FY 2024, $2.9 billion in diesel fuel tax credits was paid to 15 mining and freight companies, and the diesel that was rebated produced more than 16 million tonnes of CO2. That's huge. More emissions come from this diesel that we're effectively subsidising than from all our planes, buses and trains combined. We're trying to drive the energy transition with our foot on both the accelerator and the brake. There's an increasing chorus of voices calling for a fix to this contradiction. Recently, the head of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean, joined this chorus. The safeguard mechanism, which is designed to push heavy industry to reduce its emissions, effectively charges companies $35 per tonne of CO2 when they emit too much, but the diesel fuel tax credits provide a subsidy of approximately $190 for every tonne of CO2.”
“There is much in the motion moved by the member for Griffith that I support. I commend the government on its commitment to a 2035 emissions reduction target, and I hope that the government will legislate that target soon to provide some policy certainty. But much more needs to be done beyond setting targets. There's a worrying contradiction in the government speaking about climate action successes while simultaneously forgoing billions of dollars in tax revenue from bigger emitters to effectively make fossil fuels cheaper. Today I'm calling for reform to the diesel fuel tax credit scheme. The diesel fuel tax credit scheme allows large mining companies to claim a rebate for their use of diesel in mining vehicles and equipment. This scheme incentivises major mining companies to keep burning fossil fuels instead of decarbonising.”
“Therefore I will move an amendment, and I would encourage the government to consider it, to ensure the tribunal retains discretion to hear an oral hearing in any case, including student visa reviews, where fairness, complexity or individual circumstances justify it. I believe that amendment balances the twin imperatives of efficiency and justice.”
“These delays do cause harm to students, migrants and families, and to the integrity and credibility of the review system. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to confront that problem by shifting many matters to on-the-papers review, mandating this approach for student visa refusals, granting a ministerial designation power over other temporary visas and giving the tribunal discretionary power for the remainder. I support that ambition and believe that the tribunal must evolve to meet demand. But in its current form the bill overreaches, in removing access to oral hearings for all student visa cases and in giving the minister wide regulatory power over all other visa categories. This risks undermining procedural fairness or denying justice to meritorious applicants.”
“First, reducing unnecessary primary refusals could occur via increased use of requests for information. Too often a visa is refused simply because a missing document or clarification was not sought, only to be overturned later at review. Second, strengthening the tribunal's triage registry and support processes, giving more resources to registrars and administrative staff and increasing the number of tribunal members could ensure cases are processed more swiftly and effectively without reducing procedural safeguards. To summarise, the ART is a freshly established institution intended to revitalise Australia's system of merits review, yet the tribunal now confronts serious pressures from surging case loads, especially from student visa refusal appeals.”
“Some suggest that the student visa surge may be temporary—in which case, sweeping permanent legislative change may be disproportionate. Denial of oral hearings might push more appellants to seek judicial review in courts, which could add pressures to the federal courts and undermine the bill's goals of efficiency. The experience of the former Immigration Assessment Authority showed that reliance on paper based decision-making was often found to deny procedural fairness and produced increased litigation. A trial of on-the-papers decision-making in the NDIS tribunal context with the independent expert review program was terminated after nine months because it failed to deliver sufficient efficiency improvements. There are other, less drastic alternatives to improve ART efficiency without undermining fairness.”
“In its submission to the committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman supported such an approach, writing: From a student's perspective, it would be fair and appropriate for the Tribunal to have discretion to have an oral hearing … That principle should be built into the framework. While the exercise of this discretion by the tribunal may itself be reviewable, in my view the potential delay does not outweigh the value of preserving procedural fairness. On balance, giving the tribunal discretion will enhance both the efficiency and the justice of its decision-making. I'll elaborate on my amendment to that effect during the consideration-in-detail stage. I also note a number of criticisms raised by stakeholders which are worth drawing attention to, in the hope that they can be addressed in implementation.”
“Relying on a ministerial regulation to decide categories risks arbitrary designation, and different temporary visa categories are still likely to have nuances and exceptions that may mean an oral hearing is more efficient or more fair in certain cases. A blanket approach eliminates that flexibility. It precludes the possibility of exceptional or complex cases being heard orally, even where fairness, justice or efficiency would favour this. For these reasons I will propose an amendment to the bill to afford the tribunal discretion to decline a paper-only pathway and hold an oral hearing in student visa or designated temporary visa cases when the tribunal deems that appropriate. In other words, the tribunal should have the power to opt for a hearing in particular cases.”
