Mr LIEBERMAN (6:51 PM) — I am very pleased to speak today about the Administrative Review Tribunal reforms. It is interesting to note that it is almost 25 years since the AAT, as it is known throughout Australia, was established. Since then, there have been more than 360 acts of parliament conferring jurisdiction on the AAT, in addition to those proposed originally when the AAT was formed. The development of administrative law review in the Commonwealth has been quite interesting. I commend the Attorney-General for his work and for the consultation that he and the department have undertaken so far in respect of this legislation.

I also note that it is proposed that the legislation, if passed through the House of Representatives—which I am sure it will be—will then go to the Senate and be the subject of further extensive discussion and scrutiny through the appropriate Senate committee. I am quite sure that the Attorney-General will be very interested to see the result of that scrutiny and further consultation. As is typical of his excellent administration on behalf of the Howard government, he will make sure that any concerns that have validity and merit will be adequately addressed.

The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 bring together four existing tribunals—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal—into one single review body. That is obviously a very significant reform of the Commonwealth. The establishment—and it has my full support—of a single merits review tribunal for the Commonwealth and people of Australia will provide, in my view, ready access to review that will be fair, just, economical, informal and quick.

There is a sense of deja vu for me to talk on this bill because some years ago, when I was in the Victorian parliament, it was my duty, as a minister, to introduce into Victoria a bill to create a one-stop shop—which is how I colloquially referred to it then and it has become a fairly well-known phrase—bringing together the various review tribunals in Victoria related to planning law, local government reviews, building law and drainage law. Since then, that one-stop shop has been regarded by Victorians as a very efficient and useful means of determining issues in a user-friendly way. Today, seeing this legislation here, I can see that it has certainly got precedent on its side and I know how much the people of Victoria in those bygone days appreciated being able to have a single tribunal rather than the nonsense of going from place to place, often with respect to the same broad issue but dealing with different aspects of it. They had to go to several different tribunals in order for the matter to be dealt with. So the Commonwealth is following a model that has been proven to be popular with the people and one that is flexible and capable of being developed to serve the people better.

The legislation, it is fair to say, has the support of many people throughout the legal profession and throughout Australia. Perhaps the genesis for this legislation occurred in 1995 when the Administrative Review Council published a report which called for the unification of existing merits review tribunals into a single tribunal. So the foundation of this legislation is supported widely by many experienced people. The whole idea of the merits review system is to provide a quicker and more accessible review mechanism, particularly compared with the existing AAT. The new tribunal is not designed to benefit only applicants; the amalgamation will provide considerable savings for the community—the taxpayers who have to bear the cost—as well as for people who have to access the review tribunal system. It will save them money to be able to access this new tribunal. Resources and infrastructure can now be brought together and shared rather than be spread across the separate tribunals, which inevitably created higher costs.

The new ART is to comprise six divisions. The jurisdiction of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal is to be exercised by the new Immigration and Refugee Division. The jurisdiction of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is to be exercised by the new division known as the Income Support Division. The work of the AAT is to be divided among four divisions: the Taxation Division, the Veterans' Appeals Division, the Workers Compensation Division and the General and Commercial Division. The new structure is intended to ensure that the ART will be able to retain the advantages of specialist tribunals, dealing quickly, efficiently and with good knowledge with the issue at hand.

Members of course will be appointed with the right expertise in their division, but it will be possible, I understand, for members of one division to be accessed and called upon to do work in other divisions when they have the necessary skill. It is fine to see a multidisciplinary type approach to the membership. The ART is to be headed by a president. There will be executive members, senior members and other members appointed for terms of up to seven years. The members will be appointed by the Governor-General to a particular division on the recommendation of the minister responsible for the division.

The minister, in making those recommendations, will have a duty to be satisfied that the person being recommended to His Excellency the Governor-General has appropriate qualifications and experience to do the work at hand in the division that he or she is appointed to. There is to be compliance and accountability of members in the division, and I know that anyone asked to serve in any of the divisions would want this to be the case anyway. It is not a sinecure; it is a very hardworking and demanding role for people, men or women, who take it on. But there will be, I understand, performance indicators, a system of performance appraisal and a code of conduct. All members will agree to that. But the independence of all members will be maintained at all times so that that process will not in any way be a political process. It will be done correctly, with the proper safeguards, and it will be one that will have the respect of the public, I am sure. Knowing the Attorney-General as I do, we can be certain that that will be done very well.

