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

The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a key part of our government's efforts to clean up the dysfunctional migration system left to us by the former coalition government. It is so important to my electorate of Gorton that the ART is able to review migration decisions quickly and efficiently. Gorton, in Melbourne's western suburbs, is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. So many families in the electorate come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In fact, Gorton has one of the highest proportions of first and second generation migrants in Australia.

I'm incredibly proud to represent an electorate with so many families that made the difficult decision to pack up and start a new life in Melbourne's west. This decision, made by so many new Australians throughout our modern history, is central to our country's DNA. Migration has enriched countless community groups, religious organisations, sporting clubs and schools throughout Gorton. Migrants also fill a number of crucial skills gaps in our local economy in Melbourne's west. These sectors include health care, manufacturing and construction.

In recent times we have seen fringe groups try and divide us by targeting migrants. The Albanese government stands against this division. We're getting on the job of giving our migration system the tools it needs to work quickly and effectively. This includes our merits review system, which allows people to review decisions made by government departments.

Last year, this government created the ART to replace the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, as Australia's federal merits review body. Under the previous tribunal, the backlog of cases awaiting review totalled almost 70,000 by the 2022 election. More than 80 per cent of those cases were migration and refugee matters. The AAT's backlog caused significant delays for so many migration decision reviews. These delays compromised the functioning of the AAT under the previous government.

The AAT was also undermined by a lack of transparency in the process of appointing its members. The previous government appointed dozens of former Liberal MPs, candidates and staffers to the AAT without a merit based selection process. As a result, the AAT was constantly affected by scandals and mismanagement. It could not function as an independent body capable of making high-quality decisions. An accessible, efficient and thorough merits review process is critical to maintaining trust in our system of government. This is why the Albanese government set out to abolish the dysfunctional AAT after forming government in 2022. We established the new ART to restore public trust and confidence in an independent system of review, and we designed the tribunal with merit based selection processes to support the appointment of experienced high-quality decision-makers. The ART allows Australians to seek an independent review of decisions made by government departments under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. These reviews ensure that legislation is applied correctly by our departments and authorities. They also allow those affected by certain decisions to access a relatively informal review and to achieve an outcome as soon as practicable.

The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 formally established the ART, outlining several objectives. One of these objectives was ensuring that the tribunal processes applications as quickly possible, while still giving each application the proper consideration it requires. The ART also aims to process applications with as little formality and expense as needed. In setting out these objectives, we recognise that not every application to the ART is the same. The review process should always be of high quality, and it needs to make sense for each applicant, based on the issues involved. It does not make sense for the same resources and time to be committed to cases with different levels of complexity. Timely decision-making is incredibly important for the tribunal's reviews of migration decisions, like decisions to refuse visas. We can't expect applicants to wait several months or even years for a decision on whether or not they're able to stay in Australia. These decisions are life changing, and applicants deserve outcomes sooner.

It's not just that the applicants need outcomes; there's also a bigger threat at play. The Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System highlighted the threat posed to the integrity of our migration system by delays at the tribunal stage. Long ART wait times give people the opportunity to exploit our migration system. When you receive a visa refusal and you apply for a review of that decision through the ART, you are entitled to remain in Australia on a bridging visa. This has opened the door for people to apply for a review, even though they know they do not have grounds, so they can get access to a bridging visa. This clogs the system with reviews that lack genuine grounds, and everyone waiting for a tribunal review has to wait longer for the outcome. This hurts the vast majority of applicants, who do go through the review process for the right reasons.

There are so many cases of applicants who have genuine grounds to apply for a review of a visa refusal outcome. You only have to be in Australia, to walk around my electorate, to see it. Because of the diversity of my electorate, immigration matters are one of the main issues my constituents contact my office about. My office recently assisted a young woman from the Middle East in receiving advice from the department as to the process for applying for a partner visa. In this instance the application was successful. Receiving a partner visa meant she could be together with her family and contribute positively to our community. Despite her young daughter growing up in Australia, they had been paying international school fees. For this woman, the partner visa meant that her daughter could access our amazing Australian education system. I hear stories like this every day in my office, and I see those stories in the first- and second-generation migrant communities that have decided to call Melbourne's west home. While long ART wait times exploit our migration system, they also hurt those people who have genuine grounds for review of visa refusal decisions.

