COMMITTEES

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (17:20): I present Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence, dated 29 October 2025. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak on the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025.

This digest contains the committee's consideration of 33 bills introduced between 1 September and 9 October 2025 and amendments passed during this period. The committee has commenced on 14 new bills and concluded its consideration of four previously introduced bills. In particular, I wish to draw senators' attention to the committee's comments regarding the availability of appropriate review rights and procedural fairness in the making of administrative decisions.

For example, in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, the committee is seeking the minister's detailed justification for a discretionary power that would enable the tribunal to reach a decision on review without an oral hearing. Oral hearings can enhance public confidence, transparency and efficiency in review proceedings and enable a fluid, accessible and responsive dialogue between parties and the decision-maker.

Although the requirement to afford procedural fairness in administrative decision-making is not subject to rigid rules or formalities, in some circumstances the important benefits of an oral hearing will be essential to the procedural fairness of a decision on review. The committee has therefore inquired whether this discretion could be more narrowly drafted to require express regard to the requirements of procedural fairness.

For a similar reason, the committee has also expressed concern about requiring the tribunal to determine student visa refusals and certain other visa decisions outlined in regulations without an oral hearing. Doing so would have the effect of applying specific procedural safeguards set out in law in place of the common law right to natural justice for these decisions.

More detailed information is sought about why such decisions should be determined on the papers as an ordinary rule. In particular, the committee has asked the minister to address the volume of student visa decision review applications to which this requirement would apply, and whether the tribunal's existing case management processes are sufficient. The committee is also querying whether the bill could be amended to require the tribunal to act in a fair and just manner when making these decisions on the papers.

The adequacy of review rights is also raised in relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. There are various provisions in the bill, including amendments to the objects clause and the conditional exemption relating to the deliberative processes of government which may detract from the adequacy of review rights that depend on access to government information.

For example, the government has expressed concerns about the notice that would be issued where an agency or minister refuses to deal with an FOI request where it is frivolous, vexatious, harassing or intimidating. In such circumstances, the bill would not require that the notice state the information, evidence or findings on which the decision is based. The committee considers that, generally, administrative decisions that will, or are likely to, affect the interests of a person should be subject to independent merits review unless a sound justification is provided.

The committee is concerned that not providing a contemporaneous record of reasons for a decision may limit an applicant's ability to meaningfully assess whether to seek an external review. The committee is therefore requesting further information from the minister about whether detailed written reasons for refusing to deal with applications under this power could be included in the notice.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 to the Senate. Question agreed to.