Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

Exactly. And what happens when someone puts in their application for the student visa appeal to be considered? They get on a bridging visa. Bridging visas are meant to be part of the migration system to provide an interim measure for people to be able to stay in the country while their migration status is resolved. They're not meant to be a long-term solution to resolving migration status. But we now have an extraordinary statistic. At 30 June 2019, there were 180,000 bridging visas. That's about 5½ to six years ago. We now have in this country 402,000 people on bridging visas. Nearly half a million people in this country are on bridging visas. That is not sustainable. It's not sustainable to have that many people in the country on bridging visas. So 180,000 has gone up to 402,000, and it keeps going up. People's migration statuses have to be resolved fairly and efficiently, and we need to limit the number of people in this country on bridging visas. The system is breaking. The system isn't working. And these figures tell the story.

This leads to another issue. The Centre for Population within the Department of the Treasury provides very useful analysis with respect to demographic observations for Australia. They released their last statement last month. This is the 2025 Population Statement. This issue with respect to the resolution of appeals made in relation to student visas and onshore protection visas and the growing numbers is having an impact on the Centre for Population's ability to actually forecast population. That's how bad it's getting. I want to quote to you from page 1. It makes the first page in the overview of the Centre for Population's statement. It says:

NOM—

net overseas migration—

is forecast to decline further in 2025-26 and 2026-27, driven by fewer migrant arrivals and an increase in migrant departures.

We have seen NOM coming down over the last three years. The last final figure at 30 June 2025 was 306,000. But this is the issue. It says:

However, departures are expected to be lower than in the 2024 Statement as migrants on temporary visas are departing at lower rates than experienced in the past.

On page 5, the statement says:

However, there is considerable uncertainty in the outlook for departures. Departure rates are lower than prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting Australia's relatively favourable economic conditions, including the low unemployment rate.

In the population statement for 2025, they actually refer to this issue of the explosion in active student visa refusal cases. This is one of the issues. This is making it difficult for the Centre for Population to actually estimate what net overseas migration is going to be year to year. And why wouldn't it when you see that explosion in bridging visas, from 180,000 to 402,000, and the explosion in cases before the ART, which are upwards of 48,000 and on the way to over 50,000? It will be interesting to hear the latest figures. So that's the context in terms of student visas.

In relation to the provisions, I listened carefully to what Senator Shoebridge said. I am all for procedural fairness—absolutely—but we actually have a crisis in terms of dealing with this workload. It's actually a crisis. It's gone up from just over 2,000 cases to over 48,000. These cases need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved efficiently and effectively. So I want to make this point. In these cases, those seeking a review of their case will still have the right to put their case, and obviously they will. It's just that, in the vast majority of cases, the case will be resolved on the papers. So whoever is the decision-maker doesn't have to go through the administrative burden of having to get a hearing room and having to make appointments with all the representatives and then, if maybe one of them doesn't show up or there's an issue, having to do it all again. That all adds time. The main point is that we have a system which makes sure that people seeking for their case to be reviewed have an opportunity to put their case, and they will be able to put their case under this bill. That's important.

Secondly, the ART has the power under this bill to consider a hearing if it's appropriate in all the circumstances. So the ART will still have that power through a particular process to hear a case if they consider it's appropriate in all the circumstances.

Then, in terms of process, there are safeguards. The ART must invite the applicant to make submissions and provide evidence. The ART must give adverse information. That's information that will be used against the applicant, such as the student seeking their visa. The ART must give adverse information to the applicant. That's the way it should be. The applicant is to have access to written material which is used in relation to the case. So there are safeguards in relation to the process under the bill, and I support those safeguards. I think they should provide comfort to senators who are faced with this situation that needs to be addressed—over 48,000 cases.

The last point that I'll make is that it's quite clear—on my reading of the legislation, at least—that this process of hearings on the papers will not apply to appeals in relation to protection visas, humanitarian visas or permanent visas. So we're talking about student visas and perhaps other classes of temporary visas. We're not talking about protection visas, where issues of vulnerability are particularly relevant, and we're not talking about permanent visas. We're talking primarily about this particular cohort of student visas.

I now want to say just say a few words quickly on the ART reform process. I argued, when it was proposed that the AAT be replaced by the ART, that it was unnecessary. I said you could make really decent reforms to the AAT without abolishing it and going through all of that hullabaloo. I really genuinely thought there was an opportunity to make those reforms. But what are the results? When the AAT was abolished, there were 67,000 cases on hand. As at 30 November 2025, the new Administrative Review Tribunal has 126,658 cases on hand. (Time expired)