We on this side of the House recognise that the ART needs the proper resources and flexibility to review applications efficiently. That's why our government has introduced the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The ART is currently required to hold oral hearings for almost all reviews, even when they're not needed. These hearings are costly and delay the review process. The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to remove this requirement when it comes to certain decisions, including decisions to refuse student visa applications. The bill would strengthen the ART's procedures by allowing the tribunal to instead make decisions under a new on-the-papers review procedure. This means that the procedures will be based entirely on written materials instead of lengthy and unnecessary oral hearings.

Every case has unique circumstances and should be treated as such. Allowing the tribunal to be flexible is crucial in preventing backlogs from forming. Student visas are significant when we're talking about backlogs. In 2024-25, almost 40 per cent of applications lodged with the ART were student visa matters. This was almost double the number of student visa matters submitted to the previous tribunal in 2022-23. Because we're a young electorate, student visa matters are raised with my office nearly every day. Student visas are short-term in nature. They're also relatively low in complexity, in terms of the materials involved. There simply does not need to be a large backlog and excessive wait times for outcomes.

The tribunal process needs to be streamlined so that it makes sense for the issues involved in each case. In saying that, we know how important it often is for applicants to get to present their case to the ART. That's why the tribunal will also be required to invite applicants to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to the issues under review; will continue to give applicants certain adverse information and invite applicants to comment on it; will continue to request or obtain additional materials by other means, including making requests or orders for the applicant to provide certain documents; and will make its decision based on the written materials provided by applicants, without holding a hearing.

We recognise that the review case loads have changed significantly in the short time since the ART was established. A balance must be struck between efficiency and high-quality decision-making. These changes will better strike that balance. We're acting to make sure that our review system remains flexible and fit for purpose now and into the future.

The bill will also allow the minister to expand the on-the-papers process regulation to include decisions relating to other kinds of temporary visas. In saying that, we recognise that certain visas, such as permanent and protection visas, are complex and involve vulnerable applicants. Visas like these are often applied for by people fleeing war and persecution overseas. These amendments would therefore exclude reviews of these visas from being assessed on the papers.

The bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal greater flexibility in terms of the types of cases it can assess on the papers. The ART would be able to make its decision based on written materials for applications where the application can be reviewed without the presence of the parties involved and the circumstances do not require a hearing to be held for a decision to be made. Everyone deserves a fair review, and we understand that giving the tribunal members the capacity to adapt their processes to the matters put before them is crucial in maintaining a fair review process.

While the bill would strengthen the independence of the ART, it's important that it includes safeguards. Parliament will still be able to disallow regulations extending the tribunal's ability to review applications without holding hearings if such regulations are inappropriate. The ART will also be required to consult and take submissions from the parties involved before it decides not to hold a hearing. It's important that we understand that efficiency in the review process cannot come at the expense of applicants having the opportunity to present their case to the ART. This is why our bill will not limit the written information applicants would be able to present to the tribunal in relation to their review.

The bill goes hand in hand with the migration reforms passed by the Albanese Labor government. The bill supports the government in ensuring our migration system can give Australia the skills we need. The bill protects our migration system, streamlining the review process and increasing flexibility and fairness. I want to see our migration system continue to deliver great outcomes for my electorate in Melbourne's western suburbs and for all our communities around Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The ART commenced operation in October 2024 in place of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART is responsible for reviewing administrative decisions made under various Commonwealth acts and instruments, including disputes on matters ranging from visas, the NDIS, Centrelink, PPL and workers compensation. This bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act in an effort to increase the efficiency in the processing of visas. It does this in three ways. Firstly, it expands the circumstances in which the ART can make decisions based on the papers. Currently, most matters are dealt with through an oral hearing, with the circumstances for dispensing with the hearing limited to occasions where both parties consent, or where one party has failed to comply with the requirements of the tribunal. This bill, instead, gives the tribunal discretion to dispense with a hearing when it appears avoidable, based on the facts of the case. Secondly, this bill amends the Migration Act such that the reviews of student visa claims must now be determined on the papers. Finally, the bill grants the minister the ability to extend this provision to other temporary visas via regulations.

I want to recognise that the ART is a really important institution in our democracy. This is the last port of call for citizens when they feel that the government has let them down or has not served them accordingly. It is actually pretty fundamental to making sure that government is accountable, even to individuals in individual cases. I also want to acknowledge that access to the ART and the speed with which it makes determinations are critically important, because justice delayed is justice denied. In some cases, this can truly have a significant effect on people's lives. That's the context in which I approach this bill. I look at this and go, 'Yes, I want to see the ART work more efficiently,' because, frankly, some of the delays that I have heard about in my electorate, around people's access to and work with the ART, are not acceptable and have significant costs to the community.

