David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I spoke earlier about the rationale behind this. This is Labor taking failed coalition policy for administrative review designed to punch down on migrants out of the deep freeze, whacking it in the microwave and reheating it. It is bad policy of the then coalition, now Liberal Party, punching down on migrants in the ART and deciding to take away basic rights when it comes to challenging visa refusals and basic procedural fairness. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 primarily seeks to amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal can make a decision on migration matters based on the papers without ever hearing from the applicant and without having the benefit of an oral hearing.

Currently, the ART can only review a case on the papers if all parties consent. There may be occasions when all parties consent to something being done on the papers. There may be a clearly defined, narrow case in which you're legally represented and you know you've got a narrow issue—an interpretation issue or a narrow factual issue—that can be decided on the papers. If parties agree, then, by all means, do it. But, overwhelmingly, when it comes to migration matters, people are not represented. Overwhelmingly, there are significant cultural barriers and barriers to understanding how the legal system works. The benefit of an oral hearing, particularly with a translator, can be that people who are unfamiliar with the process and don't have legal assistance can actually get a fair go, because the tribunal has an obligation in an oral hearing to try and understand what the issues are before it, to tease them out with an applicant and to fairly decide the case. But, if you remove oral hearings, you remove that chance for fairness.

This bill seeks to change it so the ART can consider any case on the papers if the tribunal thinks it can be 'adequately determined' on the papers and that 'it is reasonable in the circumstances'. That change is to all migration matters. That will be a significant change to current practice and will negatively impact the most marginalised people, as the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre made clear when they said:

Our view is that oral hearings are … critical to ensure that people seeking asylum receive a fair assessment of their protection claims.

And I endorse what the ASRC say.

But this bill also proposes changes to the Migration Act to require—to force—the tribunal to make certain decisions only on the papers and to not permit an oral hearing. Specifically, it proposes that as a blanket requirement to review classes of migration matters that are going to be set out in the regulations, but we know it's going to start with student visas. I want to stress that it starts with student visas but it can be expanded under the regulations to any other visa class.

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

Not protection visas?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The earlier changes can apply to protection visas; this particular part can't apply to protection visas.

The government is claiming these changes are needed for efficiency; however, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre pointed out this in its submission:

… the Bill sacrifices the objectives of being fair and accessible for alleged efficiency

When you look at the bill more closely, the problem with the delays and the increased backlog in the ART—which is real—is not the result of the way in which oral hearings are happening; it's not the result of that part of the ART's structure. The problem is twofold. One is that this government has failed to appoint enough tribunal members for the ART to be at full strength and able to deal with it. That's pretty shameful. The ART is wildly understrength, and no doubt we'll explore this next week in estimates. The last time I looked they were some 200 members short of what their full appointment should be.

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

Two hundred? I thought it was closer to 100.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was closer to 200, but we'll see next week, in estimates, the full-time equivalent gap between what they're meant to be budgeted and resourced for and what they're actually budgeted and resourced for. Whether it's 100 or 200—even 100 members short is, I reckon, a pretty bad call. Then the government come in and say, 'Oh well, they might be 100 or 200 members short, but the problem is how the hearings happen, not the fact that we don't appoint tribunal members.'

If you look closely, the problem also lies, probably even more fundamentally, with the Department of Home Affairs. Evidence given by the ART revealed that lodgements in the ART for review of Home Affairs student visa refusals have increased exponentially. As the CEO and principal registrar of the ART said, in 2022-23 there were 2,057 student visa refusal matters; in 2023-24 it was 11,668; in 2024-25 it escalated to 32,198; and in the first two months of this financial year there were 5,755 cases lodged. That surge of refusals from Home Affairs also means that student visa reviews have taken up a greater and greater percentage of the ART case load. Mr Hawkins, the CEO, said:

… in 2024-25, it was about 37 per cent; in 2023-24, it was 22 per cent; and, in 2022-23, it was 4.6 per cent.

I said that the wrong way around, but I'm just repeating the way in which Mr Hawkins gave evidence. So it went up from 4.6 per cent of the case load in 2022-23 to 37 per cent of the case load in 2024-25—dealing with student visas. Not only has the sheer number of student visas reviews increased, such that they now consume over a third of the ART's case load, but the quality of decisions made by Home Affairs, as measured by the overturned rate of review, has dramatically fallen.

