Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to 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.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was very pleased to be here to hear the member for Nicholls, and I just want to clarify some of the things he finished with—the conclusion he drew—that there was no need to change the previous AAT and create the Administrative Review Tribunal. In fact, there was a great need to undertake significant reform of the AAT. One reason is that that tribunal had been stacked with Liberal and Nationals appointments. There were 85 former Liberal MPs, staffers, candidates and mates on the AAT, and that was something that had to change. The AAT was also not properly funded to do the work that it was required to do. Those opposite just saw it as an employment opportunity for failed Liberal and Nationals candidates, hacks, cronies and mates. It is now a fundamentally different process. In order to be appointed to the new Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, you have to have certain qualifications and standards. It is a merit based appointment, and that is absolutely appropriate for a body that is doing a merit based review of decisions that have been made by government departments and agencies. That was one of the fundamental changes that was made.

As someone who sat on and chaired a committee that reviewed the legislation before it was adopted, I delved deeply into the new legislation for the ART, and I was very privileged to have done that. One of the things that we spent quite a bit of time talking about, which the records of the public hearings will show, was about when you review this tribunal. Do you do a two-year review or a five-year review? In fact, what was embedded in the design of the ART is that you make changes as you notice things happening. This piece of legislation that we have here is an absolute example of why that process is so important to have as part of the ART, and that is that, when we see things that need to be fixed and need to be changed, we can do it. We don't have to wait for some formal review of the legislation for that to happen.

I'm really pleased to be speaking today about these changes to the ART. When I think about the ART, I think about an organisation that makes really big decisions that reflect on the quality of life for people. It might be that people are unhappy with a Centrelink decision that really affects their life, and they may not have felt that the circumstances were fairly looked at. It might be an NDIS decision. There is not a government agency where a decision that's made isn't impactful for someone, so to have a body to do this is important. Notably, the ART is not a court. It's not bound by the same formal rules of procedure and evidence. This is not actually about having your day in court, because it isn't a court; it's a review tribunal, and it's designed to support quick and fair decision-making to provide applicants with outcomes as soon as practicable.

So committed to merits review is the Albanese Labor government that we took the very bold and ambitious step to completely get rid of the AAT. That showed that we didn't think what was left was fixable; we thought that it really needed a total wholesale work-out, and that's what we've had. The new ART came into being in October 2024. What would that be? Oh, that would be a year ago. In that year, we've seen certain things and certain things have changed, and we're responding really promptly to those. The reason behind the ART is to restore public trust and confidence in an independent system of merits review in this country. We know that building trust takes time. I think these changes will be one more step to demonstrate our commitment to that and will be deserving of trust. Governance processes have been significantly improved, with merits based selection determining the appointment of those decision makers. That's a really good first step, and these proposed reforms build on that.

Let's talk about the challenge. One of the most significant challenges that the ART faces is that there is limited flexibility to dispense with matters without an oral hearing. Generally speaking, the tribunal is required to hold an oral hearing to determine a matter even in circumstances where it's not necessary to do so. There are some circumstances where an oral hearing is not necessary, but those circumstances are limited—for example, where the issues in contention could be reviewed in written submissions because they go to objective facts, such as whether an applicant has a certain document or not. It might be things that they're required to have in order to be eligible for a visa. That's a factual evaluation—objective facts. The tribunal reviewing applicants like this without a hearing would therefore save time and money and mean more applicants can have their matters considered.

The current inflexibility, coupled with an unprecedented spike in applications to the tribunal—particularly for the student visa cohort—is putting considerable pressure on the tribunal and demonstrating why there needs to be greater flexibility in the policy around oral hearings. The current model also has the outcome of leading to a system that could inadvertently incentivise non-genuine applicants to seek merits review to extend their stay. That would be to the detriment of genuine applicants. When we see that there is a possibility that non-genuine applicants or the people advising them are being incentivised to use this process, particularly where it is to the detriment of genuine applicants, then we absolutely want to act. These changes will support the ART to be quick, efficient and reliable as an avenue for merits review.