I do agree that the ballooning number of review decisions, particularly for student visa refusals, which now account for 40 per cent of all lodgements, holds genuine reviews in limbo for months, often at great distress. I acknowledge that the Nixon review found that the system of review was being exploited by those looking to draw out and extend that process—again, particularly focusing on student visas.

For that reason, I do see good grounds for extending the discretion of the court to review cases on the papers, as in schedule 1, and to dispense with oral hearings wherever possible. However, there are obvious concerns around mandating that a type of visa class must be determined purely on the papers. As the Law Council of Australia argues, the blanket refusal of oral hearings for all cases represents a 'disproportionate response' to the issue at hand. In the last two financial years, almost 50 per cent of all student visa cancellations or refusals heard in the ART have been overturned, bringing serious doubt to the assumption that even student visas are clear-cut cases to be determined purely on written submissions.

This brings me to another issue, and the one my amendment deals with. This is the ability of other visa classes to be captured in the future by this blanket rule, simply by regulation. While it may be the case that many student visa cases can be suitably determined on the papers—although, as I have already pointed out, even this is questionable—certain other temporary visa classes could be problematic. The Law Council of Australia, while supporting the decision to exclude protection visas, argues that it is likely that vulnerable applicants would be captured by expanding these powers to other classes, including provisional partner visas, bridging visas and employer sponsored visas. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs states:

These decisions go to the core of how the Tribunal operates for potentially wide groups of people, and relate to its overall design, as determined by Parliament only a year ago. Such decisions should not be left to delegated legislation.

While I acknowledge that these regulations are disallowable, for something so fundamental to the role of the ART I would agree with the Law Council, who argue:

… decisions that remove the ability of whole classes of individuals to have a hearing should, if included in legislation at all, be determined by Parliament under primary legislation.

I take the view of the Law Council very seriously in these matters, because this is about making sure—as I said at the start of my speech—that people can access justice when they believe that government has not served them, as individuals, whether they have been excluded on visas or whether they see a decision by government as unjust.

There are some amendments to this particular bill that I urge the government to accept. The first amendment, from the member for Warringah, would require these changes to be reviewed within three years, allowing the parliament to determine if there have indeed been unintended consequences. A simple review after three years will make sure we have accountability on these decisions. The second amendment, from the member for Curtin, will maintain some level of discretion within the tribunal to hold oral hearings for student and other temporary visa categories if they find sufficient reason to do so. I think that is very practical and simple. The default will be towards determination on the papers. However, that amendment still allows the tribunal discretion if they find sufficient reason to hold an in-person hearing. The final amendment, my amendment, would remove the minister's ability to expand this requirement to other temporary visa classes, instead needing further changes to be made in the primary legislation, as recommended by the Law Council of Australia. If the government were to accept the member for Curtin's amendment, I would see no reason to move my own.

I conclude by saying that no-one disputes that lengthy delays in the tribunal process increase costs, reduce the effectiveness of our entire visa system and unnecessarily hold up genuine visa applicants. There is a human cost as well as a financial cost to the problems of this current system. I strongly urge the government to consider the consequences of such blunt instruments and caution the government, and, indeed, future governments, against using the powers enabled in this bill to bring in other visa classes. I urge the government to accept the amendments made in good faith by members of the crossbench. They are very moderate amendments that will add to the protections in the bill without taking away from the overall purpose and, hopefully, impact of the bill on people's processing times.

Gabriel Ng (Menzies, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most Australians don't commit criminal offences and don't get involved in car accidents, so they don't end up in courts, criminal or civil. But 111,000 Australians, or people who aspire to be Australians, appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal in the last 12 months. When you look at the jurisdiction of this particular tribunal, which is the subject of the amending bill we are talking about today, you will see the breadth of the jurisdiction of the ART. Child support—you would think that that would be a very large proportion of the work the ART does, but it is a very small proportion. There are well over 600,000 Australians who interact or are a part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but a very small proportion of those people ever get to the ART. Indeed, you would think, with the number of Australians who interact with the social security system, that there'd be many people, through Centrelink or paid parental leave, who would be engaging with the ART as a litigant, but hardly anyone of them does compared to what I'm about to talk about. It's the same with veterans or workers compensation cases, or indeed taxation matters.

