Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 8:07:40 to 9:02:52
The Special Envoy to combat antisemitism discusses university safety, while the department provides data on the PALM scheme and ministerial interventions.
Topics: Antisemitism, Social cohesion, Employment, Protection visas
Speakers: Jillian Segal AO, Unknown Speaker, David Shoebridge, Leah Blyth, Paul Scarr, Jana Stewart, Michael Willard, Speaker 28
looking at at um uh school uh a trial in relation to school education. So it it it's the pace of it that I would have liked to have been faster. >> Do you think if it could have been faster that we could have avoided the tragic events in Bondi? >> Uh I I I I really have no idea whether
that would have prevented it because um I think so much had already become
embedded but that I hope will be
something from for the Royal Commission. And I guess in the five months between
when you delivered your plan um in July
last year and to mid December last year, did you provide any advice to ministers or departments warning that implementation was too slow and that things were escalating at a rapid pace? Um I I certainly have um uh multiple conversations just seeking um uh further meetings and seeking uh further work. Uh I don't believe I provided any specific advice saying you know things are unless something is done uh things are escalating. Uh I I think that in each of the areas um there was contact uh law reform um pushing for additional coordination in relation to law reform uh understanding what was happening at the states because that's the complexity with federal and state legislation understanding what was happening in new areas uh of anti-semitism because it's not a static thing. uh new areas were emerging uh and we were working with um new departments in relation to what was happening uh in the in in the um arts area in the cultural area in the health space etc. So it was a continuously moving uh space. Um and I think that everyone realized that um I was uh constantly in touch seeking um assistance, seeking reaction, seeking support. But um I would be the first person to say that the wheels of of government move slowly. >> Yeah. And and I guess um in terms of I mean you obviously delivered your plan um five months before um Bondi's tragic events. Um >> is there anything you would change in that plan because I know that you have you've spoken about in your plan that strategic gaps remained um and and they obviously still exist. So there are there things even since um proposing your plan which has now been adopted and will be implemented. Is there anything left that you think >> Oh yes. I mean there's a lot there's a lot um uh you know I wouldn't want to say that that's the definitive end piece. Okay. It was it was a view >> things have escalated substantially since then. >> Much more that needs to be done. Uh and you know I'm pleased that the response has escalated as well. But my office is continuing to work on additional things that need to be done in additional areas. Um uh um you know there there's and there's work that the comm not the Jewish community but the general community is doing in response. Um I'm pleased to say so um uh you know uh if I give you an example the universities are working uh very much to uh respond to the um independent work that's going on that that I've commissioned with Professor Craraven on the report card to come in and and um identify uh where they are making progress in the matters that were suggested by the parliamentary joint committee which is really my report card um with an independent person such Professor Craraven looking at it but the universities um are also working independently to see what more they can do. So it's not seen as the end of the process but merely now an important step in the process and I've been talking uh to a group of them today what what more should we be doing as a as a group of universities. So uh it's an ongoing dialogue and you know there will definitely be more um uh engagement with different parts of government coming from my office and and more initiatives coming from my office. >> Thank you Senator BL. Senator Shoebridge.
attendance today. um you uh home affair I think the
attorney general's department indicated that um you were consulted on the 29th of December last year um about proposals to bring in urgent law reform that that eventuated earlier this year. Do you remember the do you remember being part of consultation on the 29th of December? >> Um uh my office was part of it might put it that way. I was you personally part of the consultation. >> Do you do you know um well who from your office when >> I I I have I have legal people in my office >> were part of it. >> So what was what was their position and what was their role?