I will talk a bit about the specifics. The bill is seeking to address these challenges through amendments to both the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and the Migration Act. The proposals contained in the bill are informed by both the experience of the tribunal over the last 12 months and the rapid review into exploitation of Australia's visa system, which took place in 2023. These are changes based on inquiry and digging deep into what's going on and listening to what the ART says about what it's seeing now and how things might be dealt with more effectively.

The first point in the changes is around new broad general discretion for the ART, because this bill empowers the tribunal to make more decisions about how best to allocate its resources. In addition to the limited set of circumstances in which the tribunal can currently dispense with oral hearings, the bill provides a new broad discretion for the ART to determine matters using the phrase 'on the papers', so based on the documents that are available. That's allowable if the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceedings and that it's reasonable to do so in the circumstances.

The legislation constrains the discretion to ensure that the tribunal must give the parties opportunity to make submissions in relation to whether a matter proceeds without an oral hearing, and the tribunal has taken those views into consideration. The change means that ART members will be able to spend more time scrutinising information and making decisions and less time in hearings or case management processes. Overall, what does that mean? It means faster access to review for applicants balanced against appropriate safeguards of reasonableness and the opportunity to put the case, through submissions, on why a matter should instead be considered through a hearing. So there's plenty of opportunity for that process.

I want to talk about 'on the papers' for student visas. Importantly, the bill will require that all student visa refusal matters considered by the tribunal be determined on the papers—that is, without an oral hearing. The tribunal is currently experiencing this unprecedented surge in the number of student visa refusal matters lodged for review. In 2024-25, these applications accounted for almost 40 per cent of all lodgements to the ART. So, 40 per cent student visa lodgements; 60 per cent every other government agency and process. It's disproportionate. Requiring oral hearings for this visa class is simply not sustainable for the ART. The growing backlog in these matters is a symptom of the current inflexibility of the procedures.

I mentioned earlier the rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, which was done in 2023. It identified that decisions of certain temporary visas, including student visas, are suitable to be reviewed on the papers because it's appropriate for reviews of short-term temporary visas to be proportionate, quick and efficient, and expeditious review procedures reduce delays in decision-making and backlogs and support the overall integrity of Australia's migration system, which is something we worked very hard on in our first term of government, and continue to work hard on in this term. The review procedure included in the bill would enable the tribunal to achieve efficiency in addressing its significant case load while ensuring applicants are still given an opportunity to present their case in writing.

Reviews of decisions to refuse a student visa are well suited to be reviewed on the papers; you take into account the nature of the issues under review, the temporary and short-term nature of a student visa and the low volume and complexity of written materials relevant to those proceedings. However, there will be other things that the tribunal would be required to do. They would need to invite applicants to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to it. They'll also be required to continue to give applicants certain adverse information and to invite them to comment on it. They will have that opportunity. They will also be required to continue to request or obtain additional materials by other means, including making requests or orders for the applicant to provide certain documents. The tribunal will also be required to make its decision on the basis of the written materials provided without holding a hearing. Ensuring the tribunal can consider student visa matters quickly will absolutely disincentivise the abuse of merits review by non-genuine applicants who are seeking to prolong their stay here.

We appreciate that some stakeholders may argue that the changes aren't fair, because they effectively deny the applicant their day in court. However, this is a different process. It's a merit review, and nothing in this proposal stops an applicant from putting their best case forward. A genuine applicant would seek the ability to do so, whether the pathway was orally or in writing. That's the advice and the thinking that has gone into making this decision.

Finally, the bill is also going to allow the minister to apply on-the-papers processes together for certain temporary visa decisions prescribed in the regulations. It gives the government flexibility to identify additional cohorts to be brought into the on-the-papers review procedure in future as appropriate. Importantly, this power would not apply to protection visa matters, in clear recognition that these applicants generally involve complex issues and are a much more vulnerable cohort of applicants.

I'm very pleased with the way the ART was established, which allowed there to be ongoing improvement, and I would expect we will see more ongoing improvement as different issues arise and emerge—and the Albanese Labor government will respond to those as they occur. I commend this bill to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The objective of this bill, to improve the efficiency of the tribunal, is one I broadly support, but I also harbour serious concerns about aspects of the government's approach. On balance, I intend to support the bill given the efficiency gains it promises, but I will be proposing an amendment to ensure those gains are not bought at the cost of fairness to international students and other migrants.

