Gabriel Ng (Menzies, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As some of the members of this House may know, I used to be a public servant. In my last job I worked at the Department of Home Affairs, assessing protection visa applications. Because of this, I understand the importance of having a trustworthy, efficient body for reviewing government decisions. I saw firsthand the consequences of the stacking by the previous coalition government of the previous body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with unqualified political appointees. The consequences were poor-quality decisions that undermined government programs and delivered unjust outcomes. That is exactly why this government created the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART.

The ART, as did the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it, performs an important function. It provides de novo, or fresh, reviews of government decisions in areas like the NDIS, Centrelink, taxation and immigration. The reality is that government decision-makers don't always get it right, and it's important that the public be given avenues for review of decisions that can have a profound effect on someone's life, such as whether they'll have access to disability or veterans supports and whether or not they'll be given a visa to study in Australia or remain in Australia.

The ART is more accessible than a court. It's not subject to complicated rules of legal procedure and evidence. Without going into a second-year law degree lecture, to successfully appeal a decision in court under administrative law it's necessary to prove legal, factual or discretionary error. This is a very technical area and a high bar which would generally require legal representation. Whatever the administrative review body is, it is vital that the Australian public have confidence in the integrity and capability of its members.

This brings me back to my role as a protection obligations decision-maker. Assessing protection visas also requires a degree of skill and knowledge. Legal training isn't necessary but it helps. You're determining if someone has 'a well-founded fear of persecution'; this is one of those phrases that is dense with legal meaning. Protection visa decision-makers must elicit an asylum seeker's account of why they require protection, and they must determine if they're telling the truth and assess any evidence that someone is able to provide to support their claims. Where someone's claims are accepted, they can be assessed against information from their country of origin to see if there is a real chance that they would be harmed if they returned. All of that is to say they are complex decisions. Decision records could stretch to anywhere between three and 50 pages or more. There is no visa area that required more training or where staff received more ongoing support and mentoring.

At that time, our decisions were subject to review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Where the AAT disagreed with our decisions they would send them back to the department. Sometimes genuine problems with the initial departmental decision were identified. But, too often, the AAT also sent back decisions that made no sense. It was clear that the AAT members did not have the proper training, did not have the proper expertise and did not have proper oversight. Poor decisions undermined trust in the AAT but, worse, undermined government policy.

I am a strong supporter of Australia's refugee program, but protection visas have criteria, and it's important that those criteria are applied fairly. This is the result of the previous coalition government stacking the AAT with failed candidates and political operatives. Worse, underresourcing and poor performance by AAT members meant that backlogs grew for decisions in reviews of protection visas and other visa categories. Long wait times incentivised international migration syndicates who helped people come to Australia on a tourist or student visa and then would submit bogus protection visa applications, sometimes without the applicant even knowing—migration fraud on an industrial scale, incentivised by cronyism.

Worse, people with genuine grounds to remain in Australia would be delayed because of the sheer volume of cases waiting for a decision. My electorate of Menzies, like that of the previous speaker on our side, the member for Gorton, is incredibly diverse. Over 60 per cent of people in the electorate have at least one parent who was born overseas. So migration decisions will be incredibly important to them. For those with genuine grounds to study in Australia—with genuine grounds to remain in Australia—it's incredibly important that, again, they have avenues for review where decisions have been made that don't reflect their grounds for a visa.

So it was clear that the AAT could no longer act with efficiency and integrity. That is why the Albanese Labor government acted decisively to restore public trust in the system of administrative review and establish the ART. The difference with this new body is that we have introduced governance processes that prioritise merit based applications and appointments: no more jobs for mates, no more hacks, and decision-makers who are experienced and who can be professional and independent.

We as a government are committed to rebuilding confidence in public institutions by ensuring that fairness is matched with confidence. Our work did not end with the establishment of the ART. While the new tribunal represents a significant improvement, it faces real operational pressures. Currently the ART has very limited flexibility to determine matters without holding an oral hearing. It's required to conduct a hearing even in situations where issues are straightforward, wasting time and resources. For instance, many student visa cases depend entirely on very straightforward documentary evidence, such as whether an applicant has submitted the correct form or proof of enrolment. In these situations a full oral hearing provides little value but consumes considerable time and resources. Allowing such matters to be reviewed in writing would streamline the process and reduce inefficiencies across the system.

The current inflexibility, combined with a surge in applications, particularly student visa refusals, has placed enormous pressures on the tribunal. In 2024-25 nearly 40 per cent of all applications before the ART related to student visas, up from 22 per cent in the previous year. This sharp increase has stretched resources and again created long wait times. As I know all too well, this creates unintended incentives for non-genuine applicants, who may exploit lengthy wait periods to extend their stay in Australia. This in turn undermines fairness for genuine applicants, whose education and future depend on timely decisions.