I have been interested to hear comments from members on the other side expressing some concern and trepidation about the proposals, and I think they are worth putting on the record and evaluating. But, frankly, I cannot see, on full analysis, that their concerns should prevail over this excellent reform legislation. Reference was made to the fact that the term `appointment' does not ensure independence. But I think people are appointed for a fixed term and that, in itself, provides them with security of tenure for that period of time. Take the Ombudsman, for example. That is a fine example of someone who is appointed to serve the Commonwealth and the people of Australia for a fixed term. Since the establishment of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office in Australia, I do not think anyone has seriously criticised it to the point where they say that the Ombudsman is not truly independent. I think it is quite the opposite. I pay tribute to those people in that very difficult role, defending the people: the fearless warrior—which I think `ombudsman' means; it has its origins in Sweden, I think—defending the rights of the people against bureaucracy.

Also, in the existing tribunal, the methods of appointment, as far as I can see, are substantially the same as the arrangements that are proposed. So, on balance and in fairness, it is a bit hard to wear the opposition saying that they think this bill should not go through on that basis. I think, with respect, previous Labor governments have actually spawned this principle and, in government and administration, maintained it. So, if they had worries about the independence, why did they not do something when they were in government? I just want to put that at this level. I do not want to be too provocative. But, on balance, I think you have to take that into account. It is a relevant factor.

The idea of a commission in administrative law is that it is not intended to find a winner or a loser in the way it can be found in our courts system. It is to assist the citizen, and it is to assist the reviewing bodies to make the correct decision after considering all the facts. There is a different environment in the administrative tribunals and that is why they are good—because they can help resolve disappointments and conflict. This is particularly so when a decision is made, say, by a Centrelink officer, it is reviewed and the person is still disappointed and wants to go off for a review. I think the community, the citizen of Australia, even if they might not win that final leg of the review, feel that they have had justice, that they have not had to just take the decision of the bureaucrat.

I might say that there are some excellent public servants serving the Commonwealth of Australia in areas such as Centrelink—a very stressful job. I do admire them very much. They are not perfect, and we often see the same sorts of problems in our own electoral offices many, many times a week. I think the Centrelink officers, whilst they do get reviewed from time to time, generally speaking do a pretty good job, and I pay tribute to them. I happen to know that some of them do suffer from stress and burnout as a result of having to deal with some of the very difficult and tragic circumstances of some people in this country who are disadvantaged and going through hard times.

I like the idea that the tribunal is to be informal and friendly and not bound by strict rules of evidence—that it is to confine itself to questions of fact, the issues, the questions that are relevant and not go off in other areas. I think that is good. That is what we would all like to see. I notice there is controversy about legal representation not being the norm. As a lawyer myself, I guess you could expect me to express outrage that these bills provide that the question of legal representation is not as of right but at the discretion of the tribunal. I have to confess that, when I was a minister in Victoria introducing law along these lines, I did the same thing, and I did get chastised severely by members of the profession and the Law Institute for doing it. But I can tell you that the tribunal was left with the power—as the Attorney intends in this bill—to permit legal representation in its discretion.

In practice, whenever someone wants legal representation, it is agreed to. I think commonsense comes through. But having to have a lawyer in order to go to one of these tribunals actually creates problems for the citizen, if you think it through. Having a tribunal where they are not being automatically faced with lawyers on the other side encourages citizens to come in, sit down and go through the issues in an informal, friendly way with a skilled person in the review tribunal who is there to act in a friendly way. But the person in the tribunal also has a duty to make sure that things are fair and are done properly so would naturally intervene if they were concerned that something was happening that required the skills of a lawyer to help the citizen. That flexibility is there. Whilst the provision looks a bit stark, saying that legal representation is at the discretion of the tribunal, when you see it in application and practice—as has happened in Victoria, in my experience, and in the tribunals of other states—it works extremely well. Who, as a member of a tribunal, wants to preside over an injustice? It is commonsense. These people are appointed for their integrity and experience in the world and in their particular area of speciality. They are not going to sit by and see an injustice done when it is quite clear that that person needs the assistance of legal representation and asks for it. They are not going to sit by and say, `No, you can't have it,' where it is apparent that it would assist the process to have it. I think it is a matter of giving it a fair go. I would encourage people to give it a fair go because it does work, with goodwill and sensitivity.

I could say a lot more about this bill. However, I would like to help it along to a speedy passage to our friends in the Senate. I ask that the Attorney-General take hope and vigour from the fact that I am sure that most citizens of Australia would feel that this sort of approach is a very good one and a very sound one. The Attorney-General and his officers and advisers should be commended for their work to getting it to this stage.