Since 14 October 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal has operated in place of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART was established under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 with the explicit aim of modernising and strengthening the system of merits review across the Commonwealth. In broad terms, the ART is empowered to review administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments ranging from visas and migration to taxation, social security, NDIS, child support, veterans entitlements, workers compensation and more. Its mission is to provide an independent, accessible, fair and efficient merits review process. The ART can receive new evidence, revisit factual material and assess matters afresh. It may affirm, vary or set aside the original decision or substitute a new decision. Its procedures are meant to be flexible, with the minimum formalism necessary to ensure justice.

The ART's design emphasises merit based appointments of members, enforceable performance standards and a code of conduct to underpin the integrity of the institution. All of this reflects past lessons learned from the operation of the AAT—for example, politicised appointments, insufficient transparency and structural pressures on capacity and case backlogs. In short, the ART is intended to be a more coherent, resilient and trusted tribunal, one that can deliver just outcomes without unnecessary delay.

The principal problem the tribunal faces today is that rising case loads are driving unacceptable delays in decisions. Wait times are growing, which causes hardship to applicants and defeats the aim of the tribunal. One of the drivers of this backlog is student visa refusal appeals, which have surged in number to now make up almost 40 per cent of all lodgements. Because of those backlogs, some applicants wait many months, even more than a year, before they learn whether their case is accepted or how it will be handled. During that time, their lives, studies, families, finances and future plans are in limbo. In some cases, students may lose academic semesters or funding. In migration matters more broadly, long waits undermine certainty and foster anxiety and instability for people and their families. Further, delays also impose costs on government, on legal services and on the administrative system more broadly. The longer cases remain pending the harder they are to manage and the more resources are consumed simply through case management and review. So we do need a way to manage cases, particularly student visa matters, more efficiently.

This bill introduces three central changes designed to bring efficiency to the tribunal and reduce waiting times. Firstly, it mandates that student visa refusal matters be decided on the papers, or without an oral hearing. Secondly, it grants the minister a regulation-making power to require other temporary visa matters to be decided on the papers, although reviewable protection decisions are explicitly excluded. Thirdly, it gives the ART a broad discretion to decide remaining matters on the papers, subject to certain statutory limitations. The core logic is that by shifting more cases from hearings to written processes the tribunal can dispose of more cases faster. Applicants submit documents, arguments and evidence and do not need to attend face-to-face hearings. The government assigns all student visa cases to the paper based stream, gives the minister power to designate further categories and provides the ART with latitude to make on-the-papers determinations in other matters when appropriate.

I support the underlying aim to reduce backlogs, cut waiting times and make the tribunal more responsive, but I have serious reservations about the first two changes in particular. The first change requires all student visa refusal matters to be handled on the papers. The government's justification is that student visa decisions tend to be straightforward, governed by clear criteria and therefore do not require a hearing. It asserts a written process is sufficient in most cases. While I accept that may often be true, it's implausible that it holds all the time. The fact is that, when they're appealed, student visa refusal decisions are set aside or overturned by the tribunal nearly half the time. This shows that, when additional evidence is heard, often during oral hearings, a different conclusion is frequently reached. A shift in process will affect these directly. So, while most student visa decisions may be suitable for on the papers, a blanket ban on all oral hearings for student visa matters seems inappropriate.

There are several reasons why certain student matters may require an oral hearing. The first is discretionary and contextual judgements based on credibility. Many student visa refusals turn on questions of genuine student intention, credibility and personal circumstances. These judgements are hard to capture in writing alone. Hearing evidence, cross-examination and oral explanation often exposes nuances better. The second is youth inexperience and complexity. Many student applicants are young with limited capacity to navigate complex legal and factual materials. Written submissions demand legal precision and sophistication. In an oral hearing, tribunal members can ask clarifying questions, probe credibility and ensure applicants have had the opportunity to present their best case, especially those without legal representation. The third is translation and comprehension issues. At an oral hearing the tribunal provides translation services for applicants with limited English, but no equivalent translation support exists for preparing written submissions. That means applicants may struggle to express themselves clearly in writing, undermining the fairness and persuasiveness of their application. Last is procedural efficiency. In some exceptional cases an oral hearing may actually be more efficient, allowing a tribunal to resolve complexity quickly in person rather than through protracted exchanges of documents.