The majority of the work that's done by the ART is in the area of migration, or indeed those people seeking protection. In any given year, migration makes up 50 to 60 per cent of the work of the ART, or its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That's what's the case. Of those migration cases, about two-thirds of the work that's done relates to student visa issues. If you take migration together with the protection visas people are seeking, they form an overwhelming amount of the work that the ART does. So the bill we're debating today is important. It addresses efficiency and effectiveness in our system, and it maintains integrity and allows people to still pursue their rights in a fair way—the idea of dealing with matters on the papers is a very common thing when it comes to our judicial system.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are committed as a government to upholding the rule of law. We are committed as a government to enabling access to justice and maintaining and promoting the public's trust in our legal system, as a matter of principle. But there won't be trust in the system if people don't get dealt with in a timely way. The 111,000 Australians who dealt with the ART last year, according to the figures from the ART itself, need to make sure they get access to justice.

Administrative law and merits review are important. They're a longstanding pillar of Australia's system of government and our legal system. People who are impacted by decisions of government have a recourse, a right to review, or an avenue of appeal in a relatively informal way. It's critical. We see that often with matters that are dealt with in, say, a lower part of the system, where it's not necessarily a magistrate or a judge but a registrar who deals with matters on an informal basis, in the civil courts. That's why I say that this is a good decision of the government. It is efficient but still fair. It maintains the right of individuals impacted by a government decision to pursue a review of that decision. This ART is an absolute necessity that we undertook to legislate to establish. Remember what the former government did to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They absolutely stacked it with their mates. Any form of failed Liberal or National Party candidate they could find who might have had a law degree from some obscure university they stuck on the AAT. It was astonishing. They didn't even need a law degree, frankly. They just stuck them on there.

And the great irony of the whole thing with the AAT is that you would see in the media the Liberal and National Party politicians constantly berating the AAT for its failure when they were the ones that stuck their mates on there. And they say: 'It is inefficient. They're making decisions we do not like.' Well, I'm sorry. There have been a lot of prime ministers and premiers in the history of this country who had decisions they didn't like. I channel Ben Chifley with the bank nationalisation decision. Prime ministers and premiers do not like a whole bunch of decisions made by courts and tribunals. We had to put in the ART. We just had to, to bring integrity back into the system. They made such a mess of the AAT. We had to resolve the huge backlog of student visas created as a legacy of the Morrison government flinging open the borders after the pandemic. And they constantly criticise us about migration, but the massive increase in migration after COVID happened on their watch. They initiated it, often with the support, can I just say, of the business community and the university sector as well.

This legislation will improve the tribunal's efficiency. There are clear existing caseloads, and we need to address them. We need to reduce the likelihood of backlogs in the future, especially for migration matters. So the bill introduces a new, on-the-papers review process without an oral hearing, and that is just so common in lots of civil matters that are dealt with in our legal system. Student visa matters, like I said, take up two-thirds of the migration matters that the ART deals with. If you look at student visa matters as a percentage of the total number of people who engage with the ART, it is an enormous percentage. We're dealing with a really big problem that has been created courtesy of the Morrison government, and there is a need for us to address this. We're going to create a new discretion for the tribunal to decide not to hold a hearing if additional circumstances and specified criteria are met. These reforms are balanced and targeted. They will enable the tribunal to efficiently manage the caseload. Quick, efficient and informal merits review is a fundamental feature of our legal system. To say it's not is simply nonsense. It just doesn't bear fact. The fact is it is a feature of our legal system. This will improve government decision-making and help maintain public confidence in our institutions.

We're committed to merits review. That is precisely why we abolished the dysfunctional AAT. It was beset, can I just say, with mismanagement and political stacking by those opposite. The new ART that replaced the AAT came into operation in October last year. It's a sustainable model, but we need to improve it. As part of this, we're committed to making sure the ART has the tools it needs to deliver timely and high-quality review of government decisions. One of the core objectives of the ART is to ensure that applications are resolved quickly and with little expense. The cost of justice—as a former litigation lawyer, I know—often results in inequities and injustices in our legal system due to the power imbalance between litigants. Anyone who has ever been charged with a criminal offence knows the power of the state in criminal matters. Anyone that has to litigate a corporate or civil matter involving commercial matters knows the power of money. Anyone that has to make an application for property settlement in a family law case, when you are the party that's at home and often without the qualifications, skills, talents, ability and money against a very wealthy person, knows the power, imbalances and injustices in our systems. So we need to make sure that we can equalise it, but we also need to make sure that we have efficient methods, and that's why this whole process under the ART is critical for those 111,000 Australians and people who engage with the system.

Onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse a grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. We, as politicians in the House of Representatives and, indeed, in the other place, would know that our offices deal with people every day in relation to those issues. In this context, efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making. Backlogs and extended waiting times at the tribunal create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stays in Australia. For genuine applicants, this creates an access to justice issue, as the volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means they have to wait months and, indeed, sometimes years for a decision.

This point was made in the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, delivered by Ms Christine Nixon AO, APM in March 2023. The challenge we face now, since the tribunal was established by the Albanese government, is that the tribunal has seen an unprecedented level of demand for independent review services and, in particular, for applications for review of the student visas I referred to and refusals by delegates in relation to those matters.

What happened was that, at the height of the pandemic in early 2022, the former Morrison government invited international students back to Australia to work in critical sectors to address workforce shortages. It might seem fine in principle, but the implementation of this decision was badly botched. It effectively opened the floodgates, without any proper management or oversight, and in particular they corrupted the student visa pipeline with their terrible decision to uncap student visa work rights.

Students were allowed unlimited access to the job market when they were supposedly in full-time study. The result of this was that a lot of non-genuine students came in, not to study but to earn money, which they sent back home and, thus, contributed significantly to the current backlog the ART is dealing with. Another contributing factor was the post-COVID-19 temporary activity visa, which allowed people on student visas to, at no cost, switch from their student visa or suspend it and work unlimited hours. Even before the current surge, the old, dysfunctional AAT had a shocking case backlog which was allowed to build under the coalition.

The reality is that our government inherited a shocking mess in this area, and we're attempting to deal with it. We tried to rectify this by putting international student numbers on a more sustainable path and reducing the number of student visas issued. To be clear, international education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, including in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. I've got two campuses from the University of Southern Queensland, and I know how important it is for my local community. Indeed, greater priority has now been given to regional and outer metropolitan universities like UniSQ and to TAFE, but we need to manage the growth of the sector in a sustainable fashion, along with our migration program more broadly, and that's exactly what this government is doing. Notwithstanding our efforts in this space, since last year the ART has continued to experience a surge in applications for reviews of decisions to review student visas related to that post-pandemic boom in international students. Given this tribunal is a demand driven organisation, this has highlighted the importance of ensuring that it's equipped with the tools it needs for quick and efficient merits review.

It's clear, from the recent operational experience of the tribunal, that some of its current procedures are not flexible enough. That's why we're doing what we're doing here. Inefficient allocation of resources and significant delays and backlogs, particularly in the temporary migration space, means that applicants are left in limbo for far too long—a one-size-fits-all approach that's resource intensive and not appropriately targeted. So this bill gives the tribunal the additional flexibility. It enhances the powers and procedures of the tribunal to ensure that it achieves the objective we want: resolving matters as expeditiously yet as justly as possible.

Informed by the recommendation of the Nixon review and, I might add, the operational experience of the ART since October 2024, the bill ensures that the merits review is proportionate in so many ways. It amends the legislation to ensure an on-the-papers process, and that's important. What we do in relation to this is critical. We'll seek submissions and consider those submissions before a decision, and that's important. The process will reduce backlogs. Oral hearings will not be required for this visa class, and the growing backlog will be addressed.

This is an important reform. We're cleaning up the Liberals and Nationals mess yet again.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Replacing the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Tribunal operates as Australia's federal merits review body and provides an independent review of decisions made by Australian government agencies, departments and ministers. Its jurisdiction is incredibly wide. It provides a review mechanism for decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. That being the case, it needs to be equipped with the right tools to deliver reviews that are efficient and effective, that are of high quality, that are accurate and sustainable and that are tailored to the decision being reviewed—recognising, of course, that not every review is the same. Every review needs to be determined on its own merits.

The system of reviewing the decisions of agencies, departments and ministers provides the Australian public with trust and confidence in our institutions, and this review mechanism is critical to our system of government. It is indeed the job of the Administrative Review Tribunal to consider each case on its merits by taking a fresh and objective look at the facts, law and policy relating to the original decision and also considering new information. In applying this fresh lens, the tribunal can agree with the original decision, change the original decision or make a new decision.

