Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act 1958 to allow the tribunal to decide certain matters without holding an oral hearing; in other words, the bill allows for certain matters to be heard on the papers. At first glance, this appears to be a technical efficiency measure, but in reality it represents an important turning point for the tribunal. After almost two years of rhetoric and senseless rebranding, the Labor government has finally admitted that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal never needed to be abolished and that fast-track, on-the-papers review is essential to restoring confidence in our administrative law system.

When Labor scrapped the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, and replaced it with the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, they claimed the old system was slow, politicised and unfit for purpose. Yet, one year later, the new ART is slower, more expensive and facing the largest backlog in its history, irrespective of its iteration.

The case load of the tribunal has ballooned from about 67,000 matters when the coalition left office to more than 11,000 today, and the median time to finalise a case has stretched from 30 weeks to 68 weeks. That is not reform; that is regression. Labor has spent millions rebranding a tribunal that already worked, has dismissed experienced members and has left Australians waiting twice as long for justice. It has been nothing more than a political witch-hunt.

When the former Attorney-General announced the new ART in 2022 he promised a body that would restore trust and speed up decisions. Instead we have an institution that is overwhelmed by work and underwhelmed with staff. This bill is Labor's secret confession that their grand plan has been an unmitigated failure. It is an emergency patch to deal with the tens of thousands of unresolved cases that are now choking the tribunal, especially in the student visa stream, where appeals have risen from about 2,000 to more than 40,000.

So, what does this bill do? It has two main elements. First, it makes on-the-papers review mandatory for certain migration cases, starting with student visa refusals and extending by regulation to other temporary visas. Second, it broadens the tribunal's discretion to decide other matters on written material without a hearing where the issues can be adequately determined in the party's absence. Applicants will still have the opportunity to provide written submissions and to comment on any adverse information before a decision is made. It's a backflip from Labor that is worth welcoming: 10 out of 10 from all the diving judges!

Let's be honest: this is a clear reversal of Labor's earlier position. When the coalition introduced fast-track on-the-papers reviews through the Immigration Assessment Authority, Labor condemned the model and pledged to abolish it. Now, under pressure from a stark cold reality, they have quietly adopted the coalition's approach—and that is a good thing. The coalition welcomes these changes, because they mirror what we have long argued for: efficient, proportionate and practical review processes that focus resources where they are most needed. When the system faces an 111,000-case backlog, it makes sense to streamline straightforward cases so that the tribunal can devote time to the complex ones. It's common sense, not politics.

Let me be clear: the coalition supports measures that make our review system fairer, faster and more efficient. Before the 2025 election the coalition called for the reinstatement of fast-track review mechanisms for specific visa cohorts, consistent with recommendation 32 of the Nixon review. The Nixon review made clear that the lengthy processing times in the visa system invite abuse by unscrupulous operators. It recommended that visa and student visa reviews be conducted on the papers within set time frames. And we agree. The coalition's position has always been that fairness and efficiency can coexist. On-the-papers reviews are not about denying justice; they are about delivering it sooner.

So, about this administrative backlog and its consequences: well, for every student awaiting a decision, there is an education provider waiting for certainty, a university planning its intake, and a community relying on international students to sustain local economies. The longer these cases sit unresolved, the more damage is done to the confidence in Australia's migration system and to our reputation as a reliable education destination. Labor's delays are not just about an administrative issue; they have real-world economic and human consequences.

But we do have some concerns about natural justice, and I want to speak about fairness, because that principle of fairness sits at the heart of this bill. The coalition supports the on-the-papers reforms precisely because they preserve procedural fairness, otherwise known as natural justice safeguards, while improving efficiency. The tribunal must still disclose any adverse information and give the applicant a chance to respond. Those who fail to respond will have their case decided on existing material that is entirely appropriate for a system that is drowning in delay.

Some have suggested that moving away from oral hearings will reduce fairness, but the coalition rejects that argument. Written review does not mean unfair review. What matters is that applicants are properly notified and given a reasonable opportunity to respond and that decisions are made impartially on the merits, on a de novo basis, and the bill maintains those safeguards. It simply removes unnecessary formality in cases where the facts are clear, the law is settled and a hearing adds little value. That is the right balance; it is proportionate, responsible reform. Efficiency and fairness are not opposites; they are partners. An overloaded system that leaves people waiting for months or years is not fair; it is failure by delay. As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

By embracing the on-the-papers review, the tribunal can direct its limited resources to matters that genuinely need oral examination, while resolving similar disputes promptly. It will lead to greater efficiencies of resources for the ART: in staffing, members, tribunal rooms—the list goes on. It's all about ensuring that those matters that do not require in-person hearings are not delayed when there are more efficient means of dealing with them.