These are specific and compelling reasons why a blanket requirement for on-the-papers decisions of student visa matters is problematic. The second problematic change is the minister's power to designate other temporary visa categories for paper based review. The power is broad, discretionary and exercisable without meaningful parliamentary oversight. Relying on a ministerial regulation to decide categories risks arbitrary designation, and different temporary visa categories are still likely to have nuances and exceptions that may mean an oral hearing is more efficient or more fair in certain cases. A blanket approach eliminates that flexibility. It precludes the possibility of exceptional or complex cases being heard orally, even where fairness, justice or efficiency would favour this.

For these reasons I will propose an amendment to the bill to afford the tribunal discretion to decline a paper-only pathway and hold an oral hearing in student visa or designated temporary visa cases when the tribunal deems that appropriate. In other words, the tribunal should have the power to opt for a hearing in particular cases.

In its submission to the committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman supported such an approach, writing:

From a student's perspective, it would be fair and appropriate for the Tribunal to have discretion to have an oral hearing …

That principle should be built into the framework. While the exercise of this discretion by the tribunal may itself be reviewable, in my view the potential delay does not outweigh the value of preserving procedural fairness. On balance, giving the tribunal discretion will enhance both the efficiency and the justice of its decision-making. I'll elaborate on my amendment to that effect during the consideration-in-detail stage.

I also note a number of criticisms raised by stakeholders which are worth drawing attention to, in the hope that they can be addressed in implementation. Some suggest that the student visa surge may be temporary—in which case, sweeping permanent legislative change may be disproportionate. Denial of oral hearings might push more appellants to seek judicial review in courts, which could add pressures to the federal courts and undermine the bill's goals of efficiency. The experience of the former Immigration Assessment Authority showed that reliance on paper based decision-making was often found to deny procedural fairness and produced increased litigation. A trial of on-the-papers decision-making in the NDIS tribunal context with the independent expert review program was terminated after nine months because it failed to deliver sufficient efficiency improvements.

There are other, less drastic alternatives to improve ART efficiency without undermining fairness. First, reducing unnecessary primary refusals could occur via increased use of requests for information. Too often a visa is refused simply because a missing document or clarification was not sought, only to be overturned later at review. Second, strengthening the tribunal's triage registry and support processes, giving more resources to registrars and administrative staff and increasing the number of tribunal members could ensure cases are processed more swiftly and effectively without reducing procedural safeguards.

To summarise, the ART is a freshly established institution intended to revitalise Australia's system of merits review, yet the tribunal now confronts serious pressures from surging case loads, especially from student visa refusal appeals. These delays do cause harm to students, migrants and families, and to the integrity and credibility of the review system. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to confront that problem by shifting many matters to on-the-papers review, mandating this approach for student visa refusals, granting a ministerial designation power over other temporary visas and giving the tribunal discretionary power for the remainder.

I support that ambition and believe that the tribunal must evolve to meet demand. But in its current form the bill overreaches, in removing access to oral hearings for all student visa cases and in giving the minister wide regulatory power over all other visa categories. This risks undermining procedural fairness or denying justice to meritorious applicants. Therefore I will move an amendment, and I would encourage the government to consider it, to ensure the tribunal retains discretion to hear an oral hearing in any case, including student visa reviews, where fairness, complexity or individual circumstances justify it. I believe that amendment balances the twin imperatives of efficiency and justice.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The creation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1975 stands as a significant achievement in Labor's legacy. The Whitlam Labor government recognised the importance of having an impartial institution to oversee the review decisions made by ministers and, indeed, government departments. It was a pioneering development 50 years ago, one that today continues to embody a fundamental principle of democracy: governments must be accountable to the people.