The ART's chief lawyer, Ms Haddad, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:

I've got the percentages for student visa refusals. For 2022-23, the number of set asides was 43 per cent. For 2023-24, the number of set asides was 46 per cent. For 2024-25, it was 47 per cent, and for the first two months of this year it's 46 per cent.

What were they before COVID? Ms Haddad said:

They were closer to 25 per cent.

The historical norm is that one-quarter of refusals get overturned and visas get granted, but Home Affairs are now churning them through at a massive rate. They are not applying due diligence and they are often refusing matters because a document is missing. Rather than giving the opportunity for the document to be provided, they're just refusing them, in the tens of thousands, and passing the buck to the underresourced, understaffed ART. That's what's happening.

From the dissenting report:

It turns out that Home Affairs has decided to refuse thousands of student visas because of missing documentation. We were told that the 'common reasons for remittal in the student space include objective material—assessable items such as confirmation of enrolments, penal clearances, English assessments, financial capacities, medicals and biometrics'. If these documents are 'not provided to the department as part of the primary application … then the visa application will be refused'.

So what we're seeing is Home Affairs moving their administrative problem and, rather than doing due diligence, checking for documents, giving people a chance, they just refuse it, move it on, whack it into the ART and say it's all the ART's problem, and then the government doesn't even resource the ART. To continue:

So, thousands of lodgements are being filed in the ART because Home Affairs has decided to refuse the applications that are missing one or two documents. Rather than Home Affairs giving visa applicants fair notice that their applications are missing documentation, and then a chance to correct that, instead they are just refusing them—

And that's what is leading to tens of thousands of lodgements in the ART, and that's why half of them are being overturned and sent back to Home Affairs—

The obvious answer to this mess lies in Home Affairs reforming its processes, giving applicants natural justice and fair notice, not in stripping away rights once their bad decisions are reviewed in the ART.

Furthermore, the high set-aside rate for student visas shows that proper hearings are essential. Removing oral hearings will likely lead to more judicial reviews, which would in turn create more inefficiency, not less. As the Migration Institute of Australia pointed out:

'The ART's high set aside rate of 47% in student visa refusals, suggests systemic challenges in primary decision making. Removing oral hearings would prevent affected appellants from properly challenging adverse decisions.

Appellants denied an oral hearing may be more likely to seek judicial review, increasing pressure on the courts and undermining the Bill's stated efficiency objective.'

Also, National Legal Aid Point out:

In 2022/23, NLA supported the trial of paper-only decision-making through the Independent Expert Review program to assist with the backlog of [National Disability Insurance Scheme] matters in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This included legal assistance prior to paper review. This trial was ended after nine months as it was not found to be an efficient way to clear the backlog of cases.

So there has been a trial of paper-only reviews in the NDIS space, and it did not work, even with legal assistance. As the Refugee Advice and Casework Service said:

There is no evidence to suggest that the removal of an oral hearing has a positive causative impact in reducing backlogs or increasing efficiency in processing appeals.

At the core of this bill is an issue of the long wait times at the ART, which have grown significantly, and we acknowledge that. For example, the number of refugee cases on hand in 2012-13 was just under 2,000, and it has grown to some 40½ thousand in the most recent annual report. Annual reports show that the average wait time was 243 weeks, up from around 30 weeks a decade ago. If you want to know the cause of much of that, it has been both Labor and the Liberal Party withdrawing legal assistance to applicants in the ART, withdrawing legal assistance from people who are challenging ART matters. When you withdraw legal assistance, you draw out cases, you increase wait times and you get in this mess.

I want to thank groups like the Migrant Workers Centre, the ASRC, National Legal Aid and others who pointed out that this bill is not the solution. That's why the Greens won't support it. You don't just punch down on migrants, you don't just take their rights away; you fix the problems. The problems here are a lack of resourcing the ART and the mess in Home Affairs.

