Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Administrative Review Tribunal is an important element of our judicial system, to provide an independent mechanism of review of administrative decisions. It is central to ensuring fairness, transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Immigration has again become a political football, as all too often it does in Australia, and this must be resisted. Small businesses, regional communities and universities across Australia rely on a fair, efficient and humane immigration system, and the Administrative Review Tribunal plays a really important part in that processing ecosystem.

Every day, my office receives correspondence from people in our local community trying to navigate the complex visa system. We work with local businesses who are struggling to find staff and look to international students and qualified foreigners to fill these gaps. A local business, the Fur Salon, reached out to our office, desperately seeking the finalisation of visas for three key staff members without whom they would have been forced to close their doors. After advocacy from our office to the department, these visas were granted, but delays in processing caused certain unnecessary stress.

The Administrative Review Tribunal is incredibly important because it is the final point when our system is being challenged, and often it is in relation to immigration and visas. The Administrative Review Tribunal was established 12 months ago as a result of the review into the very faulty and difficult Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So the ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Assessment Authority. The objectives were to be user focused, efficient, accessible and fair. I am concerned that the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General undermine the objectives of the ART.

The bill before the House now, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, includes two concerning provisions. It gives the tribunal a broad discretion to dispense with hearings where it considers it appropriate and reasonable to do so, and it requires that certain migration matters, such as student visa refusals and prescribed temporary visa decisions, must be reviewed only on the papers, without any oral hearing. For me, that is concerning, because the papers can often be a difficult way of doing it. For some people, it is actually that in-person hearing that enables them to properly express or raise their issue or concern. Those affected, including international students, temporary workers and families, may not have the language skills or resources to present complex cases in writing. Without the chance to be heard in person, many valid cases may well fall through the cracks, so I am concerned about the amendment. I appreciate it is done with the idea of efficiently dealing with the complex backlog and workload, but we have to make sure that we don't, in the process, undermine the very principle of what the ART was established to achieve.

We know immigration is frequently used in politics in Australia as a very divisive political football. It has become a hot topic in this place once again, and it is used to explain away other policy failings when it comes to key areas, such as housing. We've seen the coalition seize immigration yet again. It's out of their usual playbook to sow fear and division within our community, to blame others for the problems that have evolved out of poor policy and to pit Australians against one another and against those who might change the situation. They've used immigration to reduce complex policy discussions into simplistic slogans and populist approach. It's deeply disappointing.

Immigration has been one of Australia's great strengths. Our incredible country is built on it. Other than First Australians—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—we are all immigrants of one shape or another. It's how this country has grown, innovated and connected to the world. It's how small businesses thrive. It's how regional towns survive. And it is how we will address the challenges of the future. Responsible migration must be done with honesty, compassion and fairness, not political point scoring and fearmongering.

We know, for example, that many in this place seek to blame the housing crisis on immigration. We have to remember that temporary migrants, students and skilled workers are not the cause of our housing challenges or cost-of-living pressures. They are structural issues built on decades of underinvestment and poor planning. They require long-term solutions, such as investment in housing, reduction of incentives for housing as an investment and workforce training. When immigration is used as a wedge, they diminish our shared humanity and the values that unite us as Australians. That's why it's so important that our review systems, like the ART, reflect fairness, independence and respect for due process.

I do understand the government's objective in this amendment bill. I recognise there is immense overloading and a backlog of delays in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Nixon review, on which the bill is based, revealed deep vulnerabilities in our migration system. It found that the delays and backlogs in merits review processes were contributing to an abuse of the visa system. Protracted appeals were allowing non-genuine operators to exploit the system and vulnerable migrants alike. The Attorney-General's Department has suggested that the tribunal has more than 110,000 cases on hand, and the bill is aimed at reducing those case load numbers by introducing flexibility into the system, but we've got to be careful that flexibility is not a short cut or a waving of due process.

The proposed amendments especially requiring the tribunal to only hear certain visa classes on the papers limit the discretion of the tribunal and counter the user centred objective that was first established as the real purpose of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The tribunal needs the ability to undertake a quick resolution of matters with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the relevant matter permits. But, for that, it requires discretion. Trying to create that flexibility and efficiency should never be at the expense of fairness or justice. After all, the Nixon review was about closing loopholes for exploitation, not closing the door on due process and justice. These observations and concerns have been raised by many, including the National Legal Aid and Law Council of Australia.

How we implement the bill will really matter. I intend to propose an amendment to introduce a review clause that compels an independent assessment of this amendment after five years. We can't have a situation where the ART is not working, where these changes—which I'm sure the government will use its numbers to push through—are sidelining procedure fairness and justice and where there is no clear timeline for review and assessment. By having an amendment to ensure there is an independent assessment after five years, we ensure oversight on how the amendments have impacted the functionality of the Administrative Review Tribunal and ensure accountability and transparency, which should be core principles of administrative justice.

What are the consequences of these changes? The creation of the Administrative Review Tribunal was meant to embed fairness and accessibility, whilst balancing them with efficiency. I support this bill's intent, but I will move amendments, as I've said, to introduce a review period. We have to ensure that efficiency does not come at the expense of fairness and that we restore the discretion of the ART to hear cases in person if the case permits or where it is deemed appropriate.

See this speech in context