The AAT was designed to empower individuals to question government decisions and ensure that actions taken under Commonwealth law were fair and equitable. This is about accountability, fairness, transparency and processes of review. The AAT evolved over the decades. In July 2015 the former coalition government merged the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal into the AAT. Unfortunately, this consolidation was poorly executed and left behind a problematic legacy, including financial instability. When Labor came into government in 2022, we inherited an AAT that was labouring under a host of serious issues. The coalition left behind a tribunal that was overwhelmed by a massive backlog of cases and outdated digital systems that were ill equipped for modern demands, but these weren't the only changes.

The tribunal was heavily influenced by political appointments. The former government appointed up to 85 individuals with direct ties to the Liberal Party, including former MPs, former candidates, staffers and close affiliates. Research by the Grattan Institute in 2022 revealed that a staggering 20 per cent of the AAT's 320 members had political connections to the appointing government. Worse still, many of these appointments bypassed merit-based selection processes. Some appointees lacked the necessary qualifications or experience. It was obvious that a body structured in this way could not credibly claim to be impartial or competent in reviewing government decisions.

Labor came to government committed to providing the Australian people with an administrative review body that operated independently, free from political interference. After thorough consultation with the public, the Administrative Review Expert Advisory Group and multiple parliamentary committees, the Albanese Labor government legislated to replace the compromised and mismanaged AAT with a new body that Australians could trust: the Administrative Review Tribunal, or the ART.

The important word here is 'trust'. Labor knew it was vital to restore public trust and confidence in our independent merits review system. Accordingly, one of the features of the new ART was a transparent, merit-based appointment process, independent of political influence, because people want to know that the process of merits review is fair and robust. People want to know that the process of merits review works in this country.

The new ART outlined stringent qualification requirements. The President of the Administrative Review Tribunal must be a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, and judicial deputy presidents must be a judge of either the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Other appointments must be enrolled lawyers with varying degrees of substantial experience, specialised training or experience in relevant subject matter. This is important because the tribunal's work is absolutely vital. Its members are tasked with reviewing decisions made by government agencies, ensuring that laws and policies are applied correctly but also fairly. Every year, tens of thousands of Australians depend on this process to challenge decisions that can profoundly affect their lives, their families' lives and their futures—decisions that determine whether someone receives a permanent visa, qualifies for the pension, secures veterans compensation or obtains essential NDIS support. That is why public trust in the tribunal is a non-negotiable. It's an absolute must. It's fundamental.

In terms of this bill, the ART has been operational since October 2024. During this time it has become apparent that some of its procedures require more flexibility. This bill addresses these matters and will lead to the timely resolution of emerging delays. This is mainly occurring with reviews concerning temporary migration. We don't want applicants left waiting without an answer for months, particularly when an efficient merits review would provide a response. Put simply, people need clarity. People need clarity because clarity allows them to plan their future, plan for their family and plan what they are going to do next.

Currently, oral hearings are required in the majority of circumstances, even when matters could be investigated and resolved through written submissions. Written submissions which rely on objective facts, such as the presentation of a specific document or the eligibility for a visa, demonstrate how a matter can be reviewed efficiently 'on the papers', meaning no oral hearing is required. We're talking about sensible efficiency here—efficiency that can be achieved without sacrificing the robustness of process or procedural fairness that is inherent in the work of the ART.

The measures contained in this bill were informed by the Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System in 2023, otherwise known as the Nixon review. As a result, all student visa refusal matters will undergo this new, on-the-papers process. Student visas are appropriate for on-the-papers reviews due to the nature of the issues under review, the temporary nature of the visa and the low volume of relevant documentation. The tribunal will still be required to give applicants the opportunity to make written submissions, as well as giving applicants certain adverse information and requesting return comment. The tribunal can also continue to request additional information regarding the matter at hand. These amendments to the Migration Act 1958 are a reasonable and efficient approach to take with student visas, which are short term and in relatively low volume. These adjustments will help clear the review's backlog, give genuine applicants peace of mind and deter people who aren't genuine from using the system to just stay longer.

It will be possible to add additional temporary visa types to this category in the future, but it is important to note that permanent and protection visas will not be assessed in this way. These matters are inherently more complex and, in the case of protection visas, often concern a more vulnerable cohort.