Such challenges highlight the need for reform that will allow the ART to operate efficiently while maintaining fairness and accountability. That is why the Albanese Labor government has brought forward this bill—to ensure that timely and efficient decisions are made. This bill responds directly to those challenges through targeted amendments to both the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and the Migration Act.

These proposals are informed by the experience of the tribunal since its commencement, as well as the recommendations of the 2023 Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System, also known as the Nixon review. The bill introduces a new discretion, allowing the ART to decide matters on the papers, without an oral hearing, where appropriate. This can occur if the issues can be resolved without the parties present, and if it is reasonable to do so. Safeguards are built in to preserve procedural fairness. The tribunal must give parties the opportunity to make submissions, and it must consider those views before proceeding. The reform will help the tribunal manage its workload more intelligently, focusing its hearings on complex cases while resolving simpler matters faster. It is not about limiting access to justice; it is about improving it, by reducing delay and unnecessary bureaucracy.

The second major reform in the bill focuses on migration reviews, particularly student visa refusals. Under the amendments to the Migration Act, the ART will be required to determine all student visa refusal matters on the papers, without an oral hearing. This change responds to the unprecedented surge in student visa appeals, which now make up nearly 40 per cent of the tribunal's case load. Requiring oral hearings for every case is unsustainable and has contributed to growing backlogs. The Nixon review found that temporary visa categories, such as student visas, are well suited to written review because they rely mainly on documentary evidence and objective facts. Applicants will still have the opportunity to make written submissions, respond to adverse information and provide supporting material. The tribunal will make decisions based on written records. This reform will deliver faster outcomes. It will reduce misuse of the review process and ensure that genuine student visa applicants are assessed fairly. It will also allow the tribunal to focus its resources on complex or sensitive matters.

The third reform in the bill gives the minister the power, through regulation, to apply similar on-the-papers review processes to other categories of temporary visas in the future. This provides flexibility to respond to emerging pressures in the migration system while maintaining parliamentary oversight. I know that international migration syndicates can adapt their business models with alarming speed. Importantly, this power does not apply to protection visa matters. As I said, these cases often involve complex humanitarian issues and vulnerable applicants, and the government recognises that these cases require the full procedural safeguards of an oral hearing.

This bill delivers broad benefits across the administrative justice system. It will make the ART a more modern, capable and trusted institution. Firstly, it increases efficiency. Allowing matters to be determined on the papers means decisions can be made more quickly, reducing wait times for applicants. It frees up tribunal members and staff to focus on cases that require oral hearings. Secondly, it improves fairness and accessibility. Applicants will continue to have the opportunity to present their case and respond to any adverse information. Written procedures are often less intimidating, less costly and more convenient for applicants, especially those overseas. Thirdly, it strengthens integrity within the migration system. Faster and more proportionate decision-making discourages misuse of the appeals process and reduces the incentive for non-genuine applicants to exploit procedural delays. It also ensures that genuine applicants are not disadvantaged by those who seek to manipulate the system. Finally, the bill reinforces public confidence in Australia's administrative review system. It demonstrates that fairness and efficiency are not opposing goals but complementary ones.

The Albanese Labor government believes that justice must be timely, accessible and proportionate. This bill achieves that balance. As a government, we act because Australians deserve institutions that are fair, efficient and accountable. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Our reforms will allow genuine applicants to have their matters considered quickly and fairly without being caught in unnecessary delays.

This bill is about getting the fundamentals right. It ensures that Australians and those who choose to study, work or build a life here can have confidence in a review system that is fair, efficient and well administered. In an age when people have declining trust in institutions, it's incredibly important that Australians can have confidence that, where they have doubt that a government decision has been made fairly, they have those avenues for appeal and those appeals will be heard by people who are suitably qualified, who have suitable experience and who have suitable oversight to be able to make the right decision in those cases.

The bill also prepares the tribunal to handle future challenges. It embeds balance and helps prevent the return of large backlogs that can weaken public trust and undermine government programs. It is important that things such as visa applications are assessed not just correctly but also quickly so that we avoid some of those unintended consequences that can arise through delays in processing.

We are committed to restoring faith in institutions and ensuring those institutions are fit to adapt to new challenges. This bill provides the flexibility to extend on-the-papers review to other visa case loads, because we recognise that international migration syndicates can adapt their business models quickly to exploit loopholes in the visa system. So this is an important provision in this bill.

For these reasons, I commend the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to the House.

See this speech in context