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

There is some, or even a lot, that I support in the contribution that was being made by my friend and colleague Senator Shoebridge. I think that he has made a positive contribution and raised a number of material issues in relation to this debate on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

However, there is a key point that we teased out from the Department of Home Affairs during the last Senate estimates, and I do want to talk about this. One of the attributes of our administrative law review system is the ability of applicants seeking review to introduce new evidence. The Department of Home Affairs were quite clear that one of the issues they are facing in relation to documents which haven't been presented at the initial application stage for a student visa is that it isn't necessarily that the documents exist and they haven't been attached. It could well be—and this is the issue the Department of Home Affairs raised—that they haven't got their enrolment, because they haven't satisfied the particular requirements of the visa. They've lodged the application without meeting those requirements, so they get refused, but then they can go into the ART system and they have that period, which is now, on average, over a year—one year and three months—to get the document. If they have the document then, it goes back to the Department of Home Affairs.

We have a system where, if someone applying for a student visa doesn't have their proverbial ducks in a row, with all the documents they need to have, and the Department of Home Affairs rejects the visa, the applicant can go to the ART, knowing the ART has to consider all new evidence, which could include the meeting of the omissions which prevented them from getting the student visa in the first instance. This is a fundamental issue in relation to how the system works. You can put in an application without all the relevant information, because you don't have it—you don't meet the requirements. When you get knocked back, you know you can appeal to the ART, and you've got an extra year and a half, or whatever it is, to get the omissions filled. You'll either get the visa or it will go back to the Department of Home Affairs. The system can't work that. It's breaking.

The numbers are extraordinary. I try to avoid hyperbole, but in this case there's not enough hyperbole. Consider this: 2½ years ago in the Administrative Review Tribunal, as Senator Shoebridge touched on, there were 2,278 cases where people were seeking a review of decisions on cancellations or refusals of student visas. That's 2,278—just hold that figure. Only 2½ years later, as at 30 November—and I checked the latest figures—there are 48,826 cases. It's extraordinary. It's gone from 2,278 cases 2½ years ago to now 48,826 cases that have to be resolved in the ART. These are effectively court cases that have to be resolved by the system.

In our last Senate estimates—and Senator Shoebridge was there—we were asking questions of the always helpful registrar of the ART. He told us that, as at 31 October 2025, there were 46,590 cases. I checked the figures yesterday, and in just one month that had increased by 2,236 cases. In just one month they'd got an additional case load equal to the amount they had in total 2½ years ago. In just one month it's gone up 2½ thousand. I don't know what it's going to be when we go into estimates next week, Senator Shoebridge, but it won't surprise me if the number is over 50,000, given this rate of increase. It's quite ordinary.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they would have decided some of them, too.

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

Well, they're coming in far quicker than they're deciding them, and it's a major issue in terms of the fact that they have all of these vacancies, as Senator Shoebridge alluded to. I thought the figure was a hundred, which is bad enough, but it may well be higher than that. There were some good members of the ART who lost their jobs when the AAT changed into the ART. There were really good members who were vindictively targeted and lost their jobs. They could have been deciding these cases. So we're in this situation.

The other point I want to make is something that Senator Shoebridge touched on, and to some extent it touches upon what Senator Lambie raised about veterans. Consider this: the Administrative Review Tribunal is there to provide administrative review of decisions in relation to migration, NDIS, social security and veterans matters. It's so important that all Australians have access to the Administrative Review Tribunal and get their matters heard as quickly as possible.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More waiting time!

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

Exactly, Senator Lambie, and the waiting time can be deadly. Two and a half years ago the student visa appeals constituted three per cent of the case load of the ART; it's now 38.4 per cent. It was three per cent and it's now 38.4 per cent. That means that you might be waiting for an NDIS decision, a Veterans' Affairs decision, a social security decision, a tax decision, another migration decision—say, for a skills in demand visa—but the ART is absolutely overwhelmed with these student visa applications. It's extraordinary.

Then there are the wait times. The latest figure I've got in terms of wait times for these matters to be resolved shows it's now out to 66 weeks for these student visa applications. At the rate of lodgement, it's just going to blow out further. That's one year and three months.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One year of school you're not doing.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to 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)

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I want to recognise the contribution of colleagues in this debate and the very important points raised by both Senator Shoebridge and Senator Scarr.