Overall, however, the objective of the tribunal as set out in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 is to provide the independent mechanism of review that is fair and just, that ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense as possible as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits, and that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of the parties to proceedings. It must also improve the transparency and quality of government decision-making in a way that promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal.

The 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments that the tribunal can review decisions in relation to cover a very broad range of topics. The relevant act, regulation or other legislative instrument must state that the tribunal can review the decision, because there is no general power of review. The most common types of decisions that the tribunal reviews are in relation to visas, including migration and refugee visas, and Centrelink payments, including family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance. The tribunal reviews decisions in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, child support, taxation, Commonwealth workers compensation, and veterans entitlements.

In addition, the tribunal's review jurisdiction includes reviewing decisions relating to Australian citizenship, bankruptcy, civil aviation, corporations and financial services regulation, customs, freedom of information, passports, and security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Again, given the breadth of this jurisdiction, it must operate efficiently and effectively to ensure that fair and just reviews of complex and in some cases life-changing decisions for the applicants are delivered promptly and accurately.

The Administrative Review Tribunal Act itself is home to the description of the tribunal's standard powers and proceedings relating to the conduct of a review. These provisions are subject to modification made in other acts or instruments so that the powers and procedures can, if necessary, be adapted for the unique features of particular case law. For example, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 would amend the ART Act and the Migration Act 1958 to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal may make a decision without holding an oral hearing and to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to certain kinds of applications without holding an oral hearing.

This will be done by amending section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act. That section provides that the tribunal may make decisions without hearings in certain circumstances, including if all the parties to the proceeding consent to that matter being determined without the hearing of the proceeding and it appears to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Other reasons include where the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party; where the hearing of the proceeding and the reviewable decision is wholly in favour of the applicant already; and where the applicant requests the tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing of the proceeding. In all those circumstances, it must also appear to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.

A further reason is if a party fails to comply with the act or an order of the tribunal in relation to the proceeding within a reasonable time, and it still appears to the tribunal that the issues are capable of being adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Similarly, if a party fails to appear, subject to that party being a non-participating party of the proceeding, and the tribunal is satisfied that that party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, directions hearing or dispute resolution process, and if the matter can be determined in the proceeding adequately without a hearing, this is also covered.

The bill will amend section 106 by inserting the additional circumstance in which the tribunal may make its decision in a proceeding without holding a hearing. That additional circumstance also includes a safeguard that it must appear to the tribunal that those issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties; that it appears to the tribunal that it's reasonable in the circumstances to make its decision in the proceeding without holding a hearing; that the tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the tribunal in relation to the tribunal making its decision without holding a hearing; and that the tribunal has taken into account any submissions received. There are significant safeguards around this new additional circumstance.

Given the volume of case load and the breadth of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the need to deliver review decisions promptly is imperative. This new discretion provides additional flexibility to the tribunal in relation to the procedures to be followed in a proceeding without compromising the integrity of the process or the quality of the review determination. Exercise of this new discretion would be conditioned by the appropriate safeguards to ensure that it would be able to be exercised compatibly with the tribunal's existing obligation to afford the parties an opportunity to present their case. This supports the objective of the tribunal, which is to resolve matters as quickly and with as little formality as possible and with proper consideration of the matter—especially given the time and resources required to conduct a substantive hearing.

The bill also seeks to amend the Migration Act to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to applications for review of certain kinds of reviewable migration decisions on the papers without conducting an oral hearing. The objective of this is that enabling decisions of this kind to be reviewed on the papers would facilitate an efficient and proportionate method of review whilst ensuring genuine applicants are given a meaningful and fair opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Specifically, this new requirement will apply to applications for review of decisions to refuse a student visa. Having regard to the nature of the issue under review, the low volume and complexity of written materials relevant to proceedings of this kind, and the temporary and short-term nature of student visas, decisions of this kind are entirely appropriate for review without an oral hearing.

It is also contemplated that the requirement will apply to applications for the review of decisions relating to a temporary visa of a kind prescribed in regulations. In addition to expediency of determinations, this framework would provide further flexibility for the Migration Regulations 1994 to prescribe additional kinds of applications relating to temporary visas as being subject to this new requirement for a review to be able to be conducted on the papers.