The bill also amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to give the tribunal more power to choose to make a decision based on written materials rather than an oral hearing on other processes regarding temporary visas. Safeguards in place include that the matter at hand be determinable without an oral hearing, that it is reasonable to rely on written submissions and that all parties to the matter have been able to make submissions as to whether an oral hearing is, indeed, required. These changes to the functions of the ART mean that the highly experienced and expert ART members will be able to spend more of their time assessing the content and circumstances of applications as opposed to sitting in hearings and managing caseload processes. This means faster processing time for applicants, and it means that people who are seeking to make these kinds of applications will have answers more quickly.

Fundamentally, the ART is about ensuring a fair merits review process, with an opportunity to have one's case heard. It is about making sure that people are treated with procedural fairness. An important part of that process is people getting answers within a reasonable amount of time. The efficiencies that are put forward in this bill are all about making sure that people get an answer as soon as possible. Administrative review continues to be an important feature of our legal system. While part of the system, the ART is not a court and does not have the same legal, procedural and evidential rules. It is designed to enable quick and fair decision-making and timely outcomes for applicants.

This bill does not stop applicants from putting a comprehensive case before the ART. What it does do is give the tribunal the tools to process cases efficiently and fairly, and it upholds the merits review system, which is absolutely critical to Australian legal processes. It also bolsters public confidence in the ART and strengthens the integrity of our visa and migration system. Tribunal decisions on the basis of written reviews will increase efficiency and save money, meaning more applicants will be able to have their matters considered. It will also efficiently and reliably address the unprecedented increase in applications for student visas. In 2024-25 student visa refusal matters accounted for almost 40 per cent of all lodgements to the ART.

This bill is an example of responsive and responsible leadership by the Albanese Labor government. It will ensure a fit-for-purpose ART and provide greater efficiency and certainty for applicants. If we go back to 1975, when the AAT was created—by a Labor government—and look at the fundamental principles that sat behind the creation of the original tribunal, that is what this bill is about. The AAT was created to make sure that merits review was fair and that, when it came to decisions of government, people had a place to go to put their case forward for review. This bill upholds those fundamental principles and makes the ART fit for purpose so that we have fairness, transparency and a clear review process that deals with people's issues efficiently every single day. I commend the bill to the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Goldstein, it is a great privilege to speak on this legislation. I speak as somebody who supports this legislation because there is no legislation in this parliament that has ever been put forward by the member for Isaacs that has not needed improvement.

The member for Isaacs established the Administrative Review Tribunal in the last parliament. He has a litany of train-wreck legislation that needs constant improvement, like his tenure as a minister in government. I say this with sadness. When he isn't turning up to teal fundraisers and events in Goldstein or sending volunteers to Goldstein to help teal candidates get elected—even though they claim to be independent—he puts train-wreck legislation before the parliament. Of course, this legislation is designed to fix the legacy of the member for Isaacs, who, every time he has tried to put things forward, has gone onto fail and create more problems and more confusion than the problems he sought to solve in the first place. I remember this, well and truly, back in my time as Australia's human rights commissioner, when we were dealing with the legacy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments and the children who were asylum seekers, locked in detention because of those governments.

During that time, the member for Isaacs, at the latter stage, was Attorney-General. During that period as Attorney-General, he was confronted with a number of choices. Some of those choices could have been to get children out of detention, just like this sort of legislation; review the Administrative Review Tribunal; or review legislation to assess whether people should have pathways to be able to get out—visa or migration pathways. But that wasn't the pathway that the member for Isaacs took. As Attorney-General, his solution was to seek to abolish the office of the Australia's human rights commissioner, the office that was, in part, responsible for oversight of the treatment of those children in detention.

So what do we have? We had children denied education. The solution to that was to abolish the position of the person who had oversight. Children were suffering from mental health conditions. The member for Isaacs's solution was to abolish the position of the person whose responsibility was to have oversight over the mental health deterioration of children in the custodianship of the government. At every single point, what we had was a government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—who was involved in demonisation and humiliation of children and a rapid advancement in the deterioration in their mental health. His only answer to those situations was through a different piece of legislation put forward to abolish the office of Australia's human rights commissioner, which included a pathway to remove any oversight or actually address the problems of how the government was bullying, dehumanising and delegitimising children.