At its heart, this bill engages with the question of how we balance efficiency in government decision-making with fairness, accountability and access to justice for individuals. The ART is the place people can turn to when the power of the state has been exercised against them and they believe a decision is wrong. For many Australians and the many citizens of other countries living in Australia, it is the final opportunity to be heard. The ART reviews decisions that affect every aspect of people's lives—visas, social security, disability support, veterans' entitlements, workers' compensation and more. These issues determine whether someone can stay with their family, continue their studies, access support or remain in work. When we change how the tribunal operates, we change how justice is delivered in this country.

The tribunal was established barely a year ago, following the abolition of the deeply flawed AAT. I welcomed the decision to abolish the AAT on the basis that it had been deeply infected by political appointments and so had lost public trust. The promise of the ART was clear—a system that was more independent, more transparent and, importantly, more accessible. It was meant to restore confidence in merits review and to put fairness back at the centre of administrative justice.

The problem this bill seeks to address is very real. The tribunal is facing an extraordinary backlog. Delays are long and growing. People are waiting months and sometimes more than a year for decisions that shape their futures. An old idiom rings true here: justice delayed is justice denied. A significant driver of this backlog is the surge in student visa appeals, which now account for roughly 40 per cent of all applications before the tribunal. These delays impose real costs on students, whose lives are put on hold; on families and employers living with uncertainty; on universities and businesses; and on the public purse. The status quo is clearly unacceptable and needs to change. So I welcome the intent of this bill, and I understand the desire to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs and improve the integrity of our migration system.

But efficiency is not a value that exists in isolation. It must be considered in light of the need for fairness, and speed shouldn't come at the cost of fairness. The changes made by this bill represent a substantial shift away from oral hearings and towards paper based decision-making, particularly in migration matters. In many cases, deciding matters on the papers will be entirely appropriate. Written processes can be faster, cheaper and less intimidating. They can help the tribunal deal with the high volumes of straightforward cases more efficiently. The tribunal should absolutely have the flexibility to use these tools where they make sense. But a blanket removal of oral hearings for entire classes of cases raises serious concerns.

Almost half of student visa decisions reviewed by the tribunal are overturned. That alone should give us pause. What I take it to show is that these decisions are not always straightforward. Student visa applications are frequently by young people. Many are navigating complex legal processes for the first time, often without legal representation. Many people do not have English as their first language, and oral hearings allow tribunal members to ask questions, clarify evidence and ensure applicants have a genuine opportunity to present their case.

There is also deeper issue at stake here: who decides how justice is delivered, and executive overreach. The power to expand paper-only decision-making to other visa classes is left to the minister through delegated legislation. That's an extraordinary amount of discretion over a fundamental feature of the tribunal's operation. Decisions that remove the right to be heard should not be made by regulation as a matter of administrative convenience. They go to the design of the system itself. They should be determined by parliament. They should be subject to debate like this and subject to amendments, with, ultimately, the parliament deciding. This should not be up to the executive. I think we are seeing a worrying trend of the executive giving itself more and more powers in this country. From talking to people I represent here in Canberra, they recognise this trend, they're concerned about this trend and they would like the government to not continue down this path.

While recognising the need to reduce the backlog, we should also be honest about the broader risks. If people feel that they have not been given a fair hearing, they are more likely to seek judicial review, as has been pointed out in this debate. So there is a risk that the changes will shift the burden to the courts, increasing costs and prolonging uncertainty. We've seen this before. Paper based systems that prioritise speed over fairness often end up slower and more expensive in the long run.

In case this bill does not get a committee stage, as unfortunately we're increasingly seeing with this government, I want to foreshadow that I will move two amendments. The first would allow the president of the Administrative Review Tribunal to determine that an oral hearing should be held in student visa matters where fairness, complexity or individual circumstances warrant it. This approach—put forward by the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, in the House of Representatives—preserves efficiency as the default while restoring discretion where justice demands it. The second amendment would introduce a statutory review of these changes. This was proposed by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, in the other place. It would require parliament to revisit the operation and consequences of these amendments after a set period, and that matters. The ART is a new institution. We should not be locking in structural changes without committing to review their real-world impact.