>> Well their role was um their position is a senior legal officer or something of that sort. Uh and their their their role was to um uh respond. I I certainly saw the final submissions, but I wasn't personally consulted. I I was u part of the process at the end of the day, but um they they had the carriage of the work. I I'm afraid I can't be in all the places at the same time. So, I do have a team as you know. >> Um no, I wasn't suggesting you should be. Um so, was it one or two members of your staff that went to the consultation on the 29th of December, or was it more? Um, I believe there were two people in that con >> and they were they were they were legally trained, were they? And they were going there as legal officers. >> Yes. >> Um, I have previously asked questions about your staffing, what staff are in your office, and they haven't been answered yet. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I certainly have answered them. I'm not sure where they are in the process, but um I I have uh five full-time equivalents uh in my team at present, which makes uh I've got a couple of part-time people makes six employed. >> Yeah. But five full-time equivalent some of that job shared >> employees. Yes. >> Yes. And you you said earlier that you had an increased budget. >> Yes. >> What what what will that do to your staffing? Well, initially um I'm hoping that it will enable me um and taking it
one step at a time um because conscious of uh not wanting to waste resources but being properly resourced I will respond to the royal commission as things develop. So I'm seeking to retain one senior legal person uh as uh and then
possibly through my legal services um legal team uh have a secundi for a junior secundi. >> Okay. So, a senior lawyer and another junior lawyer in addition to the team you currently have. >> Y >> um >> but I'm not there yet. So, if you know anyone who's particularly [laughter] qualified >> and would like to work for a sector, um I'll >> I'll keep that in mind. >> Keep that in mind. Thank you. >> Um when you were um when your when your team was consulted on the 29th of December? >> Yes. At that stage, had the government indicated that they were intending only to protect race, ethnicity, and nationality in their package of laws? Was that was that how the government came to the consultation? >> Um, I believe so, but I I if I could take that on notice to to check, uh, it's not crystal clear in my mind that it was just, but I believe it was in the original uh proposal, but if I could take that to check. >> All right. Well, I mean it's a it was a matter of significant controversy in the legislation. It's a matter of significant controversy >> um um in a part of the legislation that was also not progressed the vilification laws. >> Understand? >> Um did your office endorse the position of limiting protections only to race, ethnicity, and nationality? >> I I I don't believe so, but I again can I take that on notice? I know that there were um the discussions were extremely intense that one day and were uh rushed and that uh not everything was um uh we put in uh quite a few views that were different that um some things were not as uh um I do think that some of the
exceptions uh and I still maintain that some of the exceptions that were in the draft uh were were not um desirable. Um, and we were looking for uh a a body of of legislation uh that was more definitive. Um, >> was that when you talk about exceptions, are you talking about in the vilification laws? >> Yes. >> Um, you supported the vilification laws
and you supported their limitation to race, ethnicity, and nationality. >> Um, well, that that's what I'm not sure, Senator. I said I would take that on notice >> putting to Well, moving on from the 29 December consultation. Yes. >> When were you first shown a draft of the legislation?
>> Um I I I didn't see a draft of the legislation before that that consultation, I don't believe. >> Well, the attorney general said that there wasn't a draft of the legislation on the 29th of December. >> They said a draft of the legislation was produced sometime in January. >> Well, then whatever I saw in the 29th of December was uh okay, whatever it was,
draft consultation. Um, when I saw the legislation, I don't know. I would have to take it on notice. >> But you said you weren't there on the 29th of December. >> I I was not in that consultation. >> So when you when you were when you were talking to me about what you saw on the 29th of December. >> Well, I was responding to the office. Apologies. I I wasn't sure you were talking about me. I thought you were talking about the office. >> Um, >> so that my office was there. >> Were documents given on the 29th of December that you then saw? No, nothing was nothing was actually given to the best of my knowledge. I was just told about what was in the legislation. >> I'm relying on what the attorney general's department said. They may be mistaken. You >> I'm sure they have a much uh clearer view because I I actually wasn't there. It was just what uh my my two lawyers participated in. They were called into a discussion with the attorney general. Let me go let me go back to the question I was just asking you, which is when did you first see either a draft of the legislation um or the legislation as tabled with PJs? When did you first see the legislation? >> I would have to take that on notice. Senator, >> were you consulted on a draft before it was made public? >> Me personally or my office? >> Well, why don't we start with your office? Was your office consulted on the draft before it was made public? Uh again, I I I would just have to refresh my memory and take that on notice. I'm afraid uh what was happening in January was quite a blur um to me uh and and I had a number of days uh leave because uh I had a death in the family. So I'm just not sure exactly what days if I could take that on notice. >> Right. When do you remember first seeing legislation then? You must have some memory of when you first saw the legislation. Um, I I couldn't give you an exact date, Senator. I I think I've already said
that. I could give you a timetable. I'll take it on notice. >> When did you first realize that the
legislation would cover anti-semitism but not Islamophobia? When did you realize that? Or did you know that from the outset? That was part of the design. >> Oh, okay. Um,