I am not surprised that this legislation had to be put forward by this government to fix the long litany of, once again, the member for Isaacs's problems. He was very vocal about this legislation today in question time, when anyone dared question the correlation and relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU, and was outraged that anybody might highlight that the Labor Party received $7 million worth of funding and that the head of the Victorian branch, who's directly connected to figures like Mick Gatto and John Setka, sits on the National Executive of the Australian Labor Party. I think it's the member for Bruce, who's sitting opposite at the table right now, who also sits with the head of the Victorian division of the CFMEU on the National Executive. But, apparently, there's no issue here! Nobody can see any issues or problems, even though they're directly associating with criminals and organised gangs. But, again, no-one from the Labor party seems to care.

Yes, the previous speaker, who spoke before, is right. There are issues around making sure there's transparency, and oversight, and a process that's being followed. But I can well and truly be confident that you're not going to get it from this Labor government. That's why their legislation, which the member for Isaacs introduced in the previous parliament, needs to be fixed—because, despite his promise of a grand future of the Administrative Review Tribunal ushering in a new era of review rights to make sure that there was integrity, trust and transparency sitting behind tribunal hearing processes, it has instead turned into a catastrophe of epic proportions.

The AAT, which was doing its job making sure there were proper review processes of administrative decisions, was replaced by a body stacked with his mates that is now slower, more expensive and facing the largest backlog in its history. The caseload has now increased to 67,000 matters, substantially more than was the case when we were last in office. Median case times have now blown out from 30 weeks to 68 weeks under the member for Isaacs and, of course, the current attorney-general. Student visa appeals have risen from around 2,000 cases to more than 40,000, an extraordinary growth by any measure with which one could count.

Labor's abolition of the AAT was a vindictive, malicious and unnecessary attack solely because they didn't get to appoint every single person who sat on it and they wanted to make sure it was like the Fair Work Commission or another organisation where only their people sat on it—because they want to control every single part of the artifice and control the state. Well, sorry, Deputy Speaker Freelander, but we live in a democracy.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of that, thank you.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are, of course, a diversity of views that are allowed to be had. There are a diversity of views that are allowed to be spoken. As sure as night follows day, some people are entitled to be part of the artifice of the state that are not members of the Australian Labor Party!

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shock, horror!

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shocking, I know, Member for Cook, that some people are allowed to serve the Australian community even if they are not signed-up members of the Labor Party! This is not yet Pyongyang yet. When the Prime Minister comes back from one of his international sojourns, as he does, and tries to treat this parliament like the National People's Congress, some of us are still going to be here quite happily asking him questions that are not the questions he wants to have asked of him—not the ones telling him how wonderful he is or how glorious his new regime is or about all of his incredible success stories that he wants to claim and boast about. Some of us are going to ask him difficult questions about the relationships that he has, including why he relies on the votes of the head of the Victorian division of the CFMEU on the national executive of the Labor Party.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the member to be relevant to the legislation.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, Deputy Speaker. I'm being 100 per cent relevant to the legislation. We are talking about review rights and review processes, and it's very important to make sure that we're drawing attention very clearly to the issue of transparency, consistency of review rights and, of course, integrity, which goes right to the heart of this government. In fact, that was a key theme of the previous member's speech and that of just about every single member who got up and spoke on this legislation: integrity is at the heart of this legislation and how it speaks to this government, and I agree with them.

We've got the member for Bruce, who's sitting at the table—he was standing only moments ago—and he's directly connected to the head of the Victorian division of the CFMEU.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance and respect for the chair: word association is not relevance. That was an unhinged rant that has nothing to do with a clause in the bill, and he didn't move a second reading amendment.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've already mentioned, the member should be relevant to the legislation.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As outlined, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 goes directly to the process and integrity of the government. All of the other speakers from the government made this point. They used this as the basis to extol the virtues of the government. All I am doing is highlighting and shining a bright light on this.