These amendments are not radical proposals. They do not undermine the purpose of the bill. I believe they strengthen it. They recognise that good policy is adaptive, evidence based and accountable, and I encourage colleagues to support these changes. Ultimately, this debate is not about being for or against efficiency. It is about recognising that administrative justice is not just a processing function. The speed of decisions must be improved and backlogs must be reduced, but, if we hollow out fairness in the name of speed, then we erode trust, not just in the tribunal but in government itself. I hope the government will engage constructively with these amendments, which they have seen in the House. There is an opportunity to improve the functioning of the tribunal without risking the principles it was created to uphold.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For Australians out there, the Administrative Review Tribunal, also known as the ART, is the old AAT. They just took one of the A's out and replaced it with an R because, over time, political appointments were once again made in this place, and the ART was stacked with people who probably weren't qualified for and shouldn't have been in those chairs. However, when you remove people and change your name, you may want to put in place people who are qualified to be there. That would have been a good start. I have to say, your new attorney-general's been in there for seven or eight months, and we still have not stacked that in with members who need to be in there. I'm sure there are plenty of retired judges who would be happy to come in and do a few hours a week to get it down.

My other problem is with Home Affairs and the 'ticking and flicking'. If I'm hearing right, doesn't Home Affairs write back to applicants and say, 'I'm sorry, but, for us to process this application, we need more documents,' or do they just say a straight no'? Honestly, if it's not giving them a chance to say yes, then that's why you're filling up the ART. Maybe they need more discretion. Instead of just saying no to the visa, maybe they should tell the person why and explain that they would need further material to assess their application.

The ART is currently managing a significant backlog—I think we've heard about that. It's estimated to be around 112,000 to 127,000 matters. Nearly half of those are student visa decisions, which are about 38 per cent—or higher, as we've heard this morning—of the tribunal's total caseload.

This bill is to help clear the apparent backlog. Instead of having oral hearings, the ART would review this backlog on the papers. I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with expanding the circumstances when it comes to complex issues, whether it's the NDIS, Centrelink or veterans, especially when we're talking about medical conditions, psychiatric reports and things like that. I'm sorry, but, firstly, if you have to deal with DVA, you can guarantee that, whatever they're supplying the ART, they're only supplying what they need to. But sometimes the papers you want to supply don't get in there. We can't take our own lawyers into the ART. We have the Veterans' Review Board that comes under that and we're not allowed to take our own lawyers in there. The Commonwealth can have its lawyers, but we can't. We can take in an advocate. We're already disadvantaged when it comes to the Veterans' Review Board. It's very unfair. To enforce decisions on us when we go through the AAT without having all of that, without hearing us out, is not on. I imagine it's the same with people who have complex medical conditions under the NDIS and, of course, Centrelink.

In other words, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that the bill's provisions permitting the ART to determine matters on the papers without oral hearings are targeted and applied to certain areas, not to all of them. Sure, do it with student visas. They should be pretty straightforward; they shouldn't be complex issues. Either you want a visa or you don't. If you haven't supplied enough information, then get Home Affairs to ask them for more information if that's not the way it's working.

I also have an amendment that seeks to remove the power of the minister to make regulations to expand the scope of matters to be determined without an oral hearing. It seems like I'm not the only one who's a bit unsatisfied with that from the government. Like I said, it's not just student visas this legislation would capture. It also includes over 400 Commonwealth acts, ranging from taxation, Centrelink disputes and NDIS entitlements to workers comp matters. You're going to tick and flick this on the papers, are you? Yeah, I'll tell you what: it hasn't worked well in Veterans' Affairs and, at times, with the VRB.

Again, I have no problem with clearing a backlog, but this bill, in its current form, has the ability to remove natural justice from the applicants. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills stated:

… the conduct of oral hearings enhance public confidence, transparency, efficiency and the accessibility of proceedings and may, in some cases, be required for procedural fairness.

We've seen the transparency from this government. It's already been determined, it's out there in paper and it's black and white. You are the worst when it comes to transparency. You are worse than these guys were for those 10 years by double the amount. You are absolutely shocking. You fibbed to the Australian people that you would give us more transparency, and you did not. That is disgraceful and shameful on your behalf.