“That means applicants may struggle to express themselves clearly in writing, undermining the fairness and persuasiveness of their application. Last is procedural efficiency. In some exceptional cases an oral hearing may actually be more efficient, allowing a tribunal to resolve complexity quickly in person rather than through protracted exchanges of documents. These are specific and compelling reasons why a blanket requirement for on-the-papers decisions of student visa matters is problematic. The second problematic change is the minister's power to designate other temporary visa categories for paper based review. The power is broad, discretionary and exercisable without meaningful parliamentary oversight.”
“Hearing evidence, cross-examination and oral explanation often exposes nuances better. The second is youth inexperience and complexity. Many student applicants are young with limited capacity to navigate complex legal and factual materials. Written submissions demand legal precision and sophistication. In an oral hearing, tribunal members can ask clarifying questions, probe credibility and ensure applicants have had the opportunity to present their best case, especially those without legal representation. The third is translation and comprehension issues. At an oral hearing the tribunal provides translation services for applicants with limited English, but no equivalent translation support exists for preparing written submissions.”
“The fact is that, when they're appealed, student visa refusal decisions are set aside or overturned by the tribunal nearly half the time. This shows that, when additional evidence is heard, often during oral hearings, a different conclusion is frequently reached. A shift in process will affect these directly. So, while most student visa decisions may be suitable for on the papers, a blanket ban on all oral hearings for student visa matters seems inappropriate. There are several reasons why certain student matters may require an oral hearing. The first is discretionary and contextual judgements based on credibility. Many student visa refusals turn on questions of genuine student intention, credibility and personal circumstances. These judgements are hard to capture in writing alone.”
“The government assigns all student visa cases to the paper based stream, gives the minister power to designate further categories and provides the ART with latitude to make on-the-papers determinations in other matters when appropriate. I support the underlying aim to reduce backlogs, cut waiting times and make the tribunal more responsive, but I have serious reservations about the first two changes in particular. The first change requires all student visa refusal matters to be handled on the papers. The government's justification is that student visa decisions tend to be straightforward, governed by clear criteria and therefore do not require a hearing. It asserts a written process is sufficient in most cases. While I accept that may often be true, it's implausible that it holds all the time.”
“This bill introduces three central changes designed to bring efficiency to the tribunal and reduce waiting times. Firstly, it mandates that student visa refusal matters be decided on the papers, or without an oral hearing. Secondly, it grants the minister a regulation-making power to require other temporary visa matters to be decided on the papers, although reviewable protection decisions are explicitly excluded. Thirdly, it gives the ART a broad discretion to decide remaining matters on the papers, subject to certain statutory limitations. The core logic is that by shifting more cases from hearings to written processes the tribunal can dispose of more cases faster. Applicants submit documents, arguments and evidence and do not need to attend face-to-face hearings.”
“Because of those backlogs, some applicants wait many months, even more than a year, before they learn whether their case is accepted or how it will be handled. During that time, their lives, studies, families, finances and future plans are in limbo. In some cases, students may lose academic semesters or funding. In migration matters more broadly, long waits undermine certainty and foster anxiety and instability for people and their families. Further, delays also impose costs on government, on legal services and on the administrative system more broadly. The longer cases remain pending the harder they are to manage and the more resources are consumed simply through case management and review. So we do need a way to manage cases, particularly student visa matters, more efficiently.”
“All of this reflects past lessons learned from the operation of the AAT—for example, politicised appointments, insufficient transparency and structural pressures on capacity and case backlogs. In short, the ART is intended to be a more coherent, resilient and trusted tribunal, one that can deliver just outcomes without unnecessary delay. The principal problem the tribunal faces today is that rising case loads are driving unacceptable delays in decisions. Wait times are growing, which causes hardship to applicants and defeats the aim of the tribunal. One of the drivers of this backlog is student visa refusal appeals, which have surged in number to now make up almost 40 per cent of all lodgements.”
“In broad terms, the ART is empowered to review administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments ranging from visas and migration to taxation, social security, NDIS, child support, veterans entitlements, workers compensation and more. Its mission is to provide an independent, accessible, fair and efficient merits review process. The ART can receive new evidence, revisit factual material and assess matters afresh. It may affirm, vary or set aside the original decision or substitute a new decision. Its procedures are meant to be flexible, with the minimum formalism necessary to ensure justice. The ART's design emphasises merit based appointments of members, enforceable performance standards and a code of conduct to underpin the integrity of the institution.”