I I I I did know that the legislation was focused on anti-semitism. uh because that was the intent of the legislation. It it was to respond to what had been uh you know a rise of anti-semitism. Uh I don't know when I focused on the fact it was just anti-semitism, but that will be part
I'll be happy to provide you with a uh a timetable, but I just don't have that timetable. >> Did Did you raise concerns that it wasn't covering covering Islamophobia or did you support legislation that didn't cover Islamophobia? Um, Senator, I I don't believe that uh the issue of whether it covered Islamophobia or not was a matter uh that my office was concerned about. They were concerned about uh the the scope of the legislation as a whole. Uh and they were concerned about, as I said, uh whether it would work and that the exceptions uh seem to be rather broad. Well um well of course for legislation to have broad social support um protecting one religion but not another would be a reason why there might be deep social unease about legislation unequal protection for religions >> y >> um is likely to cause social unease. Was that ever a concern for you? >> Uh I don't believe that that was an area that I was focused on. All right. Um, just one I I did press for answers about conflicts of interest and declarations you've made about conflicts of interest and I'm having an ongoing FOI battle with the Home Affairs Department about that. But I do know that in partial
answer to um um to one question SE25025, the answer we were given about conflicts of interest and independence was Miss Seagull's term as president of the east of the ECAD ended prior to her accepting the special envoy role. She stepped away from all authority and decision-m in her capacity as immediate past president. She also resigned from the board of the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce Commerce and from the board of Rabba Bank. >> Was that I the practice is that you would be consulted before answers are put on? You were obviously consulted
about that. >> Yes. >> And did that reflect what you wanted to tell Parliament? >> Uh yes. Well, you you see that answer suggests
that you resigned from the board of the
the board of Rabo Bankank on my reading of it suggests you resigned before you accepted the position of special envoy role. >> No, I don't I don't Well, I I don't read it that way and that that's not what I believe it says. Well, well, you didn't resign from the board of the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce until um 17 March 2025. Is that right? >> That is right. Um uh if if you would like, I'd be happy to to give you an explanation. >> Well, just just we might as well do it in one job because there's not a lot of time. You also didn't resign from your directorship of Rabo Bank until the 27th of November, 2024. You know this is five absolutely in one case five months after you took the position another >> the better part of a year after you took the position. >> Absolutely. So Senator I don't believe either of those activities present any conflict of interest whatsoever and that's why I didn't resign immediately. Uh ECJ as you said uh happened uh well I didn't resign from there. I had finished my term well before I took on uh this envoy role. But those two, Rabbo Bank for example and AIC I have always maintained did not represent any conflict uh at all. I resigned from those because of workload. Um uh as I started this role, I discovered that
although it was a part-time role, it's
actually uh a very full-time in in uh um me and I couldn't fulfill those other roles um to the best of my ability, which I've always tried to do with any roles I've had. So I did resign. So I certainly resigned from Rabbo at a time that suited them, which was the end of the the year a December. Uh, and I made sure that there was a successor to me at the AIC. It's always important if you chair something. I was not just a director, I was chair of it. Um, that
you find a successor and I was pleased to find an outstanding woman as a
successor. Uh, and that's when I resigned. >> Well, I note the time and we may come back to this later. >> Okay. I'm going to rotate the call and return to Senator BL.
>> Thank you very much, chair. Um yesterday
the independent national security
legislation monitor um gave evidence to this committee and spoke about his own review into the definition of a terrorist act including whether religion should be removed as a motivating factor from the definition. What's your position on this? >> Um thank you. Uh indeed I I have made a my office has made a submission um which is uh I believe it's public. Um I'm not sure if they're public or they haven't yet put it up, but I have been quite
clear that I believe religion should and that um if you go back over a number of terrorist um acts that we've seen in
this country, if religion had been not
establish and it's a very important part of the definition. >> Fantastic. Thank you very much. Um and then just looking into your report um you've recommended that the Australian government should adopt the IH
definition um of anti-semitism across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies. To what extent are you aware that this has been implemented? >> Well, my my recommendation is that of course we know that IRA has already been
adopted by the federal government. um it adopted it in 2021 with support of current government was in opposition uh
and both uh government and opposition uh adopted IRA. So it is the federal government's uh definition and it binds uh the federal public servant and all federal agencies. Um and in that sense it binds um uh for example the um uh the student ombbudsman etc. they they use IRA because IRA binds uh the federal government. Um my the point in my um
plan is that it maybe is not well enough understood and well enough implemented
matter of some um uh education and further uh delivery of policy [clears throat] that is a process that has commenced but
I think will take a little bit of time but one of the things that um my office is doing uh and we're following the example of uh uh other jurisdictions particularly the Canadians is we are going to produce a guide um something that can be useful to um the government at all levels uh to understand IRA