Applications which are required to be reviewed on the papers would be subject to a new, bespoke review procedure set out in new division 4A of part 5 of the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials without the tribunal holding an oral hearing. The applicant would be given an opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing. Importantly, and to be absolutely clear, it will not be possible for reviews of decisions relating to permanent visas or reviewable protection decisions, within the meaning of the Migration Act, to be subject to this new requirement.

These amendments seek to further one of the key objectives of the tribunal, which is to ensure that applications to the tribunal are resolved quickly, with as little formality and expense as proper consideration of the matters permits. The amendments further the principle that the merits review process should be proportionate, with the time and resources expended to determine a matter being directly proportionate to the complexity of the issues and the importance of what is at stake. The amendments are not designed to rush decisions without due and proper consideration being given to them. They are designed to promote proportionate and efficient review procedures that mean the tribunal can make decisions efficiently and without delay.

We heard earlier from the member for Blair, who described over 100,000 decisions being made on an annual basis. This is critical when decisions are being made about refusing visas. For example, onshore applicants seeking a review of a decision to refuse the grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. In this context, efficient review procedures are important in order to reduce delays in decision-making, providing genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, thus strengthening the integrity of the migration system. Backlogs and extended wait times at tribunal stage create an incentivised environment for non-genuine applicants to apply for review, simply to extend their stay in Australia. This is not fair for genuine applicants because it creates an access-to-justice issue, as the large volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means genuine applicants could wait months or years for a decision.

The amendments proposed by this bill will provide additional flexibility in the tribunal's procedure in a way that is proportionate to maintaining public trust and confidence in the decision review process. Decisions can be made in a more efficient and timely manner, without compromising the critical right of the applicant to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow the member for Sturt, who's just given a very good argument and a clear explanation of why this legislation is so important. Some 50 years ago, in 1975, in introducing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill, the then Attorney-General Kep Enderby, stated:

… the Tribunal is not to be an ordinary court, but neither is it to be an appendage of government departments. The Tribunal is to be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of departmental administration. Nothing less than a tribunal of full judicial status would be satisfactory for these purposes.

He went on:

The tribunal is not to be bound by the rules of evidence but is empowered to inform itself in any way it sees fit.

He then ends his speech with:

It will provide an opportunity to build up a significant body of administrative law and practice of general application as well as providing the machinery to ensure that persons are dealt with fairly and properly in their relationships with government.

Those opening comments, I believe, very well describe the purpose and intent of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal and its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which is the legislation that we are now dealing with. And albeit the name has changed, it is my view that the purpose and intent of the tribunal never did.

Since 1975, when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established, society and the way it functions has changed markedly. Laws, regulations and processes have changed. Government administrative processes have changed as well. Society has changed. Community expectations and demands have changed. So where a grievance arises, the community must have confidence in the review process that is currently available to them. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It's a legislation that looks at what has happened in the past 50 years and seeks to address any flaws in that legislation, and effectively says, 'How can we do things better?' I believe this legislation will in fact lead us down the path where we will be doing things better.

Any review process must be speedy, because for people who have lodged a review of their case with the department—and we've already heard that there are some 400 pieces of legislation under which people might challenge a decision—the delays can be both traumatic and even life-changing, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out. Indeed, for people waiting for a decision, every day can seem like eternity, adding to stress whilst at the same time putting their lives on hold.

With respect to that, I'm sure other members of this place would have had similar experiences as me within my office in Makin. We regularly see people come into the office who have lodged an appeal, because they want to challenge a decision, and have been waiting months and months for that appeal to be heard. In those intervening months, their lives are effectively put on hold or severely disrupted in a way that certainly causes them severe distress and anxiety. It's important that we have a process that deals with their applications as efficiently as possible.

It's just as important that the outcome must be fair and just, which is why the Administrative Review Tribunal is not bound by normal legal framework. It is for that very reason. In fact, it has often been said that law and justice are not always the same. Indeed, a court is a place where the primary responsibility is to administer and apply law. The ART has, I believe, a slightly different role in that it's a process that seeks to deliver justice, common sense and fairness that might not otherwise be found when you simply apply law. In other words, it's a process where one would say it delivers a fair go. Sounds simple, but regrettably that has not always been the case. Too often decisions are made by ministers, their delegates or departmental officers who use their personal judgement and their analysis and sometimes, regrettably, their bias in reaching the decisions they make. We saw that with the robodebt debacle, where a flawed computer-generated process was used to burden people with wrongful debts. As everyone in this House knows, the consequences of the robodebt debacle were devastating for so many people. It's the role of the ART to ensure that the community can have confidence in whatever processes we put in place, from here going forward.