That is how justice systems everywhere should operate: efficient where possible and detailed where necessary. Labor once called this very approach unfair, and now they rely on it to save their own creation. They accused the former coalition government of denying people their day in court, yet this bill implements the same principle on a much larger scale. The difference is that we designed fast-tracked review, with structure, resourcing and transparency. Labor is adopting it out of desperation, not design.

There is a human impact. Behind every tribunal file is a person trying to navigate a complex bureaucracy, a small-business owner appealing a tax ruling, a veteran disputing an entitlement or a student seeking to continue to study in Australia. They all deserve a process that is timely, transparent and consistent. The coalition's support for this bill is about those people. If on-the-papers review means faster, high-quality decisions, that is an outcome worth supporting.

There is a financial and regulatory impact. The government claims the bill has no financial impact and minimal regulatory change. That may be technically true, but only because the tribunal must deliver more with the same resources. Labor should not imagine that these legislative changes are a substitute for proper resourcing. Structural underinvestment has crippled the ART, and unless it is addressed, even the best legislative reforms will struggle to deliver results. The Administrative Review Tribunal itself supports these changes, recognising that mandatory paper based review for relatively simple matters, such as student visa refusals, is essential to clearing the backlog. Some in the legal profession have raised questions about procedural safeguards, and those will be tested through a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. But the broad direction of reform is sound, and the coalition will engage constructively to ensure it succeeds.

This bill is one symptom of a much larger pattern. Across government, we see delay, duplication and drift. Freedom of information requests are stalling. Visa processing times have blown out. Public confidence in administrative decision-making is falling. Labor promised confidence but has delivered utter confusion. The coalition's vision is clear. First, the review system must be independent and apolitical. Second, it must be accessible and efficient. Third, it must be fair and just, giving every Australian the confidence that decisions are made on merit.

This bill moves us closer to that goal. It adopts a coalition idea to restore speed and focus to an overloaded system. Our task is now to ensure that the government implements it, competently and transparently. The Nixon review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system warned that protracted processing times fuel exploitation and undermine integrity. It recommended on-the-papers review for low-risk, high-volume visa streams—and that is precisely what this bill now does. The coalition welcomes the government's long-overdue acceptance of that recommendation, but we will hold them accountable for delivering results, not rhetoric.

While we support the bill, we remain cautious about its delegation of power to expand on-the-papers reviews by regulation rather than legislation. Any future extension beyond student and temporary visas should be subject to clear consultation, transparency and disallowance. Parliament, not the executive, should decide when the right to an oral hearing is limited, and we trust that the Senate committee will make sensible recommendations on this point.

Labor's approach to reform is familiar. They announce with fanfare, abolish what works and then quietly adjust back to the coalition's policy when their system collapses. They did it with national security, they did it with infrastructure, and now they are doing it with the tribunal system. The coalition will not oppose Labor when they correct course and adopt the coalition's policies, but Australians deserve a government that gets it right the first time.

When the coalition left office, the AAT managed about 67,000 cases efficiently, with clear processes and experienced members. Labor dismantled that framework and replaced it with one that doubled the waiting times and the costs. Now, to repair the damage, they've adopted the very measures they once rejected. That's fine by us because our concern has always been the outcomes, not the ownership. To the government, I say this: stop treating administrative reform as a branding exercise. Australians do not care whether it's called the AAT, the ART or anything else. They care about timely, fair decisions. This bill is a step in that direction, but, without proper leadership and accountability, even the best legislation will fall short.

To conclude, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is not revolutionary. It is belated recognition that the coalition was right all along. It concedes that fast-track, on-the-papers review works, it concedes that Labor's abolition of the AAT was unnecessary, and it concedes that efficiency and fairness can and must coexist. The coalition supports this bill because it is practical, proportionate and consistent with our long-held principles. We will continue to work through the Senate inquiry to ensure its implementation strengthens rather than weakens natural justice. Australians deserve a tribunal system that is fair, fast and functional. This bill is a small but important step towards that goal, and I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context