Australian context uh before them so that they see how it works so it's not just an abstract definition with case studies that they feel they don't they can't relate to but a document that is
meaningful uh and I'm hoping that that will happen in the next few months I I hope that it is done because it's if it's been five years and there's still at university campuses and and so forth where if they're bound by that they >> Yes. Well, universities are an interesting uh an interesting point because the report card that is underway will be looking at one of the things is
whether they have adopted a definition of anti-semitism because it is my belief that without the adoption of a definition they can't have viable complaint schemes that work and they can't have policies that deal with anti-semitism. I mean you need to have a definition. If you can't define it, you don't know what you're dealing with. >> The universities uh as a whole generally have not adopted IRA. There are a few who have uh and they've worked on their own definition which they call the UAE definition, Universities Australia definition, which takes part of IRA, um and leaves out the 11 case studies, but adds in a little bit about Zionism. So they've kind of developed their own
workable definition of anti-semitism that they say will be easier to use in their complaint schemes. This is one of the things that the report card process is intended to look at what definition
they have uh accepted. Have they
operationalized it in their policies and in their procedures? Is it fair to say though as federally funded bodies you
they're public servants that they would fall under the all government approach?
I think uh you know I I I think one could take that view but um I've taken the view that um certainly the previous government um uh under Prime Minister
Morrison did did I believe write to all the universities to encourage them to adopt IRA and many of them uh pushed back and said they found IRA very
difficult um etc. So today they've said
well we'll work on another definition
and they have this other definition which um if you um the parliamentary joint committee looked at it and said
they should adopt IRA or a definition close to IRA. >> Uh and this is what the report card will
be looking at. And I guess if if you
look at university campuses have been um hotbeds for anti-semitism, it's probably fair to say that them adopting their own
version hasn't been successful in in stamping out anti-semitism and ensuring
that um students feel safe on our university. >> Well, Senator, I I think that um up until my um initiation, my plan and the report card, I don't believe many
universities had adopted any definition. >> Wow. So I think that they they believed it was not necessary and and that's what we're dealing with where we have institutions who need to move culturally into the space of understanding that
anti-semitism is the oldest hatred. It
needs to be accepted as a specific
on tropes and myths and
misunderstanding. And we need to focus on it, adopt a definition, educate the
important leaders of the university about it and put in place processes to deal with it and counter it, which is why I think the report card is an important process. Uh, and I'm hoping the universities do give it uh the serious uh attention that I believe it deserves. Um because I agree with you,
universities as being places where we should have important debates about
>> Yeah, I agree with you and and I do not envy your task. You you have a huge task ahead of you. Um and and you're doing
some really great work. Um so um thank you. This is my final question in terms of your plan. um when you released it uh your understanding of which minister or
responsible for the implementation? >> Um well I think uh the plan uh cuts across many many departments. >> Yeah. >> So um uh and that's one of the tasks that I'm in the process of of communicating with of different ministers to make it clear what I think they should each be doing. >> Okay. uh because perhaps that wasn't clear enough uh as to who should be
doing what uh but clearly uh the matters that relate to immigration belong to you know the minister of home affairs that education belong to the education
ministers and they certainly understand uh where I'm coming from and have been very well focused on that but there are others in there that uh there are things for attorney generals uh you know the the um database that they're developing in relation to hate crimes so everybody does have a role But I'm conscious that I probably need to uh be very clear with
>> without putting words in your mouth. Would it be helpful if the prime minister took leadership of that to ensure that you have without you having to go out there, you've got a huge fight to have in an education program. Um well I think I think the prime minister does do think um he has not told me this um
encouraged um his his the key ministers
because I have had a lot of support from the education minister for example and the minister for home affairs. So uh I I I do believe that I'm sure the prime minister is is also um conveying that. I do not know if it's been discussed at cabinet or anything like that. I I can't there is support. >> Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you. Um that's all the questions we have for you in the room. >> Oh, thank you very much. >> But thank you for your attendance. We're in a position to release you. >> We now welcome officials back to the table from outcome two. >> Thanks for coming in. >> Oh, thank you Mark. >> Yes, thank you. Uh we'll suspend broadcast for the moment.
these questions were in relation to >> okay thank you very much if you >> so yeah let's resume with officials from outcome two and uh Senator Scarlet hand the call to you >> secretary I was just asking them how much they enjoyed working for >> [laughter] >> um I would have told you >> nothing gives [clears throat] them a greater joy. >> Uh so I'll put these questions if you got the figures there. You can provide the figures. If you don't, if you can just take them on notice, how many non visa holders are there currently in Australia excluding bridging visas? So how many unlawful non-citizens uh do you think there are in Australia at the moment? Senator, we can publish an estimate of of that figure. I I think the figure is around 77,000 or 78,000.