I realise it's very difficult for the members sitting opposite to have it highlighted to them, because it shows an uncomfortable truth: that if you're going to make your integrity central to the passage of a piece of legislation and have it embodied in the legislation because, as the ministers have said, the foundation of this legislation is transparency of review processes and decision-making, then maybe an association with the head of a criminal enterprise is not a great place to start, just as the conduct of the current member for Isaacs—I know he'll be former one day, but at the moment he's current—and his consistent failure around processes of legislation which led to the need to introduce this bill is also an important part of the conversation.

So, of course, we have a problem with the law as it currently operates. Labor's bill has failed the Australian community. It has delayed decision-making. Australians have been let down, and part of it is because we have a minister who's sitting at the table and ministers who are sitting on government benches over there who are simply not interested in driving legislation which is going to improve the Australian community. They simply have legislation that advances the interests of the people that they seek to represent, which is primarily the patronage and power associated with the Labor Party. And, of course, even when they appoint people to the Administrative Review Tribunal to do exactly that, they're being failed by them. But it's the Australian community that is suffering the consequences of the patronage network of the Labor Party.

So, this legislation is designed as a backflip, acknowledging the simple reality that their legislation has failed. It isn't going to work for the Australian community, so they are having to fix up their administrative mess. Of course, as much as we don't want a backflip, because we'd rather that the law works, we welcome a decision of a backflip from the Labor Party, because it means we might actually see some improvement in decision-making and in the pathway for decision-making—simply to be able to allow the tribunal to make decisions on the papers for significant migration matters, starting with student visa refusals, and give it a broader discretion to decide other matters on written material. Applicants will still be invited to provide written submissions and respond to any adverse information before a decision is made. These reforms are designed to improve efficiency and reduce the record backlog and deliver faster, fairer outcomes.

So yes, we are fixing the problems of the legislation put forward by the Labor Party that has led to a huge backlog for those many Australians—or those who are not even Australians—who rely on the Administrative Review Tribunal as the basis for fair decision-making. I just wish the Labor Party would acknowledge that there is a need for transparent, informed integrity-based decision-making in so many other areas. We don't have it in the context of the Australian construction industry right now, where we know that, because of the failure of the Labor government, there is flagrant abuse of the law, ongoing allegations and whistleblower evidence increasingly coming out and highlighting that the minister has failed and Labor's solution to corruption on Australian worksites has failed. And we have an administration that has become an enabler of corruption.

If they've got that in one area and they've got a failure, as they have with the Administrative Review Tribunal—to their credit, the government eventually acknowledged that yes, the member for Isaacs didn't get it right, and we have to fix up his mess once again—then maybe they could turn around and say, 'The current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is failing the Australian community and is an enabler of corruption, and maybe she needs to fix that legislation.'

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask that you withdraw that, please.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has failed the Australian community, and whistleblowers are saying that corruption is running rife under the solution that is currently legislated, that she is oversighting and that she is backing to the hilt, and is saying the strongest possible course of action is needed. When it comes down to it, when you acknowledge a failure like the failure of the Administrative Review Tribunal and you're prepared to amend the legislation to acknowledge that, maybe it's time to look at other institutions and artifices that you have introduced and try to fix those as well.

So, now this is a teaching moment, not just about the failure of the member for Isaacs but about the legacy of Senator Murray Watt and of course the current operations of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. But we know full well that there will be no action by this government, for a simple reason: too many people on the other side of this chamber right now are tainted and directly connected to the misconduct that is leading to a situation that they want to perpetuate. There is a real need now for this parliament to stand up and call out the conduct that is leading to corruption on Australian worksites, and we are going to continue to prosecute this argument every step of the way. I hope the Prime Minister and others will call out this conduct and improve the standing for the Australian community.

Alice Jordan-Baird (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, brought forward by the Attorney-General, and I commend her for doing so. Our country's history is one of migration. With the exception of our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians, every Australian is either a migrant or of migrant descent. I couldn't be prouder to stand in this chamber as a member of the Albanese Labor government, a government committed to strengthening the integrity of our migration system. This bill amends two pieces of legislation to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, can review migration decisions efficiently and flexibly.

Debate interrupted.