Given your government's very poor record on transparency over there so far in the past four years, you would think that you wouldn't want to do anything that further undermines Australia's public confidence in an important institution like the ART. I ask you to have a look at this and I ask you also to target it because this is not going to be uniform right across the bill. It just won't. It won't work in some areas. You're asking for trouble. Seriously, I have to say about the load on student visas, my goodness, is the right hand not talking to the left hand or something? What's new in this place?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to focus on one group who will be disproportionately affected by this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and that is migrants who speak English as a second or additional language. There is no question that improving the efficiency of government processes is important. A system that works faster and uses public resources wisely benefits everyone. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, nor can it come at the cost of transparency and accountability. A review system that is faster but inaccessible or that shifts responsibility onto others is not efficiency; it's a failure. This bill proposes the removal of oral hearings, replacing them with reviews conducted largely on the papers. We are told this is about streamlining process, yet, for many migrants navigating the system in a second language, written-only processes are not faster; they are inaccessible. Oral hearings matter. They allow individuals to explain their circumstances in their own voice with interpreters present and give decision-makers the opportunity to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. Limiting that safeguard may save time on paper, but it risks unjust outcomes. Efficiency must not replace fairness.

The most serious flaw in this bill is not only who it disadvantages but where the burden is being shifted to. By moving to reviews that are conducted on the papers, the government is not actually reducing work; it is transferring it onto migrant and refugee services, community legal centres, settlement organisations and NGOs. These organisations are already underfunded, overstretched and operating at capacity. This is not an unintended consequence; it is entirely foreseeable. When people are denied oral hearings, they do not suddenly gain the skills to prepare complex written submissions in a second language. They'll return to community organisations for help drafting submissions, translating documents and navigating procedural requirements. That's not reform; that is cost shifting. It's the government quietly outsourcing its procedural responsibilities to the community sector without providing additional funding or support.

So I ask: has the government modelled the increased demand this bill will place on migrant and community services? Has it consulted with the NGOs expected to absorb the workload? And, if it has, why is there no funding allocated? A system that relies on unpaid labour to function is not efficient; it's irresponsible.

This bill also forms part of a broader pattern. Only recently, under legislation passed in the context of hate speech laws, this parliament removed the right of migrants to seek review of visa cancellation decisions made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs. Independent review is being curtailed, and access to oral hearings is being wound back. These are core accountability mechanisms being dismantled, not minor procedural adjustments.

The same problem appears in this bill's delegation of power. It allows the expansion of 'on the papers' reviews by regulation rather than legislation. That means that future decisions to limit oral hearings could be made by the executive, with minimal scrutiny, rather than being debated in this parliament. Any extension beyond the categories currently proposed should be subject to proper consultation, transparency and the possibility of a disallowance. Efficiency cannot justify bypassing parliament or undermining procedural safeguards.

This must also be seen in the context of broader transparency concerns. Proposed changes to freedom-of-information laws would require people to pay to access government documents. For Australians on low incomes, that cost is a true barrier. If you cannot afford to know how a decision was made, accountability becomes theoretical. If oral hearings are removed, we must be honest about who will be affected. It will not be well-resourced applicants with legal teams. It will be migrants trying to navigate a complex system in a second language while working, raising families and relying on community organisations that are already stretched to breaking point.

Finally, what consultation has been undertaken with migrant communities and service providers? Were their concerns heard? If the feedback exists, it should be tabled. If it does not, this legislation has been developed without regard for those who will be forced to make it work. Administrative review is meant to safeguard fairness and accountability. It's not supposed to shield government decisions from scrutiny or offload responsibility onto charities and community organisations. Efficiency is important, but it must strengthen the system, not erode it. I urge the government to reconsider these measures and to ensure that any efficiencies achieved do not come at the expense of fairness, transparency or the integrity of the review process.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 supports the tribunal to deliver efficient and high-quality reviews of government decisions. The bill enhances the tribunal's powers and procedures so that merits review processes are proportionate and efficient. Efficient and timely decision-making is particularly important in the context of the tribunal's review of migration decisions, such as reviews of decisions to review visas.