Um I I'll get a colleague to correct me
if that's off. Okay. How do you how do you come up with that estimate?
uh uh teams look at the instances of visas expiring uh and then match that with things like fact of death data and also do sampling uh to be able to come up with the figure. >> Okay. So, okay. So, it's it's it's not possible to come up with a definitive figure because people might pass away
>> and and a large cohort uh what you might say historical circumstances where it may be decades. >> Yeah. >> Uh since they arrived in Australia. >> Yeah. Uh and some of it even relates to changes in terms of um the lawful status people over time like going back to different circumstances for UK citizens a very long time ago. >> Sure as well. >> Papa Guinea too. That's correct.
>> Okay. Uh so that figure what one area Mr. Willard where I've seen competing reports is in relation to people were who were here under the palm visa scheme and or palm scheme and and then they've left their employer for whatever reason. It might be because of worker exploitation and there are differing
um former palm workers who potentially are uh are somewhere in the country but not on a current visa. How do you estimate that cohort? I could take take that figure on notice. I know there's figures on disengagement which is a different thing from um a a visa expiring and I know as well that our approach to compliance takes into account that circumstance where it could be a situation of exploitation >> in in terms of that 77,000 estimate you've got. Do you have any breakdown of the visa subclasses non- visa holders were last on? So, uh, whether or not they're on visitor visas, student visas, do you go to that level of granularity? I >> I'll take that on notice. >> Okay. Uh, and in terms of your breakdown of bridging visa statistics, um, can you just to what extent can you break that down for us in terms of the different cohorts on bridging visas? Uh let me give you um an overview. Look in the interests of time what I can give you is what I have in front of me which is that bridging visa A, B and C cohorts. Yeah, >> that's the vast majority of bridging visa holders. >> Okay. >> Uh it's the figure I have. Uh so if we look at that figure, students are at 107,000. >> Uh families at 86,700. So 87,000 uh onore protection as I said earlier 77,000 uh and [clears throat] then the uh skilled is at 46,500. That's the the largest cohorts. There are other cohorts there.
>> Okay. And what about um bridging visa BVE holders in Australia? Uh as at 30 September 2025, there were 8,120. Have you got a more up-to-date figure on
And can you break that down into subclass 50 and 51? >> Um, >> is that just total bridging visas, Senator? Just in general? >> Uh, yes. And then if you can break it down into the two subclasses. Um I have the BV numbers but broken down by uh and nonUMAS. >> Yeah. So for bridging visa subclass 50 and 51 um there were 18,784 and then for BV subclass 50 for there were 6,356. [snorts] So I'm just trying to reconcile this. Um the last report online said there were 8,128
BVE holders in Australia. Um that that was the last published report. So in terms of those figures you've just given to me, what am I
I know this is like a second language to you catching up. >> Um those were the figures at the 30th of November 25. Um so which figures did you have Senator? Uh, as at I haven't got the date, 30th September [snorts] 2025, I had 8,128 BVE holders. Maybe I misread it. >> Why don't we take on notice? >> Yeah.
Just that figure, do you know what I'm the figure I've got of 8,120 BVE holders? Uh, as at 30th September, do you know do you know the figure I'm talking about there in terms of the report as at 30
September? >> Uh, okay. All right. Uh can I move on to ministerial interventions? How many cases are currently before the minister for determination in terms of ministerial interventions? >> Um Senator Michael and Michael find the data. It might be helpful. We we have about five different ministerial intervention powers. So we don't tend to accumulate them all. >> You don't have an aggregate number? >> No, we we tend to break them down. There's ones relevant to those in the immigration compliance space who are seeking a bar lift or to do with their detention and then we have those who are seeking >> So can you give me the just give me the breakdown then? >> Yeah. >> Um Senator I do have the numbers for the numbers referred uh to a minister. >> I can give you those numbers if that's useful. >> Yeah. So for this financial year so far to the 30th of November for section 195A um which is the minister's power to
grant a visa to an unlawful non-citizen. >> Yep. >> Uh it's 158. Um how many years would you like back Senator? >> Uh we're just so you're giving me the figures for the financial year from >> So that would be the 1st of July to the 30th of November. >> Okay. Well, why don't you give me those figures first and then we'll work out where to take it from there. >> Yeah.