Decisions under this new arrangement can now be made on the basis of written materials, without holding an oral hearing. This is particularly with respect to student visa cases, but I understand there is also flexibility for that to be extended in the future. The point I want to make is based on my experience in the Makin electorate. Many people have come in and said, 'Yes, we will lodge an application for a hearing to be held, but we don't feel confident to front up to the people that are going to sit there and make the decision.' Because they don't know the laws or they don't speak the language well—whatever the case is—they feel somewhat nervous about appearing before a tribunal, which they envisage as being a court setting. This new arrangements means that, in their own quiet time, they will be able to write things down and put together a submission, perhaps with the help of people who are willing to assist them, and then submit it so it can form part of the hearing. This is incredibly important, and it's an improvement on the current process, whereby they would otherwise have to go in themselves and appear.

This process will be much more streamlined. It will enable more cases to be heard, and that in turn will shorten the waiting times that people are currently experiencing with respect to their appeal applications. As I said a moment ago, being able to present their case in the quietness of their own home will certainly save people the emotional stress they might feel when appearing before a quasi-judicial body. Simultaneously, timely decision-making will prevent non-genuine visa applicants from using the Administrative Review Tribunal as a delaying tactic, as the member for Sturt alluded to in her contribution a few moments ago. I have no doubt that some of the applications for review are lodged simply to delay a final decision being made. That not only ties up the tribunal's time and resources and puts people in the waiting queue for even longer, but it's also a costly process for taxpayers. It is often used simply as a delaying tactic so that someone can continue to do whatever it is they are appealing against. Again, a streamlined process which reduces the time for an application to be heard will hopefully eliminate some of that as well.

Since 2024 we've seen a surge in student visa refusals. I don't know how many of those reviews end up in a decision being overturned. In fact, I say this with respect to all applications that go before the ART. How many of them successfully overturn the original decision? It would be an interesting study to carry out, and it would be important to know those statistics. Without knowing those statistics, it seems to me that the increase in the number of student applications warrants specific focus on those applications. This legislation does that, because it allows the process to be streamlined through applications being heard without the person appearing in person. It's a process which I believe will go a long way towards fixing up the current problem, which is the long waiting list.

There are other matters in this legislation that others have spoken of which I won't go into detail about. I see the minister is in the chamber right now, and she probably wants to sum up. In a nutshell, this is simply an improvement that is warranted and arises because, as things change, we need to change the laws of the land to ensure that they are still relevant and applicable to society today. I commend the legislation to the House.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 equips the tribunal with the tools it needs to ensure that it can continue to provide a fair, quick and efficient merits review. In particular, the bill expands the tribunal's ability to make decisions based on written materials without holding an oral hearing. Oral hearings are time and resource intensive. The bill recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach that requires oral hearings be conducted in all matters is unnecessarily rigid.

The bill would enhance the tribunal's powers and procedures to ensure that review procedures are efficient and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The bill would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions—specifically student visa refusals. This aims to address the significant surge in applications for review of student visa refusal decisions experienced by the tribunal since early 2024. These reviews will be subject to a new review procedure conducted entirely on the basis of written materials. Applicants would be given the opportunity to present their case in writing and present information to the tribunal in support of their case. This procedure could be expanded by regulation to include decisions in relation to other temporary visa types but not protection visas or permanent visas.

The bill would also amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 to enable the tribunal to dispense with an oral hearing if it appears that the issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties and it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing. This new discretion will ensure that simple matters and straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible while still providing a fair and just review. The tribunal would be required to consult the parties about this and take their submissions into account. This bill reflects the ongoing commitment of the government to ensuring the tribunal is able to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while ensuring applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.

I thank all members who have made a contribution to this debate, especially for bringing to light some of the experiences of their own constituents and circumstances that are very much about the human experience with the tribunal system. I was pleased to hear some of the contributions from the members for Sturt and Makin, who again highlighted the fact that there needs to be a balancing between the efficiency of the tribunal system and ensuring that access to justice is served. It is through consultation with impacted parties, the tribunal itself and relevant stakeholders that we have arrived at this position of being able to bring forward proposals to make the ART much more responsive and to ensure that we address those backlogs where they are occurring. Ultimately that is in the interests of all our constituents as well as of the rule of law and access to justice overall. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.