Delays in decision-making can cause backlogs, which creates an access-to-justice issue for genuine visa applicants while incentivising non-genuine applicants to apply for a merits review in order to extend their stay. The bill supports the tribunal by expanding its ability to make decisions based on written materials without holding an oral hearing. The government has considered the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee following the inquiry into the bill. The government agrees with recommendations 1(b) and 2 of the committee's report and will be proposing amendments to the bill to implement those recommendations.

The bill itself 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, decisions to refuse to grant a student visa. Subject to the passage of government amendments, the new procedure would only apply to reviews of temporary visa decisions prescribed in regulations. The proposed amendments give effect to recommendation 2 of the committee's report. The committee recommended 'that the government consider amending the bill to require a decision to refuse to grant a student visa to be prescribed in order to be an "application to be reviewed on the papers"'. The government's intention is that student visa refusal matters will be the first visa type prescribed to be subject to this process.

Reviews of temporary visas such as student visas are suitable to be determined on the papers, and that's having regard to a couple of things: the nature of the issues of the review, the short-term nature of these visa times, and the low volume and complexity of relevant materials. Applications would still be required to be reviewed on the papers. They would be subject to a new review procedure set out in the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials without the tribunal having to hold an oral hearing. That means that the applicants would be given the opportunity to present their cases in writing. There would be no limit on the information that they would be able to present to the tribunal to support their case.

Key features of this review procedure include requiring the tribunal to invite an applicant to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to the issues under review; requiring the tribunal to give certain information to an applicant and allow the applicant to comment on it; enabling an applicant to request the department to provide access to material given to the tribunal for the purposes of the review; retaining the tribunal's ability to request or obtain additional documents or materials by other means; and requiring the tribunal to make its decision after considering any submissions, evidence and comments given by the applicant and any other material that's given to the tribunal without holding an oral hearing.

The bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal additional flexibility to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing in relation to other kinds of cases. The tribunal would be able to do so if it appears to the tribunal that 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 recognises that whether procedural fairness requires an oral hearing will depend on the circumstances of each case. It will ensure that simple matters with straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible, enabling a proportionate allocation of tribunal resources. An important safeguard is that, before deciding to dispense with an oral hearing, the tribunal must consult the parties about this and take the party's submissions into account.

The government will propose amendments that would implement recommendation 1(b) of the committee's report. The committee recommended that the government consider, in consultation with the ART, 'amending the bill to further improve the operational efficiency of the tribunal'. These amendments would give effect to the recommendation by enabling a non-judicial deputy president to be appointed to act as the president when the president is absent or unable to perform the duties of the office for a period of up to three weeks. The committee also recommended that the government consider, in consultation with the ART, amendments that might assist the president to better and more efficiently carry out their functions—for example, by expanding the powers that may be delegated to a deputy president.

The government proposes amendments that would enable the president to delegate certain powers related to the management of member performance and conduct to non-judicial deputy presidents. It is appropriate for non-judicial deputy presidents to be able to exercise these powers in association with their existing functions for the management of member performance and conduct. The government has considered the committee's recommendations that the government consider amendments that would give the tribunal greater flexibility to provide oral instead of written reasons while ensuring that the tribunal is required to provide written reasons if a party to a proceeding requests them. The government will further consider and consult on this recommendation.

The government has also considered dissenting reports through the committee process, and the government disagrees with the recommendations in those reports. Recommendation 2 of the dissenting report from the Australian Greens is that the government restore legal funding for applicants in the ART for review of migration decisions. The processes and procedures of the tribunal are designed to promote an informal, less-adversarial tribunal environment to reflect that a large number of applicants across this varied jurisdiction are self-represented. Recommendation 3 of that report also recommends that the Department of Home Affairs urgently review its decision-making procedure to allow for natural justice for applicants, including an express opportunity to provide evidentiary material to reduce the unreasonable case load of the ART. I can say that the department is taking steps to support continuous improvements in its decision-making processes. This includes implementing recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, learning from a merits review report in relation to incorporating tribunal outcomes in continuously improving processes.

The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while also ensuring that applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.