>> Uh for section 197AB, which is the power to put someone in residence determination, that was 27 for the same period. >> Yep. >> Referred to a minister. And for section 351, which is substituting the decision of a tribunal. >> Yep. >> Um 255 for that same time period referred to a minister. >> Okay. Any others? I might take my element on notice. >> Okay. What about under section 501J? >> Uh there have been zero >> zero. >> That's right. >> Okay. 417.
Uh 417 was actually repealed um back in October 24. >> Are there any outstanding under 417 to be processed? Uh >> they've all been sort of moved under 351, so they'll be considered under
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And 48B. >> Is that the one you just took? >> I I'll take that one on notice. I just >> Yeah, I do have some figures on 48B Senator. So, um 12 in this year to date. >> Okay. >> Refer to >> do you have an F feel free oh sorry Mr. Will I I didn't want to cut you off >> to add 12 bar lifts.
>> 12 bar lifts.
>> And do you do you have figures of the number? So those are the numbers that have been referred. Do you have there any that have been referred in a prior financial year period which are still before the
with?
>> Um I don't have the breakdown center of when those cases were referred versus sort of this is the year that they were
uh signing off? What what's the protocol
in relation to that?
>> Um generally the assistant ministers
will make a lot of these decisions, right? >> It's a sort of conversation process discussion between the officers to
determine which cases should go where. as I can here. Um, can I move to onshore protection visas quickly? Uh, how many I think Mr. Willard, you gave me the figures as at 30 November
uh, 2025, which was the last tabled report. Do you have any um data with respect to how many were lodged in December, the month of December or the month in January? Do you do you have the
lodgement figures for those calendar months?
K's got anything later. >> Have you got anything later than November? >> Only November. Sorry. >> Okay. Uh do you have uh Okay, so November reports got the country of
Watt's comments about questions on notice. I'm very judicious in terms of my questions on notice. >> Thank you.
>> Uh maybe you could [clears throat] offer some training. >> Oh, I wouldn't presume to do that, Minister. Presume to do that. Uh, I put a notice a question on notice in relation to grant rates in relation to country of origin and I haven't got a response to that yet. Do you keep that data? Do you track that data in relation
to grant rates?
>> We do have that data.
>> Right. >> Senator, we'll chase up the question for you. >> Can you chase up the question on notice? uh and and one of the issues secretary is there are particular countries of origin where the grant rates are extremely low. So there are countries of origin where the the grant rates are very high as you'd expect Afghanistan, Iran, uh some other jurisdictions. uh but there are other jurisdictions where the grant rates are low and in fact in the answer question on notice I
asked the art just to give you one example uh for uh the year from 1 July 2025 to 30 November there were approximately 77 appeals from by people from Venuatu with respect to denials of
onshore protection visas and one was successful out 77. So I don't know how many were made to the department and were just knocked back. But that that's an example of uh a very low grant rate. There were people from Ireland uh refusals of uh onshore protection visas. Taiwan was another one. Republic of Korea. There's a few that stand out in terms of either 0% success or 0.1%. What do you practically do to manage that
where uh there's based on past consideration there's there's nearly 0% chance of success? How do you how are you practically managing that issue? >> Yeah, we Mr. Kyla could talk a little more if you need, but essentially in the first in first out processing model, one of those considerations is cases that we can decide uh more quickly. Uh and when decide more quickly, we do look at those particular cohorts. Typically, if people have genuine claims, they're much more complex to deal with.
Um just just one follow-up question on that. Sorry. How how many of these pe maybe take this on notice, but and this comes back to my issue about representation. How many of these claimants are actually represented uh by a registered migration agent or or someone who's actually assisting them in
similar to the rates we see through at merits and judicial review as well, but we'll take it on notice.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. >> Thank you. Uh we'll now break for
>> Just for the convenience of this, I will be asking some questions about a coronial um finding, a recent coronial finding in the matter of Jerupa, which was handed down in January of 2026. >> I'm sure officials appreciate the notice. >> Thank you, Senator.